This paper investigates the issue whether metaphors have a metaphorical or secondary meaning and how this question is related to the borderline between philosophy and linguistics. On examples by V. Woolf and H. W. Auden, it will be shown that metaphor accomplishes something more than its literal meaning expresses and this “more” cannot be captured by any secondary meaning. What is essential in the metaphor is not a secondary meaning but an internal relation between a metaphorical proposition and a description (...) of its effects. In order to understand metaphors, we have to share an ability to construe metaphorical meanings at once. The aim of this ability is to uncover an internal relation, which lies behind a particular metaphor. (shrink)

The commonplace view about metaphorical interpretation is that it can be characterized in traditional semantic and pragmatic terms, thereby assimilating metaphor to other familiar uses of language. We will reject this view, and propose in its place the view that, though metaphors can issue in distinctive cognitive and discourse effects, they do so without issuing in metaphorical meaning and truth, and so, without metaphorical communication. Our inspiration derives from Donald Davidson’s critical arguments against metaphorical meaning and Richard Rorty’s exploration of (...) the diverse uses of language. But unlike these authors we ground our discussion squarely in distinctions about causal mechanisms in cooperative activity developed by H.P. Grice and others. (shrink)

Fred Adams and collaborators advocate a view on which empty-name sentences semantically encode incomplete propositions, but which can be used to conversationally implicate descriptive propositions. This account has come under criticism recently from Marga Reimer and Anthony Everett. Reimer correctly observes that their account does not pass a natural test for conversational implicatures, namely, that an explanation of our intuitions in terms of implicature should be such that we upon hearing it recognize it to be roughly correct. Everett argues that (...) the implicature view provides an explanation of only some of our intuitions, and is in fact incompatible with others, especially those concerning the modal profile of sentences containing empty names. I offer a pragmatist treatment of empty names based upon the recognition that the Gricean distinction between what is said and what is implicated is not exhaustive, and argue that such a solution avoids both Everett's and Reimer's criticisms. (shrink)

On a familiar and prima facie plausible view of metaphor, speakers who speak metaphorically say one thing in order to mean another. A variety of theorists have recently challenged this view; they offer criteria for distinguishing what is said from what is merely meant, and argue that these support classifying metaphor within 'what is said'. I consider four such criteria, and argue that when properly understood, they support the traditional classification instead. I conclude by sketching how we might extract a (...) workable notion of 'what is said' from ordinary intuitions about saying. (shrink)

Philosophers have often adopted a dismissive attitude toward metaphor. Hobbes (1651, ch. 8) advocated excluding metaphors from rational discourse because they “openly profess deceit,” while Locke (1690, Bk. 3, ch. 10) claimed that figurative uses of language serve only “to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgment; and so indeed are perfect cheats.” Later, logical positivists like Ayer and Carnap assumed that because metaphors like..

‘What is said’ by an utterance, from a traditional truth-conditional view of language, is the uttered sentence’s conventionally encoded semantic meaning, and is distinguished from ‘what is implicated’, such as metaphor, which is understood as a type of speech in which a speaker says one thing but means another. Contextualists challenge this view of metaphor by offering three reasons to maintain that metaphor is classified within ‘what is said’: first, metaphor involves loose use; second, metaphor is assertoric; and, third, metaphor (...) is at the level of the primary interpretation rather than the secondary one. However, Elizabeth Camp argues against these reasons. The aim of this paper is to examine her arguments and show that they are unsuccessful. (shrink)

RESUMO Duas versões contemporâneas do contextualismo radical em filosofia da linguagem, uma defendida por François Recanati e outra por Charles Travis, centram sua crítica à distinção tradicional entre semântica e pragmática na categoria de dito, tal como descrita por Paul Grice. Ambas as versões se contrapõem à ideia de que o que é dito é determinado plenamente pelo significado convencional da sentença proferida acrescido da fixação do valor de elementos indexicais. Ambas sustentam, a partir desta crítica, que uma enunciação não (...) necessariamente expressa um conteúdo proposicional associado ao significado literal da sentença. Neste artigo, busco mostrar que a partilha desta tese negativa geral esconde divergências importantes. Centrando minha análise na reformulação feita por Recanati da categoria de what is said, busco mostrar como ela se organiza a partir da preservação e radicalização de princípios essenciais da pragmática griceana, bem como da ideia de que elementos subsentencias possuem um conteúdo proposicional mínimo atrelado à sua significação. Em seguida, busco apontar como a negação total da pragmática griceana e deste mínimo proposicional por Travis não apenas revela uma divergência profunda em relação a Recanati, mas gera problemas para a tentativa de reestruturação da noção de what is said. ABSTRACT François Recanati and Charles Travis have questioned the traditional distinction between semantics and pragmatics by criticizing Grice’s notion of what is said. They are both opposed to the idea that what is said can be read in terms of the conventional meaning of the uttered sentence. Both authors share the thesis according to which what is said does not necessarily put forward a propositional content equivalent to the literal meaning of the uttered sentence. My objective in this paper is to point out important differences between these two positions that are sometimes referred to indistinctively as Radical Contextualism. The paper is centered on the analysis of Recanati’s amendment of the notion of what is said. I first show how his reconstruction of this notion is motivated by the preservation of Grice’s attempt to explain communication in terms of the intention of the speaker. I then proceed to point out how his contextualism admits the idea of a minimal propositional content attached to the meaning of subsentential components. I conclude by arguing that Travis’ rejection of Grice’s whole framework goes against Recanati’s attempt to amend Grice’s notion of what is said. (shrink)

Category mistakes are sentences such as ”The number two is blue’ or ”Green ideas sleep furiously’. Such sentences are highly infelicitous and thus a prominent view claims that they are meaningless. Category mistakes are also highly prevalent in figurative language. That is to say, it is very common for sentences which are used figuratively to be such that, if taken literally, they would constitute category mistakes. In this paper I argue that the view that category mistakes are meaningless is inconsistent (...) with many central and otherwise plausible theories of figurative language. Thus if the meaninglessness view is correct, the theories in question must each be rejected, and conversely, if any of the theories in question is correct, the meaninglessness view must be wrong. The debates concerning the semantics of figurative language and concerning the semantic status of category mistakes are closely connected. (shrink)

Linguistic meaning underdetermines what is said. This has consequences for philosophical accounts of meaning, communication, and propositional attitude reports. I argue that the consequence we should endorse is that utterances typically express many propositions, that these are what speakers mean, and that the correct semantics for attitude reports will handle this fact while being relational and propositional.

This article aims to contribute to ongoing debate on the place of metaphor at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Contextualists have argued that metaphorical utterances (i.e., prosaic/conventional metaphors) behave like literally loose uses of speech in that they are interpreted automatically and unreflectively. If metaphors are interpreted along the same lines as literally loose speech, metaphorical content is part of what a speaker says, and is classified as semantic. Some other authors have observed that metaphorical utterances (i.e., poetic, novel metaphors) seem to (...) behave more like paradigmatic conversational implicatures, and so are conversationally meant. On this picture, metaphors are patently pragmatic. I attempt to square these seemingly disparate observations by developing an idea in Korta and Perry’s _Critical Pragmatics_ (2011). Namely, that _every_ utterance is _systematically_ associated with a family of contents. The truth-conditions of these contents are classified by different contents; some of these contents are reflexive and have the utterance itself as a constituent. They range from the purely reflexive to referential content thereby constituting a family of gradually less reflexive and more contextually independent contents. Differences between prosaic and poetic metaphors roughly correspond to the level of content triggering an inference to metaphorical meaning. (shrink)

The main aim of this paper is to survey and evaluate Searle’s account of metaphor (1979) in the light of Davidson’s arguments against the idea of metaphorical meaning, which appeared at roughly the same time. Since this paper is intended for a festschrift celebrating Searle’s respectable anniversary, I will mostly refrain from critical remarks and rather focus on the positive aspects of his account. I am going to show that Searle’s theory of metaphor is for the most part immune to (...) Davidson’s arguments. (shrink)

In the first section of the paper, I set out a tripartite scheme for classifying philosophical accounts of metaphor. In the second and longest section, I explore a major difficulty for certain of these accounts, namely the need to explain what I describe as the 'transparency' of metaphor. In the third section, I describe two accounts which can overcome the difficulty. The first is loosely based on Davidson's treatment of metaphor, and, finding this to be inadequate for reasons having nothing (...) to do with transparency, it will be used solely to show the way. The second is my own, and, without attempting to defend it at length, I will content myself with suggesting how it can cope with the difficulty discussed in this paper in a way which mimics the Davidsonian proposal. Finally, in the fourth section, I shall briefly mention several considerations independent of transparency for adopting my account. (shrink)

Response to Iglesias' contribution in the proceedings of the Granada workshop.