Language thought and literal meaning
The notion of literalness in linguistics is based on the following assumptions: Linguistic expressions are vehicle-meaning p airs (since literal meaning has to be the meaning of something). Linguistic expressions have to be cognised a nd used (especially uttered) in order for their meanings to be regarded as literally theirs. ~Linguistie, vehicle-meaning relations are fixed and autonomous- - rather than having particular meanings in virtue of being used to express those meanings,~ linguistie' vehicle-meaning p airs are used to express certain meanings in virtue of having the meanings th at they have. This thesis criticises Chomsky's and Sperber and Wilson's attempts to establish the autonomy of ~linguistie'vehicle-meaning pairs. I argue that ~ Both Chomsky and Sperber and Wilson fail to distinguish ~linguistie' semantics from the ~real~ semantics of what ~linguistic~ vehicle-meaning pairs are used to express. ~ They persist in the idea that ~linguistic~ vehicles are specifically for being uttered (physically instantiated), thus defeating their own purpose of setting the linguistic absolutely apart from what it is used for. ~ Neither Chomsky's internalist conception of language nor Sperber and Wilson's relevance
Chng, Soke Wang
Semantics; Phonology
Language thought and literal meaning. The notion of literalness in linguistics is based on the following assumptions: Linguistic expressions are vehicle-meaning p airs (since literal meaning has to be the meaning of something). Linguistic expressions have to be cognised a nd used (especially uttered) in order for their meanings to be regarded as literally theirs. ~Linguistie, vehicle-meaning relations are fixed and autonomous- - rather than having particular meanings in virtue of being used to express those meanings,~ linguistie' vehicle-meaning p airs are used to express certain meanings in virtue of having the meanings th at they have. This thesis criticises Chomsky's and Sperber and Wilson's attempts to establish the autonomy of ~linguistie'vehicle-meaning pairs. I argue that ~ Both Chomsky and Sperber and Wilson fail to distinguish ~linguistie' semantics from the ~real~ semantics of what ~linguistic~ vehicle-meaning pairs are used to express. ~ They persist in the idea that ~linguistic~ vehicles are specifically for being uttered (physically instantiated), thus defeating their own purpose of setting the linguistic absolutely apart from what it is used for. ~ Neither Chomsky's internalist conception of language nor Sperber and Wilson's relevance
language_think literal meaning notion linguistics base follow assumption linguistic_expression vehicle meaning air since literal mean mean something linguistic_expression use especially utter order meaning regard literally vehicle meaning relation fix autonomous rather particular meaning virtue use_express meaning vehicle meaning air use_express certain meaning virtue meaning have criticises chomsky sperber_wilson attempt_establish autonomy vehicle meaning pair argue chomsky sperber_wilson fail distinguish semantics real semantics linguistic vehicle meaning pair use_express persist idea linguistic vehicle specifically utter physically instantiate thus defeat purpose set linguistic absolutely apart use for neither chomsky internalist conception language sperber_wilson relevance