Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning

In Esther Pascual & Sergeiy Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction. John Benjamins (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
One may distinguish between three broad conceptions of linguistic meaning. One conception, which I will call “logical”, views meaning as given in reference (for words) and truth (for sentences). Another conception, the “monological” one, seeks meaning in the cognitive capacities of the single mind. A third, “dialogical”, conception attributes meaning to interaction between individuals and personal perspectives. In this chapter I directly contrast how well these three approaches deal with the evidence brought forth by fictive interaction. I examine instances of fictive interaction and argue that intersubjectivity in these instances cannot be reduced to either referential-logical or individual-cognitive semantic notions. It follows that intersubjectivity must belong to the essence of linguistic meaning.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SANFIA
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-04-11

Total downloads
105 ( #20,534 of 37,125 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #23,831 of 37,125 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.