Hom argues there are two strategies explaining how slurs work: a semantic strategy and a pragmatic strategy. The semantic strategy argues that derogatory content is a part of a slurs meaning and cannot be separated from it, so that any use of the slur expresses its meaning. The pragmatic strategy argues that derogatory content is a part of how a slur is used, relying on context to determine for what purpose the slur is used and if it is derogatory. Hom proposes an account of slurs called combinatorial externamlism that says the derogatory meaning of a slur is determined by an external source (the relations of the speaker to the world and their speech community) usually in the form of some existent, racist attitude towards certain groups. A slur then is something that expresses the complex, negative properties held in connection with such racist ideas.
Camp says that slurs contain some meaning, unlike expressives like 'damn', and bring into a conversation some amorphous thing, some perspective, that is tied to the slur. According to Camp a perspective is a representational thing that signifies "the speaker's social, psychological, and/or emotional relation to that semantic value" (335). A slur then is something that signals a commitment to a perspective that represents some negative properties about a certain group.
I have little experience with slurs, and so I feel my opinion here holds little weight, but I found Hom's account of slurs more compelling because he gives a more detailed explanation of his reasoning. Hom defines more clearly how and when a slur has derogatory force, along with his other "uncontroversial features of how epithets function in ordinary, natural language" as listed on page 426. Camp's explanation seems more a feeling imparted by her use of examples and attempts to trap that in the idea of a 'perspective' that is presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment