David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
1. Implicature: some basic oppositions IMPLICATURE is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood. Speaker S tacitly exploits pragmatic principles to bridge this gap and counts on hearer H to invoke the same principles for the purposes of utterance interpretation. The contrast between the said and the meant, and derivatively between the said and the implicated (the meant-but-unsaid), dates back to the fourth century rhetoricians Servius and Donatus, who characterized litotes—the figure of pragmatic understatement—as a figure in which we say less but mean more (“minus dicimus et plus significamus”; see Hoffmann 1987 and Horn 1991a for discussion). In the classical Gricean model, the bridge from what is said (the literal content of the uttered sentence, computed directly from its grammatical structure with the reference of indexicals resolved) to what is communicated is constructed through implicature. As an aspect of speaker meaning, implicatures are by definition distinct from the non-logical inferences that the hearer draws; it is a category mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to sentences (e.g. P and Q) and subsentential expressions (e.g. some). But we can systematically (at least for generalized implicatures; see below) correlate the speaker’s intention to implicate q (in uttering p in context C), the expression p that carries the implicature in C, and the inference of q induced by the speaker’s utterance of p in C.
|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
Noah D. Goodman & Andreas Stuhlmüller (2013). Knowledge and Implicature: Modeling Language Understanding as Social Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):173-184.
Ira A. Noveck & Anne Reboul (2008). Experimental Pragmatics: A Gricean Turn in the Study of Language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (11):425-431.
Anton Benz & Robert van Rooij (2007). Optimal Assertions, and What They Implicate. A Uniform Game Theoretic Approach. Topoi 26 (1):63-78.
Martina Faller (2012). Evidential Scalar Implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (4):285-312.
Izabela Skoczeń (forthcoming). Minimal Semantics and Legal Interpretation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique:1-19.
Similar books and articles
Wayne A. Davis (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1979). A Problem About Conversational Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.
Kent Bach (2005). Context Ex Machina. In Zoltán Gendler Szabó (ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press 15--44.
Klaus Petrus (ed.) (2010). Meaning and Analysis: New Essays on Grice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Robyn Carston (2004). Truth-Conditional Content and Conversational Implicature. In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Csli 65--100.
Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads101 ( #37,138 of 1,790,219 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #168,663 of 1,790,219 )
How can I increase my downloads?