Resumen

GARCIA GIBSON, Francisco. Definitional Disputes and Normative Language: How to Discuss About "Human Rights". Tópicos (México) [online]. 2018, n.55, pp.11-30. ISSN 0188-6649.  https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i55.933.

Definitional disputes about normative terms are common. Is it worth it to discuss about words? I argue that winning a definitional dispute can have important practical consequences. Imposing a particular definition on other speakers may cause certain desirable emotions in them, or it may influence their interpretation of legal and moral norms whose formulation includes the disputed term. I then describe two rhetorical modes by which disputants can propose their preferred definition: one mode introduces the proposal as if it were a description of facts about the linguistic community, while the other mode introduces the proposal as a linguistic prescription. I show that in certain contexts the latter should be adopted, because (among other reasons) it is more transparent regarding the reasons why we argue about words. The article illustrates this point with the example of a definitional dispute about the expression "human rights".

Palabras llave : definitional dispute; human rights; emotivism.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )