How to have a metalinguistic dispute.

Area of Science:

• Linguistics
• Philosophy of Language
• Pragmatics

Background:

• Recent interest in metalinguistic negotiation: speakers discussing language use during disputes.
• Existing literature lacks a mainstream communication theory framework for this phenomenon.
• Examples include disputes over word meanings, like 'athlete'.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose an independently motivated account of metalinguistic negotiation.
• To situate metalinguistic negotiation within a mainstream communication framework.
• To explain how metalinguistic propositions are reconstructed via pragmatic reasoning.

Main Methods:

• Proposes a theoretical account based on pragmatic, Gricean reasoning processes.
• Reconstructs metalinguistic propositions as a key mechanism.
• Focuses on how speakers infer meaning beyond literal utterances.

Main Results:

• Individuals can reconstruct metalinguistic propositions through Gricean reasoning.
• This provides a framework for understanding disputes about language use.
• Suggests metalinguistic negotiation is explainable within standard communication models.

Conclusions:

• Metalinguistic negotiation can be understood through pragmatic inference.
• This account integrates the phenomenon into mainstream communication theory.
• Highlights the role of Gricean principles in resolving linguistic disagreements.