The case of stubborn speakers regarding group-based derogatory terms: between the philosophy of language and social epistemology

Abstract

This article analyzes the phenomenon of “stubborn speakers” in relation to the use of group-based derogatory terms, taking as a paradigmatic case the controversy surrounding the term “redskins.” Drawing on Bolinger’s (2020) proposal, it examines the disagreement between those who consider such terms offensive and those who, while acknowledging their derogatory use in certain contexts, deny that they are offensive in their own usage. The paper reconstructs the debate over whether this disagreement should be understood in semantic terms—as an error in meaning attribution—or in pragmatic terms—as a divergence in contextual language use—and highlights the difficulties faced by a purely semantic account.

It is argued that, although Bolinger’s critique of semantic approaches is compelling, her conclusion—that the derogatory character of these terms is not semantic—is premature. In this regard, the paper maintains that the issue exceeds a strictly linguistic framework and should also be addressed from the perspective of social epistemology. To this end, it draws on José Medina’s theoretical contributions on epistemic vices associated with positions of privilege—such as arrogance, laziness, and closed-mindedness—to explain the persistence of these disagreements.

The article proposes that the failure to recognize the offensive character of certain terms cannot be understood merely as a conceptual dispute, but rather as a phenomenon linked to structural inequalities and the distribution of power within discursive practices. Consequently, it argues that the analysis of group-based derogatory terms must incorporate ethical and political considerations, such as nominative justice and meaningful responsibility. In this way, it concludes that the phenomenon of stubborn speakers reveals the limits of purely linguistic approaches and the need for an interdisciplinary framework.