Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||We define a notion of projective meaning which encompasses both classical presuppositions and phenomena which are usually regarded as non-presuppositional but which also display projection behavior—Horn’s assertorically inert entailments, conventional implicatures (both Grice’s and Potts’) and some conversational implicatures. We argue that the central feature of all projective meanings is that they are not-at-issue, defined as a relation to the question under discussion. Other properties differentiate various sub-classes of projective meanings, one of them the class of presuppositions according to Stalnaker. This principled taxonomy predicts differences in behavior unexpected on other models among the various conventional triggers and conversational implicatures, while holding promise for a general, explanatory account of projection which applies to all the types of meanings considered.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Michael Blome-Tillmann (2013). Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them). Philosophy Compass 8 (2):170-185.
Patricia Amaral, Craige Roberts & E. Allyn Smith (2007). Review of the Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):707-749.
Stephen Finlay (2005). Value and Implicature. Philosophers’ Imprint 5 (4):1-20.
Caj Strandberg (2012). A Dual Aspect Account of Moral Language. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (1):87-122.
Daniel Rothschild (2011). Explaining Presupposition Projection with Dynamic Semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (3):1-43.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads37 ( #37,060 of 740,565 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,533 of 740,565 )
How can I increase my downloads?