Abstract
AbstractThere has been recent interest in the idea that speakers who appear to be having a verbal dispute may in fact be engaged in a metalinguistic negotiation: they are communicating information about how they believe an expression should be used. For example, individuals involved in a dispute about whether a racehorse is an athlete might be communicating their diverging views about how ‘athlete’ should be used. While many have argued that metalinguistic negotiation is a pervasive feature of philosophical and everyday discourse, the literature currently lacks an account of this phenomenon that can be situated within a ‘mainstream’ view of communication. I propose an independently motivated account where individuals reconstruct metalinguistic propositions by means of a pragmatic, Gricean reasoning process.
Funder
European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference50 articles.
1. Abreu Zavaleta, M. (2020). Disagreement lost. Synthese.
2. Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3. Balcerak Jackson, B. (2014). Verbal disputes and substantiveness. Erkenntnis, 79(S1), 31–54.
4. Belleri, D. (2017). Verbalism and metalinguistic negotiation in ontological disputes. Philosophical Studies, 174(9), 2211–2226.
5. Belleri, D. (2018). Two species of merely verbal disputes. Metaphilosophy, 49(5), 691–710.
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献