The Creative Interpreter: Content Relativism and Assertion

Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):23 - 46 (2008)
Abstract
Philosophers of language and linguists tend to think of the interpreter as an essentially non-creative participant in the communicative process. There’s no room, in traditional theories, for the view that correctness of interpretation depends in some essential way on the interpreter. As a result, there’s no room for the possibility that while P is the correct interpretation of an utterance, u, for one interpreter, P* is the correct interpretation of that utterance for another interpreter. Recently, a number of theorists have, for separate reasons, argued in favour of a radically different view of communication – a view in which the interpreter and her context play what should be thought of as a content-creating role. According to such views, natural languages contain what I’ll call interpretation sensitive terms: terms the correct interpretation of which varies across interpreters (or, more generally, contexts of interpretation).3 An interpretation sensitive sentence can have one content relative to one interpreter and another content relative to another interpreter. This paper is a development and (partial) defence of the view that interpretation sensitivity is ubiquitous in natural language. I call the view that there are interpretation sensitive terms content relativism. Before starting the discussion of content relativism, it is worth pointing out that recent attempts to develop semantically motivated versions of truth relativism should be seen as part of this trend of giving the interpreter a more active role
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00141.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,440
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press, Usa.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Shifting Targets and Disagreements.Robin McKenna - 2014 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (4):725-742.
Knowledge Claims and Context: Belief.Wayne A. Davis - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (2):399-432.
Jesus Loves You!Julia Zakkou - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (1):237–255.
Coming True: A Note on Truth and Actuality.Richard Dietz & Julien Murzi - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):403-427.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
On Davidson and Interpretation.Howard Burdick - 1989 - Synthese 80 (3):321 - 345.
Truth-Relativism, Norm-Relativism, and Assertion.Patrick Greenough - 2011 - In Brown J. & Cappelen H. (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.
Reconstruction in Criticality.Andrés Mejía D. - 2001 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):17-31.
The Principle of Charity, Transcendentalism and Relativism.María Rosario Hernández Borges - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:69-75.
Can We Interpret Irrational Behavior?Lisa Bortolotti - 2004 - Behavior and Philosophy 32 (2):359 - 375.
Interpretation and Knowledge Maximization.Aidan McGlynn - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (3):391-405.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
97 ( #53,694 of 2,180,171 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #68,631 of 2,180,171 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums