|
Metalinguistic Negotiation and Speaker Error| old_uid | 14985 |
|---|
| title | Metalinguistic Negotiation and Speaker Error |
|---|
| start_date | 2017/12/08 |
|---|
| schedule | 11h30-13h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | In recent work, we have argued that a number of disputes of interest to philosophers – including some disputes amongst philosophers themselves – are metalinguistic negotiations. Metalinguistic negotiations involve a disagreement between speakers about how they should use language in the context at hand. For example: which rival concept a given term should express. In a metalinguistic negotiation, speakers navigate such normative issues about words and concepts implicitly, via a “metalinguistic” use of a term (wherein speakers use words to communicate views about the very term they are using). In this paper, we do two things in relation to our work on metalinguistic negotiation. First, we synthesize much of our existing discussion into a unified picture of metalinguistic negotiation, as well as expand on that picture in new ways. Second, we consider an important objection to our view: that it involves an unacceptable attribution of false views to speakers involved in disputes, including false views about what they are arguing about and how they are arguing. |
|---|
| responsibles | Lesguillons |
|---|
| |
|