Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/137079
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLewiński, Marcin-
dc.contributor.authorAbreu, Pedro-
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-28T22:20:50Z-
dc.date.available2022-04-28T22:20:50Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-030-91016-7-
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-030-91019-8-
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-030-91017-4-
dc.identifier.issn1566-7650-
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 42801855-
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 5de83864-7d1f-4888-a207-f4497328692b-
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85126251701-
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-7218-3948/work/112241551-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/137079-
dc.descriptionUIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0087-
dc.description.abstractIn this contribution, we explore the plausibility and consequences of treating arguments over what counts as a COVID-19 death as metalinguistic arguments. While unquestionably related to the epidemiological and public health issues, these arguments are also arguments about how a term should be used. As such, they touch upon some of the foundational issues in meta-semantics, discussed in the recent literature on metalinguistic negotiations, conceptual ethics, and conceptual engineering. Against this background, we study official statements (of WHO, governments) and media reports to critically reconstruct the metalinguistic elements of the dispute over what a COVID-19 death is. We analyze in particular how epistemic and practical reasons are intertwined in nuanced and complex ways to produce an interesting type of metalinguistic interventions.en
dc.format.extent25-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherSpringer-
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB%2F00183%2F2020/PT-
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDP%2F00183%2F2020/PT-
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/DL 57%2F2016/DL 57%2F2016%2FCP1453%2FCT0087/PT-
dc.rightsopenAccess-
dc.subjectArgumentation theory-
dc.subjectConceptual engineering-
dc.subjectCOVID-19 death-
dc.subjectDeclarative speech acts-
dc.subjectDefinitions-
dc.subjectICD-
dc.subjectMetalinguistic negotiation-
dc.subjectPractical arguments-
dc.subjectLaw-
dc.subjectPhilosophy-
dc.subjectLinguistics and Language-
dc.subjectLanguage and Linguistics-
dc.subjectSDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being-
dc.titleArguing About “COVID”-
dc.typebookPart-
degois.publication.firstPage17-
degois.publication.lastPage41-
degois.publication.titleThe pandemic of argumentation-
degois.publication.volume43-
dc.peerreviewedyes-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_2-
dc.description.versionpublishersversion-
dc.description.versionpublished-
dc.title.subtitleMetalinguistic Arguments on What Counts as a “COVID-19 Death”-
dc.contributor.institutionDepartamento de Ciências da Comunicação (DCC)-
dc.contributor.institutionInstituto de Filosofia da NOVA (IFILNOVA)-
Appears in Collections:FCSH: IFILNOVA - Artigos em revista internacional com arbitragem científica

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2022_Book_ThePandemicOfArgumentation_22_46.pdf369,76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


FacebookTwitterDeliciousLinkedInDiggGoogle BookmarksMySpace
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote 

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.