David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (1):83 - 112 (1995)
Grice's Quantity maxims have been widely misinterpreted as enjoining a speaker to make the strongest claim that she can, while respecting the other conversational maxims. Although many writers on the topic of conversational implicature interpret the Quantity maxims as enjoining such volubility, so construed the Quantity maxims are unreasonable norms for conversation. Appreciating this calls for attending more closely to the notion of what a conversation requires. When we do so, we see that eschewing an injunction to maximal informativeness need not deprive us of any ability to predict or explain genuine cases of implicature. Crucial to this explanation is an appreciation of how what a conversation, or a given stage of a conversation, requires, depends upon what kind of conversation is taking place. I close with an outline of this dependence relation that distinguishes among three importantly distinct types of conversation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David Lewis (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press.
Richard Jeffrey (1983). The Logic of Decision. University of Chicago Press.
H. P. Grice (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
David P. Gauthier (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert van Rooij & Katrin Schulz (2004). Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):491-519.
Judith Degen & Michael K. Tanenhaus (2015). Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint‐Based Approach. Cognitive Science 39 (4):667-710.
Katrin Schulz & Robert Van Rooij (2006). Pragmatic Meaning and Non-Monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (2):205-250.
Mitchell Green (forthcoming). Conversation and Common Ground. Philosophical Studies:1-18.
Zachary Miller (2016). The Reformulation Argument: Reining in Gricean Pragmatics. Philosophical Studies 173 (2):525-546.
Similar books and articles
Zali Gurevitch (1998). The Symposium: Culture as Daimonic Conversation. [REVIEW] Human Studies 21 (4):437-454.
Eric Swanson (2010). Structurally Defined Alternatives and Lexicalizations of XOR. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):31-36.
Nel Noddings (1994). Conversation as Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education 23 (2):107-118.
Alessandro Giordani & Luca Mari (2011). Quantity and Quantity Value. Proc. TC1-TC7-TC13 14th IMEKO Joint Symposium.
Peter Kreeft (2009). If Einstein Had Been a Surfer: A Surfer, a Scientist, and a Philosopher Discuss a "Universal Wave Theory" or "Theory of Everything". St. Augustine's Press.
H. Paul Grice, [In: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, Ed. By Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan.
Mitchell Green (1999). Illocutions, Implicata, and What a Conversation Requires. Pragmatics and Cognition 7 (1):65-92.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #103,458 of 1,941,076 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #133,135 of 1,941,076 )
How can I increase my downloads?