1. Hom’s account of slurs is that there meaning comes from the derogatory content of the epithet and also the uses of the epithet, so it is an account that is mostly semantic but has a pragmatic strategy as well. This view that Hom advocates for, expresses that slurs stand by social constructs and there meaning corresponds from racist institutions.
2. Camp’s account of slurs is that they are based by perspective and argues this by the context, not the sound of such words or emotion put into the word. Furthermore, Camp’s argues that these slurs have a referring facet to them, because of beliefs synonymous with the slur. She also highlights how slurs are mechanism to communicate feelings aside from contempt, but as sometimes a feeling of positivity.
3.While Camp’s account is compelling by accounting for more of the syntax of the word, I lean toward Hom’s view. Hom’s account looks at both the semantic and pragmatic strategy and takes both to make a better theory though looking at the content of the slur and meaning based by their racist institutions. Although Camp's view accounts for the content of slurs, Hom's is more wholesome and more persuasive by looking at the history and standings of slurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment