Results (
Indonesian) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
KNOWLEDGE by the conventions which specify that 'cat' means cat, and so on. An additional set of conventions must determine what 'cat' and the other words in the sentence mean. But now consider that 'The cat is on thc mat' can be included in any number of literary works. Presumably, in each of these works it can have a different non-literal meaning. In one work it may contribute to the fact that the work as a whole states that first impressions are a poor guide to character. In another, it makes it possible for the work to state, say, that the best laid plans often go awry. For each of these works, a different set of conventions would be required. The number of literary works in which a sentence can be used is potentially infinite. If sentences in works of literature can have non-literal meanings, a sentence can have a different meaning in each work. An infinite number of conventions are needed to account for the infinite number of non- literal meanings of a sentence such as 'The cat is on the mat-' This ig impossible, and I conclude that sentences in literary works have only literal meanings. One could object that readers of literature grasp what a work means (and states) without employing conventions. Perhaps readers grasp what authors intend and recognise what state without a knowledge of semantic conventions. Since readers must rely on their knowledge of semantic conventions to discover what authors intend to say, this is an implausible suggestion. Still, a couple of linguistic phenomena suggest that grasping what a sentence states is a matter of grasping the author's intentions. The first of these phenomena is irony, while the other is the existence of malapropisms. We can understand what people are saying when they speak ironically or employ malapropisms. In doing so, it seems, we do not employ semantic conventions. Malapropisms and ironical statements apparently mean something besides what they literally mean. Instead. understanding these statements seems to be a matter of grasping a speaker's or author's intentions. Perhaps something similar happens when we read literature. Let us consider whether the existence of malapropisms and their meanings supports the view that sentences in works of literature can have additional. non- literal meanings. An example of a malapropism will be useful. A student once said to one of my friends. a punctilious, demanding teacher of English, and a woman of unimpeachable character, 'You are nothing but a pederast!' It took a sæond. but my friend soon recognised that the student meant that she is a pedant. The student's sentence literally means that my friend is a pederast. It seems to mean, in addition, that my friend is a pedant. One might think that the existence of malapropisms supports the view that non-literal meanings exist in literature. Grant that malapropisms have additional, non-literal meanings. Even if this is so. grasping the additional meaning is not a matter of divining a speaker's intentions. Rather, when we understand what the producer of a malapropism means, we rely on our knowledge of the same character. On this view, literature can employ semantic representation even if it employs mainly literally false sentences. If a sentence has two truth-values, it must have two meanings: a literal meaning and a non-literal meaning. This is the case since the truth-value of a sentence is a function of two factors. ne u-uth-value of a sentence depends on how the world is, but also on what the sentence means. In order to see that this is the case, consider again the sentence, ' ne cat is on the mat-' (Assume that cat, and nothing else, is on the mat.) This sentence would be false if the world were, in certain respects, otherwise than how it is. In particular. it would be false if the cat were not on the mat. The sentence would also be false if it meant something other than what it does. If, for example, it meant that the bat is on the mat, it would be false. In general, the truth-value of any sentence depends on what it means.
Being translated, please wait..
