Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122 (2008)
|Abstract||Some linguistic phenomena can occur in uses of language in thought, whereas others only occur in uses of language in communication. I argue that this distinction can be used as a test for whether a linguistic phenomenon can be explained via Grice’s theory of conversational implicature (or any theory similarly based on principles governing conversation). I argue further, on the basis of this test, that conversational implicature cannot be used to explain quantifier domain restriction or apparent substitution failures involving coreferential names, but that it must be used to explain the phenomenon of referential uses of definite descriptions. I conclude with a brief discussion of the relevance of this point to the semantics/pragmatics distinction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kent Bach (2005). Tthe Top 10 Minconceptions About Implicature. In Kent Bach (ed.), Festchrift for Larry Horn. John Benjamins.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1979). A Problem About Conversational Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads109 ( #5,094 of 548,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,222 of 548,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?