The Nature of the Literal/Non-literal Distinction

Croatian Journal of Philosophy 14 (3):357-375 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I would like to suggest that a cognitive approach to pragmatics does not lead necessarily to the impossibility of a distinction between literal and non-literal contents and interpretations. If my reading is correct, this approach is focused on the cognitive activities that take place in the minds of regular language users and not on models applied to ideal speaker-hearers. If we accept that, then we should also accept that the distinction between the literal and the non-literal is subjective since different language users will, in certain cases, consider differently a linguistic element in regards to its belonging to the literal or non-literal domain. In order to save this dichotomy we need to return partially to a philosophical approach to pragmatics, that is, we need to establishthe distinction between the literal and the non-literal on the basis of generalized objective inferential strategies. The proposal is the following: the presence of implicit or explicit inferential communicational processes (explicit and implicit conversational implicatures, as I refer to them) connected to the literal meaning of the uttered words will be the criterion for the non-literal status of a linguistic/communicational element. By applying objective criteria to the subjective inferential processes of actual language users we can retain both the subjectivity of cognitive differences between individual speakers and the objectivity of the distinctionbetween the literal and the non-literal.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the Distinction Between Literal and Non-Literal Language.David Ian Sturdee - 1999 - Dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)
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.
The Literal and the Figurative.Hugh Bredin - 1992 - Philosophy 67 (259):69 - 80.
“It Says What It Says”.Lars Hertzberg - 2011 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):589-603.
It Says What It Says.Lars Hertzberg - 2011 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):589-603.
Is Literal Meaning Conventional?Andrei Marmor - 2008 - Topoi 27 (1-2):101-113.
Revisiting the Contribution of Literal Meaning to Legal Meaning.Brian Flanagan - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (2):255-271.
J. L. Austin and literal meaning.Nat Hansen - 2014 - European Journal of Philosophy 22 (4):617-632.
A plea for radical contextualism.Minyao Huang - 2017 - Synthese 194 (3):963-988.
Davidson, a Metáfora e os Domínios do Literal.Waldomiro José Filho da Silva - 2001 - Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana 6 (15):30-43.
Taking desirelessness () seriously.Christopher G. Framarin - 2005 - Asian Philosophy 15 (2):143 – 155.
A deflationary account of metaphor.Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 2008 - In Ray Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 84-105.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-15

Downloads
13 (#1,013,785)

6 months
6 (#512,819)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references