Element contents
Translation in Analytic Philosophy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2023
Summary
This Element aims to introduce the different definitions of translation provided in the history of analytic philosophy. Starting from the definitions of translation as paraphrase, calculus, and language games, the Element explores the main philosophical-analytic notions used to explain translation from Frege and Wittgenstein onwards. Particular attention is paid to the concept of translation equivalence in the work of Quine, Davidson, and Sellars, and to the problem of translating implicit vs. explicit meaning into another language as discussed by Grice, Kripke, and the contemporary trends in analytic philosophy of language.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009351294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 18 January 2024
References
Arrojo, R. (2010). ‘Philosophy and Translation’. In Handbook of Translation Studies. Gambier, Yves and van Doorslaer, Luc (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 247–51.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2005). Logic, Meaning and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avramides, A. (1989). Meaning and Mind: An Examination of a Gricean Account of Language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bariselli, M. and Fisher, S. (2021). ‘Not Just Words: Balancing Efficiency and Integrity in Translation’. Talk at the online Symposium Philosophy in/on Translation (9–10 September 2021).Google Scholar
Bassnett, S. (2013). ‘Postcolonialism and/as Translation’. In The Oxford Handbook of Postcolonial Studies. Huggan, Graham (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 340–58.Google Scholar
Bianchi, C. (2009). Pragmatica cognitiva: I meccanismi della comunicazione. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. A. (1997). ‘Analyticity’. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Hale, Bob, Wright, Crispin, and Miller, Alexander (eds.). Cambridge: Blackwell: 578–618.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1978). ‘Self–Reference and Translation’. In Meaning and Translation. Guenthner, F. and Guenthner–Reutter, M. (eds.), London: Duckworth: 137–53.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Plunkett, D. (2020). ‘Introduction: A Guided Tour of Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics’. In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Burgess, Alexis, Cappelen, Herman, and Plunkett, David (eds.). Oxford: Oxford Academic: 1–34.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Wien: Springer; The Logical Syntax of Language. Amethe Smeaton (trans.). London: Routledge, 1937.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1955). ‘Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages’. Philosophical Studies 6(3); reprinted in Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1956: 233–47.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W. A., Coniglio, M. E., and D’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (2009). ‘New Ddimensions on Translations between Logics’. Logica Universalis 3(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). ‘Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3): 295–321.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chiesa, F. and Galeotti, A. E. (2018). ‘Linguistic Justice and Analytic Philosophy’. Philosophical Papers 47(1): 155–82.Google Scholar
Contesi, F. and Terrone, E. (2018). ‘“Introduction” to Linguistic Justice and Analytic Philosophy’. Philosophical Papers 47(1):1–20.Google Scholar
Contesi, F., Chapman, L., and Sandis, C. (2022). ‘Analytic Philosophy Has a Language Problem: The Roots of Its Contemporary Decadence’. IAI News, 7 April.Google Scholar
D’Agostini, F. (1997). Analitici e continentali: guida alla filosofia degli ultimi trent’anni. Milano: Cortina.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). ‘Truth and Meaning’ Synthese 17: 304–23. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984: 17–36.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1973). ‘Radical Interpretation’. In Dialectica 27: 313–28. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984: 125–40.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974). ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–20; Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984: 183–98.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1980b). ‘Mental Events’. In Essays on Action and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 207–25.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984a). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984b). ‘Introduction’. In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press: xiii -xx.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984c). ‘Truth and Meaning’. In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 17–36.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984d). ‘Radical Interpretation’. In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 125–39.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984e). ‘Belief and the Basis of Meaning’. In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 141–54.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984f). ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’. In Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 183–98.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1986). ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs’. In Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Lepore, Ernie (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell: 433–46.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1989). James Joyce and Humpty Dumpty James Joyce and Humpty Dumpty. In Proceedings of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, 54–66; Reprinted in P. French, T. E. Uehling, H. Wettstein (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. xvi, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, 1–12.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1990). ‘The Structure and Content of Truth’. Journal of Philosophy 87(6): 279–328.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1991). ‘James Joyce and Humpty Dumpty’. In Midwest Studies in Philosophy. French, Peter, Uehling, Theodore E., and Wettstein, Howard K. (eds.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 1–12.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1992). ‘The Second Person’. In Midwest Studies in Philosophy. French, Peter, Uehling, Theodore E., and Wettstein, Howard K. (eds.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 255–67.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1994a). ‘Radical Interpretation Interpreted’. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 121–8.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1994b). ‘The Social Aspect of Language’. In The Philosophy of Michael Dummett. McGuinness, Brian and Oliveri, Gianluigi (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer: 1–16.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1997). ‘Seeing through Language’. In Thought and Language. Preston, John (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press: 15–27.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1966). ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’. The Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1906). La théorie physique, son objet et sa structure. Paris: Chevalier et Rivière.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1986). ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs: Some Comments on Davidson and Hacking’. In Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Lepore, Ernie (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell: 459–76.Google Scholar
Ebert, K. (1970). Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem norderfriesischen Dialekt [PhD Dissertation]. Kiel: Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
Ervas, F. (2008). Uguale ma diverso. Il mito dell’equivalenza nella traduzione. Macerata: Quodlibet.Google Scholar
Ervas, F. (2012). ‘The Definition of Translation in Davidson’s Philosophy: Semantic Equivalence versus Functional Equivalence’. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 25(1): 243–65.Google Scholar
Ervas, F. (2014). ‘On Semantic and Pragmatic Equivalence in Translation’. In Translating the DCFR and Drafting the CESL: A Pragmatic Perspective. Pasa, Barbara and Morra, Lucia (eds.). Munich: Sellier: 87–101.Google Scholar
Ervas, F. (2022). ‘Translation as a Test for the Explicit-Implicit Distinction’. The Journal for the Philosophy of Language, Mind and the Arts 3(2): 249–66.Google Scholar
Ervas, F. and Morra, L. (2013). ‘Traduzione’. Analytical and Philosophical Explanation 8(2): 146–80.Google Scholar
Ervas, F., Ledda, A., Paoli, F., and Sergioli, G. (2019). ‘Introduction: Logical Pluralism and Translation’. Topoi 38(2): 263–4.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L. (2007). ‘A Relevance-Theoretic Analysis of Concept Narrowing and Broadening in English and Norwegian Original Texts and Translations’. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 119–41.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1879–1891). ‘Logik’. In Nachgelassene Schriften. Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, and Kaulbach, Friedrich (eds.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner: 1–8; ‘Logic’. Peter Long and Roger M. White (trans.). In Posthumous Writings. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979: 1–8.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: Verlag; Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number. John Austin (trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische’. Kritik 100(1): 25–50; ‘On Sense and Reference’. Max Black (trans.). In Meaning and Reference. Adrian W. Moore (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993: 23–42.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1978). ‘Universal Grammar, Lexical Structure and Translatability’. In Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches. Guenthner, Franz and Guenthner-Reutter, Monica (eds.). London: Duckworth: 235–72.Google Scholar
Glock, H.-J. (2007). ‘Relativism, Commensurability and Translatability’. Ratio 20(4): 377–402.Google Scholar
Glock, H.-J. (2008). What Is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grandy, R. E. (1973). ‘Reference, Meaning and Belief’. Journal of Philosophy 70(14): 439–52.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’. In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3, Speech Acts. Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry (eds.). New York: Academic Press: 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. and Strawson, P. F. (1956). ‘In Defense of a Dogma’. The Philosophical Review 65(2): 141–58.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. (2012). ‘Parametric Changes in the History of the Greek Article’. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Jonas, Dianne, Witman, John, and Garrett, Andrew (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 179–97.Google Scholar
Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1975). Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1986). ‘The Parody of Conversation’. In Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Lepore, Ernie (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell: 447–58.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, A. (2008). ‘Free Enrichment or Hidden Indexicals?’ Mind & Language 23(4): 426–56.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (1997). ‘The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado About Something’. Target 9(2): 207–34.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. (1993). Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hirst, G. (1987). Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, D. (1981). ‘Principles of Conversation, Speech Acts, and Radical Interpretation’. In Meaning and Understanding. Parrett, Herman and Bouveresse, Jacques (eds.). Berlin: De Gruyter: 195–7.Google Scholar
Isaac, M. G., Koch, S., and Nefdt, R. (2022). ‘Conceptual Engineering: A Road Map to Practice’. Philosophy Compass 17(10), 1–15.Google Scholar
Janik, A. and Toulmin, S. (1973). Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’. In On Translation. Brower, Reuben A. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 232–9; reprinted in Selected Writings. Paris: Mouton, 1971: 260–6.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. (1976). ‘Conversational Maxims and Rationality’. In Language in Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems. Kasher, Asa (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel: 197–216.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1978). ‘Effability and Translation’. In Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches. Guenthner, Franz and Guenthner-Reutter, Monica (eds.). London: Duckworth: 191–234.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Ebert, K. (1973). ‘A Note on Marking Transparency and Opacity’. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 421–4.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (1998). ‘Equivalence’. In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. Baker, Mona (ed.). London: Routledge: 77–80.Google Scholar
Koller, W. (1989). ‘Equivalence in Translation Theory’. In Readings in Translation Theory. Chesterman, Andrew (ed.). Helsinki: Finn Lectura: 99–104.Google Scholar
Kouri, T. A. (2019). ‘New Interpretation of Carnap’s Logical Pluralism’. Topoi 38(2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1979). ‘Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference’. In Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. French, Peter, Uehling, Theodore E., and Wettstein, Howard K. (eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 6–27.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). ‘Reflections on My Critics’. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Large, D. (2014). ‘On the Work of Philosopher-Translators’. In Literary Translation. Boase-Beier, Jean, Fawcett, Antoinette, and Wilson, Philip (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan: 182–203.Google Scholar
Large, D. (2022). ‘Translation and Philosophy’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation. Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 258–76.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2005). ‘Toward a Unified Grammar of Reference’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24(1): 5–44.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. (1998). ‘Analytical Philosophy and Translation’. In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. Baker, Mona (ed.). London: Routledge: 8–13.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. (2005). Linguistics and the Language of Translation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Marconi, D. (2010). ‘Translatable/Untranslatable’. In Translation: Transfer, Text and Topic. Barrotta, Pierluigi and Lepschy, Anna L. (eds.). Perugia: Guerra Edizioni: 9–13.Google Scholar
Mates, B. (1950). Meaning and Interpretation. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’. In Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press: 247–70.Google Scholar
Montibeller, M. (2009). ‘L’Übersetzungsregel in Wittgenstein’. Paradigmi 27(2): 47–58.Google Scholar
Morra, L. (2004). ‘Quine, Brower e la traduzione: un carteggio inedito’. Rivista di filosofia 95(2): 247–74.Google Scholar
Morra, L. (2009). ‘Traduzione e filosofia analitica: prima di Quine’. Paradigmi 27(2): 17–31.Google Scholar
Oliveira, P., Alois, P., and Arley, M. (2019). Wittgenstein in/on Translation. Campinas: Coleção CLE.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1865). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982–1989, vol. 1, p. 333Google Scholar
Pym, A. (1992). ‘Equivalence Defines Translation’. In Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: 37–49.Google Scholar
Pym, A. (2007). ‘Philosophy and Translation’. In A Companion to Translation Studies. Kuhiwczak, Piotr and Littau, Karin (eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 24–44.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951). ‘The Problem of Meaning in Linguistics’. In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 47–64.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1953). ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’. In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 20–46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1959). ‘Meaning and Translation’. In On Translation. Brower, Reuben A. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 148–72; reprinted in The Structure of Language. Readings in Philosophy of Language. Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.). Egelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964: 460–78.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969a). ‘Ontological Relativity’. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press: 26–68.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969b). ‘Epistemology Naturalized’. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press: 69–90.Google Scholar
Rawling, P. (2023). ‘Davidson on Indeterminacy and “Passing Theories”: Need Translators Worry?’ Perspectives 31(1): 119–29.Google Scholar
Read, S. (1988). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2005). ‘Literalism and Contextualism: Some Varieties’. In Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Preyer, Gerhard and Peter, Georg (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 171–96.Google Scholar
Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H. (1984). ‘Äquivalenz und Adäquatheit’. In Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rouchota, V. (1992). ‘On the Referential/Attributive Distinction’. Lingua 87(1–2): 137–67.Google Scholar
Santambrogio, M. (1992). ‘W. V. Quine’. In Introduzione alla filosofia analitica del linguaggio. Santambrogio, Marco (ed.). Roma-Bari: Laterza: 179–222.Google Scholar
Santambrogio, M. (2002). ‘Belief and Translation’. Journal of Philosophy 99(12): 624–47.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1936). ‘Meaning and Verification’. Philosophical Revue 44; reprinted in Readings in Philosophical Analysis. Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars (eds.). New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1949: 146–70.Google Scholar
Schliesser, E. (2018). ‘On Philosophical Translator-Advocates and Linguistic Injustice’. Philosophical Papers 47(1): 93–121.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1993). ‘Metaphor’. In Metaphor and Thought. Ortony, Andrew (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 83–111.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1963). ‘Truth and Correspondence’. In Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 197–224.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1980). Pure Pragmatics and Possible Worlds: The Early Essays of Wilfrid Sellars, edited and introduced by Sicha, J., Reseda: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sequeiros, X. R. (2002). ‘Interlingual Pragmatic Enrichment in Translation’. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1069–89.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance Theory: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1933). ‘Pojecie prawdy w jezykach nauk dedukcyjnych’. Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Wydzial III Nauk. Matematyczno-Fizycznych 34(13): 172–98; ‘The Concept of truth in Formalized Languages’. In Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Joseph H. Woodger (trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press: 152–278.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1944). ‘The Semantic Conception of Truth’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4(3): 341–76; reprinted in Collected Papers. Steven R. Givant and Ralph N. Mackenzie (eds.). Basel: Birkhauser, vol. 2: 665–99.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2001). The Uses of Sense: Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2008). Occasion Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, R. (1978). ‘The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Theory: Some Critical Reflections’. In Literature and Translation. New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Holmes, James S., Lambert, José, and Van den Broeck, Raymond (eds.). Leuven, Acco: 29–47.Google Scholar
Van Leuven-Zwart, K. and Naaijkens, T. (eds.) (1991). Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Villalonga, T. P. (2019). ‘From Natural to Formal Language: A Case for Logical Pluralism’. Topoi 38(2): 333–45.Google Scholar
Voltolini, A. (2009). ‘L’irrimediabile dilemma del traduttore’. Paradigmi 27(2): 33–46.Google Scholar
Wallace, J. (1972). ‘Positive, Comparative, Superlative’. Journal of Philosophy 69(21): 773–82.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). ‘The Punctual and Segmentative Aspects of Verbs in Hopi’. In Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carroll, John B. (ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press: 51–6.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. (2007). ‘A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad hoc Concepts’. In Advances in Pragmatics. Burton-Roberts, Noel (ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave: 230–60.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1921). Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. In Annalen der Naturphilosophie. Ostwald, Wilhelm (ed.). Leipzig: Reinhold Berger; Tractatus logico-philosophicus (TLP). Frank P. Ramsey and Charles K. Ogden (trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2022.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1929–1948). Zettel. Bilingual Edition, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. Anscombe (trans.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; Philosophical Investigations (PI). Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe, Peter M. S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Sadock, J. (1975). ‘Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them’. In Syntax and Semantics. Kimball, John (ed.). New York: Academic Press: 1–36.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by