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

Rev Wadigala Samitharathana Thero
{"title":"A Contrastive Analysis: What is the Conventional Implicature? Is the “Bad” Content of a Slur Conveyed as a Conventional Implicature?","authors":"Rev Wadigala Samitharathana Thero","doi":"10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":204201,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Language and Culture Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Language and Culture Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
对比分析:传统意义是什么?诽谤的“坏”内容是否被传达为传统含义?
可以说,传统意义上的含义指的是许多语言学方面的知识,形而上学,以及语言的语义批评。因此,常规暗示包含一种特定的字面意义,这与会话暗示略有不同。除此之外,污言秽语的特殊分类旨在就一个词的不良或可怕的内容以及不道德的行为表达各种不合理,贬低的表达。因此,在多大程度上污言秽语能够以传统含义的方式传达不道德的内容,显然是有争议和值得怀疑的。这篇对比文章,因此,试图检查可信的理由来澄清这一论点:贬义词的可怕本质伴随着传统的含义。相应地,我强调了一些实质性的发现,如组合外在主义、禁止主义和表现主义。然而,尽管有这种语义分析,它仅限于在这方面调查认识论和形而上学的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信