Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25 (1979)
|Abstract||Conversational implicatures are easy to grasp for the most part. But it is another matter to give a rational reconstruction of how they are grasped. We argue that Grice's attempt to do this fails. We distinguish two sorts of cases: (1) those in which we grasp the implicature by asking ourselves what would the speaker have to believe given that what he said is such as is required by the talk exchange; (2) those in which we grasp the implicature by asking ourselves why it is that what the speaker said is so obviously not such as is required by the talk exchange. We argue that Grice's account does not fit those cases falling under (2).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jennifer M. Saul (2002). Speaker Meaning, What is Said, and What is Implicated. Noûs 36 (2):228–248.
Kent Bach (2005). Tthe Top 10 Minconceptions About Implicature. In Kent Bach (ed.), Festchrift for Larry Horn. John Benjamins.
Cara Spencer (2006). Do Conversational Implicatures Explain Substitutivity Failures? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):126–139.
Scott Soames (2008). Drawing the Line Between Meaning and Implicature—and Relating Both to Assertion. Noûs 42 (3):440-465.
Bart Geurts (2009). Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1):51-79.
Steffen Borge (2009). Conversational Implicatures and Cancellability. Acta Analytica 24 (2):149-154.
Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #11,181 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?