Interest and Meaning
Abstract
The problem of determining intended meaning is a key topic in the study of linguistic processes. This paper attempts to answer the question: how do agents involved in a linguistic controversy determine the intended meaning of a sentence? The main thesis of the paper is that the determination of meaning is driven by agents’ situational interests. The process is analyzed in two phases , and the thesis is respectively declined in two hypotheses. The first is that an agent’s situational interest drives the individual choice of meaning for ambiguous sentences. It is argued in particular that formal semantics, the dictionary, context of use and domain knowledge are not sufficiently powerful to determine a unique meaning. From this it follows that an agent can legitimately choose a meaning given a set of acceptable meanings. This first proposal should impact on the problem of meaning under determination. The second hypothesis is that, in meaning negotiation processes, agents negotiate their own interests, and not directly the meaning. Meaning is then compatibly fixed on the agreement arising from the negotiation of interests. Focusing on cases of disputes concerning ambiguous clauses in employment contracts , I shall illustrate two linguistic controversies provoked by the same clause. The two controversies were resolved by determining two opposite meanings for the same expression. In the two situations, the two meanings were differently determined on the basis of different interests and two different negotiation processes. In this scenario I shall claim that the intended meaning can be regarded as an epiphenomenon of the negotiation of situational interests. This latter proposal should impact on the problem of determining the intended meaning in meaning negotiation processes