Verbal Disagreement and Semantic Plans

Abstract

I develop an expressivist account of verbal disagreements as practical disagreements over how to use words rather than factual disagreements over what words actually mean. This account enjoys several advantages over others in the literature: it can be implemented in a neo-Stalnakerian possible worlds framework; it accounts for cases where speakers are undecided on how exactly to interpret an expression; it avoids appeals to fraught notions like subject matter, charitable interpretation, and joint-carving; and it naturally extends to an analysis of metalinguistic negotiations.* Thanks to the audiences at the Metalinguistic Disagreement and Semantic Externalism conference at the NOVA University of Lisbon, the Context, Cognition and Communication Conference at the University of Warsaw, and the members of the Cornell community for their feedback. Special thanks also to Rachel Rudolph and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. 1 https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/sandwiches.htm 2 This example is inspired by an episode of NPR's Planet Money (Ep. 554, "How the Burrito Became a Sandwich", https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/18/332612643/ episode-554-how-the-burrito-became-a-sandwich), where the host calls the classification of burritos "bizarre". This example is also discussed by Ludlow (2014, pp. 10-13).

Metalinguistic gradability

“…is not one "true" interpretation for the word planet, on our view. Instead, speakers negotiate what to mean by planet, engaging in metalinguistic negotiation (Plunkett & Sundell 2013, Kocurek 2023, Rudolph 2023. By contrast, disagreement over either (35a) or (35b) would not be faultless.…”