Metalinguistic Negotiation, Speaker Error, and Charity

Abstract This paper raises a new form of speaker error objection to the analysis disputes as metalinguistic negotiations in cases which disputants reject that analysis. It focuses on an obvious but underexplored error: speakers’ misattribution contents both others and themselves. argues analyses posit this type are uncharitable three different ways: first, by portraying speakers mistaken interpreters their interlocutors; second, third, who retract claims own prior utterances. Taken together, these unfavorable consequences weigh significantly against plausibility for question.