The Reporting of Slurs (original) (raw)
Related papers
How bad is it to report a slur? An empirical investigation
Journal of Pragmatics, 2019
In this paper, we present three studies on slurs and non-slurring insults presented (i) in isolation (Pilot study), (ii) in direct speech (Study 1) and (iii) in indirect reports (Study 2). The Pilot study showed that on average slurs are perceived as more offensive than non-slurring insults when presented in isolation. In Study 1, we found some surprising results: when they occur in atomic predications of the form 'X is a P', in average slurs are perceived as less offensive than when they occur in isolation, while insults are perceived as more offensive than when they occur in isolation. In order to explain these two findings, we have developed an information-based hypothesis that crucially illuminates the distinction between slurs and non-slurring insults in terms of the information they carry and the function that they fulfil. Such a perspective is more compatible with hybrid views (e.g. presuppositional) rather than with expressivist theories. Moreover, Study 2 showed that indirect report of the form 'Z: Y said that X is a P' decreases (without deleting) the offensiveness of utterances featuring slurs and insults. Such results speak against prohibitionist theories on slurs and pose challenges to the non-prohibitionist accounts.
"Non-Derogatory Uses of Slurs", special issue of Grazer Philosophische Studien, ed. by Bianca Cepollaro and Dan Zeman, vol. 97, 2020
Given the apparent nondisplaceability and noncancellability of the derogatory content of slurs, it may appear puzzling that non-derogatory uses of slurs exist. Moreover, these uses seem to be in general available only to in-group speakers, thereby exhibiting a peculiar kind of context-sensitivity. In this paper I argue that to understand non-derogatory uses we should consider slurs in terms of the kind of social practice their uses instantiate. A suitable theory of social practices has been proposed by McMillan. In typical (derogatory) uses the practice is one of bigotry and discrimination. Non-derogatory uses are only possible to the extent they consitute acts of an alternative, non-derogatory practice. In the core cases it must be a subversive practice of satire or reappropriation. The social identity of speakers is not an ultimately decisive factor (in-group uses may still be derogatory) but it is an important constitutive condition: most non-derogatory practices of slur-use can only be performed by a member of the target group.
Nous, 2017
I argue that the offense generation pattern of slurring terms parallels that of impoliteness behaviors, and is best explained by appeal to similar purely pragmatic mechanisms. In choosing to use a slurring term rather than its neutral counterpart, the speaker signals that she endorses the term (and its associations). Such an endorsement warrants offense, and consequently slurs generate offense whenever a speaker’s use demonstrates a contrastive preference for the slurring term. Since this explanation comes at low theoretical cost and imposes few constraints on an account of the semantics of slurs, this suggests that we should not require semantic accounts to provide an independent explanation of the offense profile.
Words in Motion: Slurs in Indirect Report
Gestalt Theory
Summary Slurs are pejorative epithets that express negative attitudes toward a class of individuals sharing the same race, country of origin, sexual orientation, religion, and the like. The aim of this paper is to show what happens in communication when slurs are reported. It focuses on the derogatory content of such expressions and on the persistence of their performative effects in reported speech. In this respect, the question concerning the attribution of responsibility for the derogatory content conveyed by the slurs is relevant. Indeed, reporting a slur involves quoting not only the content but also the speaker’s personal commitment and (negative) attitude. Different theories on the status of the derogatory component of slurs make different predictions about their offensiveness in reported speech and about the speaker’s “responsibility” for the attitude and feelings conveyed by that word, be she the original speaker or the reporter. The results of a questionnaire show empirica...
Beyond the conversation: The pervasive danger of slurs
Organon F, 2021
Although slurs are conventionally defined as derogatory words, it has been widely noted that not all of their occurrences are derogatory. This may lead us to think that there are “innocent” occurrences of slurs, i.e., occurrences of slurs that are not harmful in any sense. The aim of this paper is to challenge this assumption. Our thesis is that slurs are always potentially harmful, even if some of their occurrences are nonderogatory. Our argument is the following. Derogatory occurrences of slurs are not characterized by their sharing any specific linguistic form; instead, they are those that take place in what we call uncontrolled contexts, that is, contexts in which we do not have enough knowledge of our audience to predict what the uptake of the utterance will be. Slurs uttered in controlled contexts, by contrast, may lack derogatory character. However, although the kind of context at which the utterance of a slur takes place can make it nonderogatory, it cannot completely deprive it of its harmful potential. Utterances of slurs in controlled contexts still contribute to normalizing their utterances in uncontrolled contexts, which makes nonderogatory occurrences of slurs potentially harmful too.
The meaning and use of slurs. An account based on empirical data
Pejoration (Linguistics Today, Benjamins), 2016
This paper focusses on some aspects of the meaning and use of slurs that have been neglected in the literature so far. On the pragmatic side, it concentrates on non-pejorative uses and the distinction between target groups and in-groups. It shows that emotions play a critical role in all contexts of use, irrespective of whether these contexts are derogatory or not. On the semantic side, the paper adopts a multiple component approach and brings empirical evidence that slur terms do not only have a referential and pejorative component but also a component of degree of offensiveness. There are many sources informing a speech community about a term's offensiveness, including racist institutions, stereotypes, prohibitions, perlocutionary effects, and meta-linguistic discussions. All of these fluctuating influencing factors add to the complex picture of slur terms and make their semantic components subject to enormous changes.
The Impoliteness of Slurs and Other Pejoratives in Reported Speech
Corpus pragmatics, 2020
Some linguistic expressions do not have only a referential component, through which they refer to something in the world, but also (or exclusively) a connotative component, through which they express a speaker's attitudes or feelings toward that which the expressions refer. Pejoratives are connoted expressions through which speakers express a negative attitude toward a person, a class of persons, or a state of affairs. Slurs, in particular, are pejoratives that express negative attitudes toward a class of people sharing the same race, sexual orientation, religion, health status, etc. The use of pejoratives and slurs is often impolite and offensive, but it is not clear to which degree their use in reported speech may also be offensive. On one hand, the reporter does not seem to express contempt toward the target by merely reporting what others have said. On the other hand, reporting a pejorative seems a form of association with the original speaker's opinion anyway. Different theories on the status of the connotative component of slurs make different predictions about their offensiveness in reported speech. To investigate the matter, a questionnaire was designed with the aim of comparing the offensiveness of slurs and pejoratives directly addressed to their target with their offensiveness when they are used in reported speech. The findings collected through our questionnaire suggest that some of the theories on the connotation of slurs do not account for speakers' intuitive judgments on the offensiveness of slurs in reported speech.
Organon F
Slurs are pejorative expressions that derogate individuals or groups on the basis of their gender, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation and so forth. In the constantly growing literature on slurs, it has become customary to appeal to so-called "neutral counterparts" for explaining the extension and truth-conditional content of slurring terms. More precisely, it is commonly assumed that every slur shares its extension and literal content with a non-evaluative counterpart term. I think this assumption is unwarranted and, in this paper, I shall present two arguments against it. (i) A careful comparison of slurs with complex or thick group-referencing pejoratives lacking neutral counterparts shows that these are in fact very hard to distinguish. (ii) Slurs lack the referential stability of their alleged neutral counterparts, which suggests that they are not coreferential. Developing (ii) will involve introducing a new concept which I regard as essential for understanding how slurs behave in natural language: referential flexibility. I shall support my claims by looking at historical and current ways in which slurs and other pejorative terms are used, and I shall argue that both etymological data and new empirical data support the conclusion that the assumption of neutral counterparts not only is unwarranted but obscures our understanding of what slurs are, and what speakers do with them.
Cepollaro B. (2017b)_Slurs as the shortcut of Discrimination.pdf
2017
The last decade saw a growing interest for hate speech and the ways in which language reflects and perpetuates discrimination, with two main focuses of interest: a linguistic-oriented question about how slurs encode evaluation on the one hand, and a philosophical and psychological question about the effects elicited by slurs. In this paper, I show how the two questions are deeply related by illustrating how a certain linguistic analysis of derogatory epithets – the presuppositional one – can shed light on non-linguistic issues, namely what effects the use of slurs produce, especially concerning discrimination. I present a presuppositional account of slurs (Section 2) and I show how such an analysis provides convincing explanations of other non-linguistic phenomena: in particular, I consider the ways in which slurs reflect and spread discrimination by illustrating how they work in conversation (Section 3). In Section 4, I argue that some features of slurs presented in Sections 2 and 3, namely the fact that they always target a category and the fact that the derogatory content that they convey is presented as not open to discussion, make slurs particularly dangerous tools. I conclude by briefly assessing the question as to how one should respond when exposed to the use of slurs.