David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Compass 1 (4):373–397 (2006)
Philosophers of language distinguish among the lexical or linguistic meaning of the sentence uttered, what is said by an utterance of the sentence, and speaker's meaning, or what is conveyed by the speaker to her audience. In most views, what is said is the semantic or truth-conditional content of the utterance, and is irreducible either to the linguistic meaning or to the speaker's meaning. I will show that those views account badly for people's intuitions on what is said. I will also argue that no distinguished level of what is said is required, and that the notion of linguistic meaning is the best placed to play the role of what is said. This relies on two points. First, our intuitions on what is said cannot be detached from the ways in which we talk about what is said, and from the semantics of speech reports and indirect discourse in general. Second, besides what is said, there is an equally important notion of what what-is-said is said about, or that about which the speaker is talking. These are, then, the three main ingredients needed for the theory of what is said: linguistic meaning, what is talked about, and a semantic account of reported speech
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Joseph Almog, John Perry, Howard K. Wettstein & David Kaplan (eds.) (1989). Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, USA.
François Recanati (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Herman Cappelen (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Blackwell Pub..
John Perry (2009). Reference and Reflexivity. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
R. Carston (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. Blackwell.
Citations of this work BETA
Isidora Stojanovic (2007). Talking About Taste: Disagreement, Implicit Arguments, and Relative Truth. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):691-706.
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):617-632.
Richard Dietz & Julien Murzi (2013). Coming True: A Note on Truth and Actuality. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):403-427.
Similar books and articles
Alberto Voltolini (2004). Can There Be a Uniform Application of Direct Reference? Erkenntnis 61 (1):75-98.
Corinne Iten (2005). Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of Concessives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Peter Pagin (2006). Meaning Holism. In Ernest Lepore & Barry C. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. OUP Oxford
Marc Staudacher (2010). Use Theories of Meaning. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2008). Review: Structure and Conventions. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (3):399 - 408.
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2008). Structure and Conventions. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (3):399 - 408.
Hilla Jacobson-Horowitz (2004). Syntax, Semantics, and Intentional Aspects. Philosophical Papers 33 (1):67-95.
Richard Heck (2002). Do Demonstratives Have Senses? Philosophers' Imprint 2 (2):1-33.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #63,378 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #99,332 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?