Real and apparent inconsistencies in Davidson’s view of interpretation

In "Radical Interpretation" and "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs" Donald Davidson addresses the question how we are able to understand what people say. Davidson intends the positive arguments in these two essays to be part of a coherent explanation of communication. However, there are, I will argue, inconsistencies between the theories in his two essays which suggest that they are not reconcilable into a coherent picture. In chapters one and two I will explicate the arguments that Davidson presents in "Radical Interpretation" and "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs". In chapter three I will discuss several areas in which discrepancies between the positions presented in these two papers seem to arise. The issues that will be discussed in chapter three stem from an apparent inconsistency in Davidson's position regarding the time period over which interpretation should occur. In "Radical Interpretation" Davidson maintains that interpretation should occur over an extended period of time, while in "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs" he maintains that what is necessary for interpretation cannot be learned prior to the occasion of utterance. Although it may appear that he is inconsistent on this issue, I will argue that the differences between the descriptions of interpretation m the two papers are differences of emphasis rather than differences of substance. In chapter four I will argue that there is, however, a genuine inconsistency between the conception of linguistic meaning presented in "Radical Interpretation" and the one presented in "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs". Whereas in "Radical Interpretation" meaning is held to be discovered by the interpreter, in "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs" meaning is held to be created by the speaker and interpreter. I will argue that this latter conception of meaning is problematic because it assumes that meaning is derived from, rather than being independent of, communication. I will conclude that the theories of interpretation presented in these two essays are, therefore, irreconcilable and that, of the two, the picture presented in "Radical Interpretation" is superior.Arts, Faculty ofPhilosophy, Department ofGraduat