What is said
Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8):969-991 (2002)
| Abstract | A common misunderstanding of Grice's distinction between <br>saying and implicating is that the hearer in a conversation <br>needs to use what is said in a calculation to determine what <br>is implicated. This mistake lead some to misconstrue the relation <br>between pragmatics and semantics. | |||||||||
| Keywords | conversational implicature Grice Recanati semantics/pragmatics distinction | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJennifer M. Saul (2002). Speaker Meaning, What is Said, and What is Implicated. Noûs 36 (2):228–248.
Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Kent Bach (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4):327-366.
Jeff Speaks (2008). Conversational Implicature, Thought, and Communication. Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-04-28Total downloads46 ( #23,896 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
