Metalinguistic negotiation and matters of language: a response to Cappelen

In previous work, we have developed the idea that, in some disputes, speakers appear to use (rather than mention) a term in order to put forward views about how that term should be used. We call such disputes "metalinguistic negotiations". Herman Cappelen objects that our model of metaling...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Inquiry (Oslo) 2021-10, Vol.ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print), p.1-25
Main Authors: Plunkett, David, Sundell, Timothy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
conceptual engineering
conceptual ethics
Herman Cappelen
metalinguistic disputes
Metalinguistic negotiation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In previous work, we have developed the idea that, in some disputes, speakers appear to use (rather than mention) a term in order to put forward views about how that term should be used. We call such disputes "metalinguistic negotiations". Herman Cappelen objects that our model of metalinguistic negotiation makes implausible predictions about what speakers really care about, and what kinds of issues they would take to settle their disputes. We highlight a distinction (which we have emphasized in prior work) between the question of which disagreements speakers have vs. which disagreements are immediately expressed in a given linguistic exchange. Once this distinction is clear, we can appreciate that speakers who are engaged in a metalinguistic negotiation (where certain issues in conceptual ethics are immediately expressed) can also disagree about other issues, including both other issues in conceptual ethics and "object-level" issues that aren't about words or concepts. In many metalinguistic negotiations, speakers (we think correctly) care more about these other issues than they do about ones concerning the meaning of a word. Because of this, Cappelen's objection fails to identify any data that challenge our model.
ISSN:0020-174X
1502-3923
DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2021.1983456