The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation

This article argues 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 must be computed before nonliteral interpretations can be entertained.

Abstract

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.