Abstract

Davidson's thesis that the notion of a rule is dispensable in regard to a theoretical explanation of linguistic communication is here critically investigated. First I put Davidson's into question and thereby arrive at the conclusion that instances of communication in two languages pose no threat and that Davidson invokes a dubious concept of a rule in his treatment of so called malapropisms. Then I investigate his My thesis is that Davidson does not succeed-in taking into account appropriately the, as he himself concedes, important distinction between "using words correctly" and "believing that one uses words correctly". Finally I try to formulate of the later Davidson in such a manner that they do not fall prey to his rule-criticism.