Hornby's general accounting for slurs is a move I support. Her basic premise that slurs should be taken into account by linguistic theories seems an interesting task and is something I think linguistics needs to address to be representative of our use of language. The overarching goal of her paper is something I agree with rather than the conclusions she draws from it.
I disagree with Hornby's claim that there are "other words which suit us better" (2001, 129) for, while I think they are not always the most accurate or precise, "better" is too subjective of a term to exclude slurs entirely. I could imagine individuals or groups who use words to communicate without knowledge about "better" words to use, in fact I would argue that most groups use words which could be replaced with "better" words. Hornby's claim about "better" words seems too narrow and exclusive of alternative groups and cultures which might have different vocabulary bases.
I object to Hornby's definition of uselessness where a word is useless if "we are not in a position..." (2001, 133) as this only defines a words as useless from one's own perspective, not potential perspectives. It seems that Hornby's not wanting to use the word means that the word is thus useless.
No comments:
Post a Comment