Journal of Indian Philosophy 40 (5):489-509 (2012)
When somebody speaks metaphorically, the primary meanings of their words cannot get semantically connected. Still metaphorical uses succeed in conveying the message of the speaker, since lakṣaṇā, a meaning-generating faculty of language, yields the suitable secondary meanings. Gaṅgeśa claims that lakṣaṇā is a faculty of words themselves. One may argue: “Words have no such faculty. In these cases, the hearer uses observation-based inference. They have observed that sometimes competent speakers use the word w in order to mean s, when p, the primary meaning of w does not make any semantic sense. In all such cases, s is actually related to p. After having observed this, when the hearer hears the utterance of w, and realizes that w’s primary meaning p is semantically unfit for the sentence-meaning, they infer on the basis of their prior observation that ‘the competent speaker must mean s by uttering w’. Thus lakṣaṇā becomes a success.” This apparently well-argued reduction does not stand the critical examination; neither in Gaṅgeśa’s framework, nor even in the general theory of language. For one can compose and interpret potentially infinite novel sentences based on lakṣaṇā while the observational inferences one can make are finite. Gaṅgeśa says very clearly that as far as the secondary meaning is concerned, no prior observation is required. This paper will argue that not only does language yield secondary meanings through lakṣaṇā, but it also restricts the use of secondary meanings; for one cannot mean just anything by saying something. Lakṣaṇā is a creative function with infinite potential within the limits set up by the language faculty
|Keywords||Gaṅgeśa Lakṣaṇā Inference Linguistic creativity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Introduction to Montague Semantics.David R. Dowty, Robert Eugene Wall & Stanley Peters - 1981 - Springer.
Citations of this work BETA
Mukulabhaṭṭa's Defense of Lakṣaṇā: How We Use Words to Mean Something Else, But Not Everything Else.Malcolm Keating - 2013 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 41 (4):439-461.
Similar books and articles
Definition of Valid Knowledge: Pramālakṣaṇa in Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi.Nandita Bandyopadhyay - 1989 - Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.
Meaning, Concepts, and the Lexicon.Michael Glanzberg - 2011 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1):1-29.
The Interplay Between the Speaker's and the Hearer's Perspective.Petra Hendriks, Helen Hoop & Henriëtte Swart - 2012 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (1):1-5.
What Remains of Our Knowledge of Language?Barry C. Smith - 2008 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (22):557-75.
Could a Created Being Ever Be Creative? Some Philosophical Remarks on Creativity and AI Development.Y. J. Erden - 2010 - Minds and Machines 20 (3):349-362.
Reconsidering Ordinary Language Philosophy: Malcolm’s (Moore’s) Ordinary Language Argument.Sally Parker Ryan - 2010 - Essays in Philosophy 11 (2):123-149.
Intention-Based Semantics.Emma Borg - 2006 - In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 250--266.
Metaphor in the Twilight Area Between Philosophy and Linguistics.Jakub Mácha - 2011 - In P. Stalmaszczyk & K. Kosecki (eds.), Turning Points in the Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Peter Lang. pp. 159--169.
The Metasyntactic Interpretation of Two-Dimensionalism.Gregory Bochner - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):611-626.
Added to index2012-09-15
Total downloads11 ( #395,087 of 2,152,252 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,478 of 2,152,252 )
How can I increase my downloads?