What malapropisms mean: A reply to Donald Davidson [Book Review]
Erkenntnis 60 (3):317-334 (2004)
|Abstract||In this paper, I argue against Davidson's (1986) view that our ability to understand malapropisms forces us to re-think the standard construal of literal word meaning as conventional meaning. Specially, I contend that the standard construal is not only intuitive but also well-motivated, for appeal to conventional meaning is necessary to understand why speakers utter the particular words they do. I also contend that, contra Davidson, we can preserve the intuitive distinction between what a speaker means and what his words mean, even while retaining the standard construal of literal word meaning as conventional.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ralf Stoecker (ed.) (1993). Reflecting Davidson: Donald Davidson Responding to an International Forum of Philosophers. W. De Gruyter.
Aaron Wilson (2011). Peirce Versus Davidson on Metaphorical Meaning. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 47 (2):117-135.
Ehud Rahat (1992). Metaphors and Malapropisms: Davidson on the Limits of the Literal. Philosophia 21 (3-4):311-327.
Andrei Marmor (2008). Is Literal Meaning Conventional? Topoi 27 (1-2):101-113.
Stefano Predelli (2010). Malapropisms and the Simple Picture of Communication. Mind and Language 25 (3):329-345.
Martin Gustafsson (2011). Familiar Words in Unfamiliar Surroundings: Davidson's Malapropisms, Cavell's Projections. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (5):643 - 668.
C. J. L. Talmage (1994). Literal Meaning, Conventional Meaning and First Meaning. Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #24,385 of 722,867 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,867 )
How can I increase my downloads?