Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):203-233 (1981)
|Abstract||In "Literal Meaning," John Searle claims to refute the view that sentences of a natural language have a meaning independent of the social contexts in which their utterances occur. The present paper is a reply on behalf of this view. In the first section, I show that the issue is not a parochial dispute within a narrow area of the philosophy of language, of interest only to specialists in the area, but is at the heart of a wide range of important philosophical problems, those on which the recent linguistic turn in philosophy has properly taken a grammatical perspective. In the second section, I reply to Searle's criticisms of the view.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eva Feder Kittay (1984). The Identification of Metaphor. Synthese 58 (2):153 - 202.
Markus Schrenk (2008). Verificationist Theory of Meaning. In U. Windhorst, M. Binder & N. Hirowaka (eds.), Encyclopaedic Reference of Neuroscience. Springer.
Jim Edwards (2007). Response to Hoeltje: Davidson Vindicated? Mind 116 (461):131-141.
Stefano Predelli (2006). The Automatic and the Incomplete. Remarks on Recanati's Literal Meaning (Lo Automático y Lo Incompleto. Comentarios a Literal Meaning de Recanati). Crítica 38 (112):21 - 33.
François Recanati (2006). Predelli and García-Carpintero on "Literal Meaning" (Predelli y García-Carpintero Sobre Literal Meaning). Crítica 38 (112):69 - 79.
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4).
John Michael McGuire (2007). Malapropisms and Davidson's Theories of Literal Meaning. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:93-97.
C. J. L. Talmage (1994). Literal Meaning, Conventional Meaning and First Meaning. Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #61,504 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?