Graduate studies at Western
Topoi 27 (1-2):101-113 (2008)
|Abstract||This paper argues that the literal meaning of words in a natural language is less conventional than usually assumed. Conventionality is defined in terms that are relative to reasons; norms that are determined by reasons are not conventions. The paper argues that in most cases, the literal meaning of words—as it applies to their definite extension—is not conventional. Conventional variations of meaning are typically present in borderline cases, of what I call the extension-range of literal meaning. Finally, some putative and one or two genuine exceptions are discussed|
|Keywords||Convention Conventional Definite extension Literal meaning Meaning Semantics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Rani Lill Anjum & Stephen Mumford (2011). What We Tend to Mean. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 1 (46):20-33.
Stephen Turner (2012). Meaning Without Theory. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):352-369.
Eva Feder Kittay (1984). The Identification of Metaphor. Synthese 58 (2):153 - 202.
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4).
Eva Picardi (2006). Colouring, Multiple Propositions, and Assertoric Content. Grazer Philosophische Studien 72 (1):49-71.
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.
Marga Reimer (2004). What Malapropisms Mean: A Reply to Donald Davidson. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 60 (3):317-334.
C. J. L. Talmage (1994). Literal Meaning, Conventional Meaning and First Meaning. Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads76 ( #13,227 of 755,113 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #21,217 of 755,113 )
How can I increase my downloads?