Literal meaning, conventional meaning and first meaning
Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225 (1994)
Abstract
Literal meaning is often identified with conventional meaning. In A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs Donald Davidson argues (1) that literal meaning is distinct from conventional meaning, and (2) that literal meaning is identical to what he calls first meaning. In this paper it is argued that Davidson has established (1) but not (2), that he has succeeded in showing that there is a distinction between literal meaning and conventional meaning but has failed to see that literal meaning and first meaning are also distinct. This failure is somewhat surprising, since it is through a consideration of Davidson's notion of radical interpretation that the distinction between literal meaning and first meaning becomes apparent.DOI
10.1007/bf01128593
My notes
Similar books and articles
What malapropisms mean: A reply to Donald Davidson. [REVIEW]Marga Reimer - 2004 - Erkenntnis 60 (3):317-334.
Malapropisms and Davidson's Theories of Literal Meaning.John Michael McGuire - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:93-97.
What We Tend to Mean.Rani Lill Anjum & Stephen Mumford - 2011 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 46 (1):20-33.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
151 (#84,903)
6 months
3 (#225,062)
2009-01-28
Downloads
151 (#84,903)
6 months
3 (#225,062)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
References found in this work
A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.Donald Davidson - 1986 - In Ernest Lepore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Blackwell. pp. 433--446.
A Nice Derangment of Epithaphs, w: E. Lepore.Donald Davidson - 1986 - In Ernest LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Cambridge: Blackwell.