Research Article

A Contrastive Analysis: What is the Conventional Implicature? Is the “Bad” Content of a Slur Conveyed as a Conventional Implicature?

Rev Wadigala Samitharathana Thero
Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.1.1

Read Counter
837

Downloads
283

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-01-03
Published 2022-02-13

Read counter = 837 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

The conventional implicature, arguably, refers to plenty of linguistic aspects with respect to episteme, metaphysics, as well as semantic criticism of language. Accordingly, the conventional implication consists of a sort of specific literal meanings, which slightly differ from the conversational implication. In addition to that, the particular taxonomy of slur words intends to utter a variety of dyslogistic, disparaging expressions in terms of bad or awful contents along with immoral conducts of a word. Hence, it is, apparently, debatable and doubtful that to what extent slur words can convey unethical substance in a way of the conventional implicature? This contrastive article, therefore, attempts to examine credible reasons for clarifying the thesis: the awful essence of pejorative words comes with a conventional implicature. Correspondingly, I have emphasised a few substantial findings such as combinatorial externalism, prohibitionism alongside expressivism. However, notwithstanding this semantic analysis, it is restricted to investigate epistemic and metaphysical affiliations in this regard.

Keywords: Combinatory Externalism Conventional Implicature Expressivism Prohibitionism Slur Words

References

  1. Anderson, L. (2013). What Did You Call Me? Slurs As Prohibited Words Setting Things Up. Analytic Philosophy, (54) 3, 350-363.
     Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327-366.
     Google Scholar
  3. Camp, E. (2013). Slurring Perspectives. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3), pp.364-377.
     Google Scholar
  4. Cole, P. (1975). The Synchronic and Diachronic Status of Conversational Implicature, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds) Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 257-288.
     Google Scholar
  5. Davis, C. and McCready, E. (2020). The Instability of Slurs. Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/gps/97/1/article-p63_63.xml (Downloaded: 11 Dec 2021).
     Google Scholar
  6. Edgington, D. (2006). The Pragmatics of the Logical Constants, in Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 768-793.
     Google Scholar
  7. Farkas, K. (2006). Semantic Internalism and Externalism’, in Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 323-340.
     Google Scholar
  8. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard: Harvard University Press, pp. 138-144.
     Google Scholar
  9. Hom, C. (2012). A Puzzle of Pejoratives. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 159(3), 383-405. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261422?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (Accessed: 5 December 2021).
     Google Scholar
  10. Jeshion, R. (2013). Slurs and Stereotypes. Analytic Philosophy 54(3), 314-329.
     Google Scholar
  11. Lycan, W. G. (2019). Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction. 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  12. Stampe, D. W. (1975). Meanings and Truth in the Theory of Speech Acts, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds) Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Whiting, D. (2013). It is Not What You Said, It is the Way You Said It: Slurs and Conventional Implicatures. Analytic Philosophy 54(3), 364-377. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ (Accessed: 5 December 2021).
     Google Scholar