Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this article, I argue against a widely accepted model of utterance interpretation, namely the LS model (literality‐based serial model), according to which the literal interpretation of an utterance (the proposition literally expressed by that utterance) must be computed before nonliteral interpretations can be entertained. Alleged arguments in favor of this model are shown to be fallacious, counter‐examples are provided, and alternative models are sketched.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
François Récanati (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: