A
part of what Hom talks about is how slurs are content dependent and they can’t
be separated from that aspect, and he argues that there are more semantic than
pragmatic. This is to say that slurs will always be degrading no matter when
they are said, but they can vary on scope and harshness depending on the
situation. The situations are derived from the racial institutions from where
they are said, such as southern US compared the north-east US.
Camp
claims that slurs are based upon perspectives and that they function
differently than normal words. Slurs can just be heard by the listener to
provoke an associated perspective that makes the listener consider the word
from the view of the speaker, which states a certain belief system. While on
the other hand, cursing words can add content without displaying a certain
belief system (and are thus different from slurs).
I
believe that neither has the complete picture but they both have merits that
explain certain questions about slurs. Hom’s theory accounts for how slurs can vary
by intensity, and Camp shows how slurs have an inherit perspective that come
with them. Both of these thoughts I believe apply to slurs and their
linguistics value.
No comments:
Post a Comment