[Content warning: the second part of this section mentions several examples of slurs \u2014 offensive words for people of a particular ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, etc. If you decide that reading these might impact you negatively, please talk to your instructor.]<\/p>\n
We use language not only to describe entities and situations, but also to express our attitude towards them. We can do so by stating such an attitude explicitly, but we can also do so by choosing a particular word. Imagine that Zoe comes home to find Aylin in the kitchen cooking, and that she says one of the following:<\/p>\n
The same word smell<\/em> is used in both cases, but if Zoe says (1a) we know that she likes the smell and if she says (1b) we know she does not like it. The reason we know is that she says so explicitly.<\/p>\n Now imagine the same situation, but this time Zoe says one of the following:<\/p>\n Again, if Zoe says (2a) we know that she likes the smell and if she says (2b) we know she does not like it at all. But how? No part of these sentences refers to Zoe or mentions the idea of liking. The only difference between the two sentences is the word that Zoe uses to refer to the smell of the food \u2014 aroma<\/em> in (2a) and odor<\/em> in (2b), so it must be the word choice that is telling us.<\/p>\n Again: how? The extension of the words smell<\/em>, aroma<\/em> and odor<\/em> are identical: if we can truthfully say \u2018x is a smell\u2019<\/em> we can truthfully say \u2018x is an aroma\u2019<\/em> or \u2018x is an odor<\/em>\u2019 as well. This should mean that their intension is identical as well, something like \u2018a property detected by breathing in through the nose\u2019.<\/p>\n However, while the intensions of the three words are identical to the extent that they outline the same extension of referents, they each express something different about the way the speaker relates to the referent: by calling a smell aroma<\/em>, speakers of English express that they like the smell, by calling it odor<\/em>, they express that they do not like it, and by simply calling it smell<\/em>, they do not express anything about themselves. Languages may even provide words for expressing different degrees of an attitude towards a referent \u2014 if we really<\/em> don\u2019t like a smell, we can call it a stench<\/em>, and if we really like a smell, we can call it a fragrance<\/em>.<\/p>\n So, the intension of a word includes the descriptive components that allows us to determine their extension \u2014 this is sometimes called the (primary)<\/strong> denotation<\/strong> of the word. In addition, the intension of a word can (but does not have to) include expressive components that allow us to determine what the speaker thinks or feels about the referent \u2014 this is sometimes called the connotation<\/strong> (or secondary denotation<\/strong>).<\/p>\n Note that the word connotation<\/em> is used in different ways in different disciplines \u2014 in logic, it is sometimes used to refer to what we call intension<\/em> here (while denotation is used to refer to what we call extension<\/em>), in rhetoric and literary studies it is sometimes used to refer to any non-literal, evocative aspect of meaning. That different disciplines use terms in different ways is often not a problem, but it can become one in overlapping disciplines like logic, linguistics and literary studies, so make sure that you always know in which sense an author uses the term connotation<\/em>!<\/p>\n Both denotation and connotation are part of a word\u2019s intension, then. This is reflected in dictionary definitions, which typically define aroma<\/em> as \u2018a pleasant smell\u2019, fragrance<\/em> as \u2018a very pleasant smell\u2019, odor<\/em> as \u2018an unpleasant smell\u2019 and stench<\/em> as \u2018a very unpleasant smell\u2019. However, denotation and connotation work in very different ways. Imagine that Zoe comes into the kitchen as Aylin is cooking and says one of the following:<\/p>\n If there is a smell of garlic and Aylin wants to be truthful, she has to respond with yes<\/em> to any one of these questions, whether or not she herself likes the smell of garlic. In contrast, if what Zoe smells is not garlic but, for example, chives, Aylin would have to respond with no<\/em> to all these questions, whether or not she likes the smell of garlic.<\/p>\n In other words, the denotation of a word is involved in whether or not you can truthfully apply a word to a particular referent (or class of referents), and we can confirm or deny questions about it. The connotation, in contrast, is not involved in determining the truth of a statement, and we cannot confirm or deny it. Imagine the following dialogue:<\/p>\n Aylin’s answer to Zoe\u2019s question would be considered a lie, and her justification feels more like word-play than like a contribution to the conversation. The meaning components that make up the denotation of a word must be kept separate from those that make up its connotation. A full account of how this is possible will have to wait until Chapter 8, but for now, we can imagine that the connotation is a kind of incidental thought that is communicated along with the main idea as though enclosed by metaphorical parentheses. The meaning of the word stench<\/em> would be something like this:<\/p>\n Connotations can involve any aspect of meaning that goes beyond the components of a word that outline its extension. This includes value judgments, emotional attitudes, and ideological stances.<\/p>\n Consider the following sets of words:<\/p>\n For each set, think of a sentence where all of the words could occur in a particular position, and describe the value judgments that are expressed by each choice of word.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n A special case of connotation is presented by slurs \u2014 offensive words that degrade people based on aspects such as ethnicity (think of the N<\/em>-word or words like Chink<\/em> or Polack<\/em>), sex class (think of words like bitch<\/em> or slut<\/em>), sexual orientation (think of words like fag<\/em> or dyke<\/em>), ability (think of words like cripple<\/em> or idiot<\/em>) etc. Such slurs have a denotational meaning that can typically be expressed in neutral terms \u2014 sometimes as a single word, sometimes as a paraphrase \u2014, and a connotational meaning that expresses the speaker\u2019s view of the relevant group as having less value, or even less humanity, than other people. As is characteristic of connotative meanings, these degrading meaning components are difficult to affirm or deny.<\/p>\n Imagine Zoe telling her grandfather about her linguistics studies, mentioning the name of her professor. Her grandfather, who is not very familiar with Eastern European names and the languages they come from, then says one of the following:<\/p>\n In the first case, Zoe\u2019s grandfather is using the neutral word Pole<\/em>, making a single statement:<\/p>\n In the second case, he is using the ethnic slur Polack<\/em> and in doing so is making two statements:<\/p>\n The first statement is identical to that he would make by using the neutral word Pole<\/em>, showing that the denotation of the words Pole<\/em> and Polack<\/em> is identical. The second statement is due to the connotation of the word Polack<\/em> \u2014 as is typical of connotations, it cannot be affirmed or contradicted. Zoe can respond to the statements in (5a) or (5b) with yes<\/em> (if she knows her professor to be Polish), no<\/em> (if she knows her professor not to be Polish), or I don\u2019t know<\/em> (if she does not know).<\/p>\n In both cases, these responses only apply to the denotation \u2014 the connotation of (5b) is not contradicted or affirmed. Instead, Zoe implicitly accepts it as true regardless of her response! The only possibility she has to contradict it is to switch to the metalinguistic level and say something like (6):<\/p>\n Zoe\u2019s grandfather could then feign ignorance of why one should not do so, claiming that this was a perfectly normal word when he was younger, that he has nothing against Poles, that some of his best friends are Poles, etc. He could not do any of these things if, instead of relying on the connotation of the word Polack<\/em>, he had made the statement in (5b) explicitly, by saying something like the following:<\/p>\n This is what makes slurs so insidious: not only do speakers using a slur suggest that the group referred to has less value or humanity than other people, but they do so in a way that makes it difficult to contradict them or to hold them responsible for the connotations of the slur.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Slurs<\/h2>\n