David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
[p. 45] I wish to represent a certain subclass of nonconventional implicatures, which I shall call CONVERSATIONAL implicatures, as being essentially connected with certain general features of discourse; so my next step is to try to say what these features are. The following may provide a first approximation to a general principle. Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. This purpose or direction may be fixed from the start (e.g., by an initial proposal of a question for discussion), or it may evolve during the exchange; it may be fairly definite, or it may be so indefinite as to leave very considerable latitude to the participants (as in a casual conversation). But at each stage, SOME possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. One might label this the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE. On the assumption that some such general principle as this is acceptable, one may perhaps distinguish four categories under one or another of which will fall certain more specific maxims and submaxims, the following of which will, in general, yield results in accordance with the Cooperative Principle. Echoing Kant, I call these categories Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. The category of QUANTITY relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it fall the following maxims
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Steffen Borge (2012). Communication, Cooperation and Conflict. ProtoSociology 29.
Steffen Borge (2012). Communication, Conflict and Cooperation. ProtoSociology 29.
Mitchell Green (1999). Illocutions, Implicata, and What a Conversation Requires. Pragmatics and Cognition 7 (1):65-92.
Mitchell S. Green (1995). Quantity, Volubility, and Some Varieties of Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (1):83 - 112.
Caleb Yong (2011). Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech? Res Publica 17 (4):385-403.
Steffen Borge (2007). Unwarranted Questions and Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (10):1689-1701.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1979). A Problem About Conversational Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.
Robbert-Jan Beun & Rogier M. van Eijk (2007). Dialogue Coherence: A Generation Framework. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):365-385.
J. E. Miller (1985). Semantics and Syntax: Parallels and Connections. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Blome-Tillmann (2013). Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them). Philosophy Compass 8 (2):170-185.
Scott Soames (2008). Drawing the Line Between Meaning and Implicature—and Relating Both to Assertion. Noûs 42 (3):440-465.
Martina Faller (2012). Evidential Scalar Implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (4):285-312.
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (2001). Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128 (1-2):183 - 228.
Added to index2010-11-19
Total downloads283 ( #8,674 of 1,934,702 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #29,829 of 1,934,702 )
How can I increase my downloads?