A speaker often uses a word to communicate what linguists call an “ad hoc concept” – an occasion-specific meaning – that is different from the word’s stable encoded meaning, and the hearer can usually construct the intended ad hoc concept through pragmatic inference. Appreciating this linguistic insight can shed significant light on a wide range of issues in both philosophical and public discourse. In this talk, I explore how the notion of ad hoc concepts can provide a framework for theorising the cognitive-linguistic mechanisms underpinning characteristic instances of verbal disputes. Crucially, I distinguish between two kinds of communicative failures that frequently occur in verbal disputes – “failures to recognise” and “failures to adopt”. I will analyse cognitive-linguistic factors driving these failures and draw implications with respect to verbal disputes in both public discourse and philosophy.
