Acta Analytica 24 (2):149-154 (2009)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue against a criticism by Matthew Weiner to Grice’s thesis that cancellability is a necessary condition for conversational implicature. I argue that the purported counterexamples fail because the supposed failed cancellation in the cases Weiner presents is not meant as a cancellation but as a reinforcement of the implicature. I moreover point out that there are special situations in which the supposed cancellation may really work as a cancellation.|
|Keywords||Conversational implicature Cancellability Matthew Weiner Paul Grice|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Finlay (2005). Value and Implicature. Philosophers’ Imprint 5 (4):1-20.
Jon Gajewski & Yael Sharvit (2012). In Defense of the Grammatical Approach to Local Implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1):31-57.
Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1979). A Problem About Conversational Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.
Michael Blome-Tillmann (2008). Conversational Implicature and the Cancellability Test. Analysis 68 (2):156-160.
Bart Geurts (2009). Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1):51-79.
Cara Spencer (2006). Do Conversational Implicatures Explain Substitutivity Failures? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):126–139.
Added to index2009-05-23
Total downloads137 ( #4,098 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?