There was recently an entry on 'unnatural' in Quinion and this Club. How much of non-natural meaning is indeed 'human' in the strict sense of 'human' (homo sapiens). A lot.
'Homo sapiens' is a rigid designation. A lot of what philosophers say with a general overtone about it, is indeed, rather anthropocentric, in this homo-sapiens technical side to it.
Meaning, for example, as we know it, is a homo-sapiens phenomenon. Of course, ditto "conversational implicature". We do not expect 'chimps' to implicate conversationally.
We do not expect 'infants' (so-miscalled) to implicate converationally. Conversational implicature belongs to a specific stage of homo sapiens. Or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment