Various forms of metalinguistic disagreement and related projects and phenomena such as “metalinguistic negotiation” (Plunkett & Sundell 2013), “conceptual ethics” (Burgess & Plunkett 2013), “conceptual engineering” (Cappelen 2018), “semantic amelioration” (Haslanger 2012), and “verbal disputes” (Belleri 2017, 2018, 2020; Chalmers 2011; Hirsch 2005, 2009; Jenkins 2014; Sidelle 2007; Vermeulen 2018) have recently been the object of intense attention and discussion. 

Although many authors agree that metalinguistic disagreement can be reconciled with some versions of semantic externalism, there are problems: How can we argue rationally about the meanings of linguistic expressions when these are individuated externally and we lack control over/the ability to change them? In what sense can speakers be said to negotiate meanings and what is the relation between idiolectal meaning and public language meaning that any conception of meaning negotiation seems to presuppose? How can verbal disputes be as pervasive as some authors suggest, if meanings are as stable as some forms of semantic externalism indicate? How do different internalist and externalist accounts of meaning fare, and how should we adjudicate between them, when it comes to explaining divergences over (and arguments about) the meanings of words and attempts to change these? 

The Special Issue aims to bring together original, thought-provoking perspectives on these and related questions; it is inspired by and seeks to build upon the strong expressions of interest recorded in connection with a conference by the same name, organised by the Guest Editors of the SI and taking place at the NOVA University of Lisbon in May 2022.