François Recanati argues for the relevance of this controversy to the current debate about semantics and pragmatics. Is 'what is said' (as opposed to merely implied) determined by linguistic conventions, or is it an aspect of 'speaker's meaning'? Do we need pragmatics to fix truth-conditions? What is 'literal meaning'?

François Recanati provides an original defense of "contextualism" in contribution to the current debate about the best definition of semantics and pragmatics. Is "What is said" determined by linguistic conventions, or is it an aspect of "speaker's meaning"? Do we need pragmatics to fix truth-conditions? What is "literal meaning"?

Is 'What is said' determined by linguistic conventions, or is it an aspect of 'speaker's meaning'? Do we need pragmatics to fix truth-conditions? What is 'literal meaning'?

Literal Meaning - December 2003

the literal meaning of the utterance as opposed to what the speaker means: sentence meaning what is said literal meaning vs speaker’s meaning The other, ‘non-minimalist’ interpretation of the triad stresses the commonality between what is said and what is implicated, both of which are taken to be pragmatically determined: sentence meaning vs