Search results for 'Implicature' (try it on Scholar)

350 found
Sort by:
  1. Conversational Implicature (2012). Laurence Horn. In Gillian Russell Delia Graff Fara (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. Routledge. 53.score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Bence Nanay (2010). Imaginative Resistance and Conversational Implicature. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):586-600.score: 24.0
    We experience resistance when we are engaging with fictional works which present certain (for example, morally objectionable) claims. But in virtue of what properties do sentences trigger this ‘imaginative resistance’? I argue that while most accounts of imaginative resistance have looked for semantic properties in virtue of which sentences trigger it, this is unlikely to give us a coherent account, because imaginative resistance is a pragmatic phenomenon. It works in a way very similar to Paul Grice's widely analysed ‘conversational (...)’. (shrink)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Napoleon Katsos (2008). The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface From an Experimental Perspective: The Case of Scalar Implicature. Synthese 165 (3):385 - 401.score: 24.0
    In this paper I discuss some of the criteria that are widely used in the linguistic and philosophical literature to classify an aspect of meaning as either semantic or pragmatic. With regards to the case of scalar implicature (e.g. some Fs are G implying that not all Fs are G), these criteria are not ultimately conclusive, either in the results of their application, or in the interpretation of the results with regards to the semantics/pragmatics distinction (or in both). I (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ray Buchanan (2014). Conversational Implicature, Communicative Intentions, and Content. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43 (5-6):720-740.score: 24.0
    (2013). Conversational implicature, communicative intentions, and content. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 43, Essays on the Nature of Propositions, pp. 720-740.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Eytan Zweig (2009). Number-Neutral Bare Plurals and the Multiplicity Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):353-407.score: 24.0
    Bare plurals (dogs) behave in ways that quantified plurals (some dogs) do not. For instance, while the sentence John owns dogs implies that John owns more than one dog, its negation John does not own dogs does not mean “John does not own more than one dog”, but rather “John does not own a dog”. A second puzzling behavior is known as the dependent plural reading; when in the scope of another plural, the ‘more than one’ meaning of the plural (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Arnold Chien (2008). Scalar Implicature and Contrastive Explanation. Synthese 161 (1):47 - 66.score: 24.0
    I argue for a subsumption of any version of Grice’s first quantity maxim posited to underlie scalar implicature, by developing the idea of implicature recovery as a kind of explanatory inference, as e.g. in science. I take the applicable model to be contrastive explanation, while following van Fraassen’s analysis of explanation as an answer to a why-question. A scalar implicature is embedded in such an answer, one that meets two probabilistic constraints: the probability of the answer, and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Chris Cummins, Uli Sauerland & Stephanie Solt (2012). Granularity and Scalar Implicature in Numerical Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (2):135-169.score: 24.0
    It has been generally assumed that certain categories of numerical expressions, such as ‘more than n’, ‘at least n’, and ‘fewer than n’, systematically fail to give rise to scalar implicatures in unembedded declarative contexts. Various proposals have been developed to explain this perceived absence. In this paper, we consider the relevance of scale granularity to scalar implicature, and make two novel predictions: first, that scalar implicatures are in fact available from these numerical expressions at the appropriate granularity level, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Noah D. Goodman & Andreas Stuhlmüller (2013). Knowledge and Implicature: Modeling Language Understanding as Social Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):173-184.score: 24.0
    Is language understanding a special case of social cognition? To help evaluate this view, we can formalize it as the rational speech-act theory: Listeners assume that speakers choose their utterances approximately optimally, and listeners interpret an utterance by using Bayesian inference to “invert” this model of the speaker. We apply this framework to model scalar implicature (“some” implies “not all,” and “N” implies “not more than N”). This model predicts an interaction between the speaker's knowledge state and the listener's (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Wayne Davis, Implicature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 21.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Rodrigo Jungmann (2011). The Implicature Theory: A Case Study. Principia 14 (3):405-419.score: 21.0
    Várias tentativas foram feitas pelos teóricos da referência direta para acomodar o dado intuitivo da opacidade referencial— a não ocorrência de substituição mútua salva veritate de nomes próprios co-referenciais nas orações subordinadas, precedidas por ‘que’, nas orações em que se atribuem atitudes proposicionais. A teoria defendida por Nathan Salmon, em seu livro de 1986 Frege’s Puzzle , é provavelmente a versão mais bem elaborada daquilo a que adiante nos referimos como ‘a Teoria Implicativa’. Salmon sustenta que a opacidade referencial é (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Stephen Barker (2003). Truth and Conventional Implicature. Mind 112 (445):1-34.score: 18.0
    Are all instances of the T-schema assertable? I argue that they are not. The reason is the presence of conventional implicature in a language. Conventional implicature is meant to be a component of the rule-based content that a sentence can have, but it makes no contribution to the sentence's truth-conditions. One might think that a conventional implicature is like a force operator. But it is not, since it can enter into the scope of logical operators. It follows (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Jeff Speaks (2008). Conversational Implicature, Thought, and Communication. Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Kent Bach (2005). The Top 10 Minconceptions About Implicature. In , Festchrift for Larry Horn. John Benjamins.score: 18.0
    I’ve known about conversational implicature a lot longer than I’ve known Larry. In 1967 I read Grice’s “Logical and Conversation” in mimeograph, shortly after his William James lectures, and I read its precursor “(Implication),” section III of “The Causal Theory of Perception”, well before that. And I’ve thought, read, and written about implicature off and on ever since. Nevertheless, I know a lot less about it than Larry does, and that’s not even taking into account everything he has (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Scott Soames (2008). Drawing the Line Between Meaning and Implicature—and Relating Both to Assertion. Noûs 42 (3):440-465.score: 18.0
    Paul Grice’s theory of Conversational Implicature is, by all accounts, one of the great achievements of the past fifty years -- both of analytic philosophy and of the empirical study of language. Its guiding idea is that constraints on the use of sentences, and information conveyed by utterances of them, arise not only from their conventional meanings (the information they semantically encode) but also from the communicative uses to which they are put. In his view, the overriding goal of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Bart Geurts (2009). Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1):51-79.score: 18.0
    Abstract: The Gricean theory of conversational implicature has always been plagued by data suggesting that what would seem to be conversational inferences may occur within the scope of operators like believe , for example; which for bona fide implicatures should be an impossibility. Concentrating my attention on scalar implicatures, I argue that, for the most part, such observations can be accounted for within a Gricean framework, and without resorting to local pragmatic inferences of any kin d. However, there remains (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1979). A Problem About Conversational Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.score: 18.0
    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 (...) 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). (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Larry Horn, Implicature.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Stephen Finlay (2005). Value and Implicature. Philosophers’ Imprint 5 (4):1-20.score: 18.0
    Moral assertions express attitudes, but it is unclear how. This paper examines proposals by David Copp, Stephen Barker, and myself that moral attitudes are expressed as implicature (Grice), and Copp's and Barker's claim that this supports expressivism about moral speech acts. I reject this claim on the ground that implicatures of attitude are more plausibly conversational than conventional. I argue that Copp's and my own relational theory of moral assertions is superior to the indexical theory offered by Barker and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Wayne A. Davis (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge University Press.score: 18.0
    H. P. Grice virtually discovered the phenomenon of implicature (to denote the implications of an utterance that are not strictly implied by its content). Gricean theory claims that conversational implicatures can be explained and predicted using general psycho-social principles. This theory has established itself as one of the orthodoxes in the philosophy of language. Wayne Davis argues controversially that Gricean theory does not work. He shows that any principle-based theory understates both the intentionality of what a speaker implicates and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.score: 18.0
    As Grice defined it, a speaker conversationally implicates that p only if the speaker expects the hearer to recognize that the speaker thinks that p. This paper argues that in the sorts of cases that Grice took as paradigmatic examples of conversational implicature there is in fact no need for the hearer to consider what the speaker might thus have in mind. Instead, the hearer might simply make an inference from what the speaker literally says and the situation in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Jay David Atlas (2005). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    This fresh look at the philosophy of language focuses on the interface between a theory of literal meaning and pragmatics--a philosophical examination of the relationship between meaning and language use and its contexts. Here, Atlas develops the contrast between verbal ambiguity and verbal generality, works out a detailed theory of conversational inference using the work of Paul Grice on Implicature as a starting point, and gives an account of their interface as an example of the relationship between Chomsky's Internalist (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Robert Francescotti (1995). Even: The Conventional Implicature Approach Reconsidered. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (2):153 - 173.score: 18.0
    Like Bennett's account of ‘even’, my analysis incorporates the following plausible and widespread intuitions. (a) The word ‘even’ does not make a truth-functional difference; it makes a difference only in conventional implicature. In particular, ‘even’ functions neither as a universal quantifier, nor amost ormany quantifier. The only quantified statement that ‘EvenA isF’ implies is the existential claim ‘There is anx (namely,A) that isF’, but this implication is nothing more than what the Equivalence Thesis already demands. (b) ‘Even’ is epistemic (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Kepa Korta, Pragmatically Determined Aspects of Meaning: Explicature, Impliciture or Implicature.score: 18.0
    In this paper we present a modest contribution to the debate on the treatment of the pragmatically determined aspects of utterance meaning. Different authors (Bach 1994, Carston 1988 and 1998, Recanati 1989, Sperber and Wilson 1986, Levinson 2000) have defended different notions (explicature, impliciture, and implicature) to account for the phenomena labeled as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCI) by Grice (1989). We offer some arguments for treating some of these examples as implicitures, and for a better characterization of the notion (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Robyn Carston, Informativeness, Relevance and Scalar Implicature.score: 18.0
    The idea is that, in a wide range of contexts, utterances of the sentences in (a) in each case will communicate the assumption in (b) in each case (or something closely akin to it, there being a certain amount of contextually governed variation in the speaker's propositional attitude and so the scope of the negation). These scalar inferences are taken to be one kind of (generalized) conversational implicature. As is the case with pragmatic inference quite generally, these inferences are (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Robert Hopkins (2007). Speaking Through Silence : Conceptual Art and Conversational Implicature. In Peter Goldie & Elisabeth Schellekens (eds.), Philosophy and Conceptual Art. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    I first try to identify what problem, if any conceptual art poses for philosophical aesthetics. It is harder than one might think to formulate some claim about traditional art with which much conceptual art is inconsistent. The idea that sense experience plays a special role in the appreciation of traditional artworks falls foul of literature. Instead I focus on the idea that conceptual art exhibits a particularly loose relation between the properties with which we engage in appreciating it and the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Leon Horsten (2005). On the Quantitative Scalar or-Implicature. Synthese 146 (1-2):111 - 127.score: 18.0
    . Two simple generalized conversational implicatures are investigated :(1) the quantitative scalar implicature associated with ‘or’, and (2) the ‘not-and’-implicature, which is the dual to (1). It is argued that it is more fruitful to consider these implicatures as rules of interpretation and to model them in an algebraic fashion than to consider them as nonmonotonic rules of inference and to model them in a proof-theoretic way.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Liza Verhoeven & Leon Horsten (2005). On the Exclusivity Implicature of 'Or' or on the Meaning of Eating Strawberries. Studia Logica 81 (1):19-24.score: 18.0
    This paper is a contribution to the program of constructing formal representations of pragmatic aspects of human reasoning. We propose a formalization within the framework of Adaptive Logics of the exclusivity implicature governing the connective ‘or’.Keywords: exclusivity implicature, Adaptive Logics.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Kathryn Riley (1993). Telling More Than the Truth: Implicature, Speech Acts, and Ethics in Professional Communication. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 12 (3):179 - 196.score: 18.0
    Ethicists have long observed that unethical communication may result from texts that contain no overt falsehoods but are nevertheless misleading. Less clear, however, has been the way that context and text work together to create misleading communication. Concepts from linguistics can be used to explain implicature and indirect speech acts, two patterns which, though in themselves not unethical, may allow misinterpretations and, therefore, create potentially unethical communication. Additionally, sociolinguistic theory provides insights into why writers in business and other professions (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jacopo Romoli (2013). A Scalar Implicature-Based Approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (4):291-353.score: 18.0
    In this paper, I give an analysis of neg-raising inferences as scalar implicatures. The main motivation for this account as opposed to a presupposition-based approach like Gajewski (Linguist Philos 30(3):289–328, 2007) comes from the differences between presuppositions and neg-raising inferences. In response to this issue, Gajewski (2007) argues that neg-raising predicates are soft presuppositional triggers and adopts the account of how their presuppositions arise by Abusch (J Semantics 27(1):1–44, 2010). However, I argue that there is a difference between soft triggers (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. A. Cohen (2005). More Than Bare Existence: An Implicature of Existential Bare Plurals. Journal of Semantics 22 (4):389-400.score: 18.0
    Existential bare plurals (e.g. dogs) have the same semantics as explicit existentials (e.g. a dog or some dogs) but different pragmatics. In addition to entailing the existence of a set of individuals, existential bare plurals implicate that this set is suitable for some purpose. The suitability implicature is a form of what has been variously called informativeness-based or R-based implicature. Condoravdi (1992, 1994) and others have claimed that bare plurals have a third reading (in addition to the generic (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Naoko Taguchi, Shuai Li & Yan Liu (2013). Comprehension of Conversational Implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics and Cognition 21 (1):139-157.score: 18.0
    This study examined the ability to comprehend conventional and non-conventional implicatures, and the effect of proficiency and learning context (foreign language learners vs. heritage learners) on comprehension of implicature in L2 Chinese. Participants were three groups of college students of Chinese: elementary-level foreign language learners ( n =21), advanced-level foreign language learners ( n =25), and advanced-level heritage learners ( n =25). They completed a 36-item computer-delivered listening test measuring their ability to comprehend three types of implicature: conventional (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Ira Noveck (2001). When Children Are More Logical Than Adults: Experimental Investigations of Scalar Implicature. Cognition 78 (2):165-188.score: 18.0
    A conversational implicature is an inference that consists in attributing to a speaker an implicit meaning that goes beyond the explicit linguistic meaning of an utterance. This paper experimentallyinvestigates scalar implicature, a paradigmatic case of implicature in which a speaker's use of a term like Some indicates that the speaker had reasons not to use a more informative one from the samescale, e.g. All; thus, Some implicates Not all. Pragmatic theorists like Grice would predict that a pragmatic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Mark Jary (2013). Two Types of Implicature: Material and Behavioural. Mind and Language 28 (5):638-660.score: 18.0
    This article argues that what Grice termed ‘particularized conversational implicatures’ can be divided into two types. In some cases, it is possible to reconstruct the inference from the explicit content of the utterance to the implicature without employing a premise to the effect that that the speaker expressed that content (by means of an utterance). I call these ‘material implicatures’. Those whose reconstruction relies on a premise about the speaker's verbal behaviour, by contrast, I call ‘behavioural implicatures’. After showing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.) (2007). Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 18.0
    All humans can interpret sentences of their native language quickly and without effort. Working from the perspective of generative grammar, the contributors investigate three mental mechanisms, widely assumed to underlie this ability: compositional semantics, implicature computation and presupposition computation. This volume brings together experts from semantics and pragmatics to bring forward the study of interconnections between these three mechanisms. The contributions develop new insights into important empirical phenomena; for example, approximation, free choice, accommodation, and exhaustivity effects.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Kent Bach, Ten More Misconceptions About Implicature.score: 16.0
    1. Sentences have implicatures. (11, 14, 19)** 2. Implicatures are inferences. (12. 14) 3. Implicatures can’t be entailments. 4. Gricean maxims apply only to implicatures. (16, 17) 5. For what is implicated to be figured out, what is said must be determined first. (12, 13) 6. All pragmatic implications are implicatures. 7. Implicatures are not part of the truth-conditional contents of utterances. (20) 8. If something is meant but unsaid, it must be implicated. (20) 9. Scalar “implicatures” are implicatures. (11) (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons & Judith Tonhauser, Presupposition, Conventional Implicature, and Beyond: A Unified Account of Projection.score: 16.0
    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. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Danny Fox, Implicature Calculation, Pragmatics or Syntax, or Both?score: 16.0
    The neo-Gricean account: the source of these scalar implicatures is a reasoning process (undertaken by the hearer), which culminates in an inference about the belief state of the speaker.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Anna Papafragou, From Scalar Semantics to Implicature : Children's Interpretation of Aspectuals.score: 16.0
    One of the tasks of language learning is the discovery of the intricate division of labour between the lexical-semantic content of an expression and the pragmatic inferences the expression can be used to convey. Here we investigate experimentally the development of the semantics– pragmatics interface, focusing on Greek-speaking five-year-olds’ interpretation of aspectual expressions such as arxizo (‘ start ’) and degree modifiers such as miso (‘ half ’) and mexri ti mesi (‘ halfway ’). Such expressions are known to give (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Christopher Potts, 106. Conventional Implicature and Expressive Content.score: 16.0
    This article presents evidence that individual words and phrases can contribute multiple independent pieces of meaning simultaneously. Such multidimensionality is a unifying theme of the literature on conventional implicatures and expressives. I use phenomena from discourse, semantic composition, and morphosyntax to detect and explore various dimensions of meaning. I also argue that, while the meanings involved are semantically independent, they interact pragmatically to reduce underspecification and fuel pragmatic enrichment. In this article, the central case studies are appositives like Falk, the (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Kent Bach (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4):327-366.score: 15.0
    Grice’s distinction between what is said and what is implicated has greatly clarified our understanding of the boundary between semantics and pragmatics. Although border disputes still arise and there are certain difficulties with the distinction itself (see the end of §1), it is generally understood that what is said falls on the semantic side and what is implicated on the pragmatic side. But this applies only to what is..
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Michael Blome-Tillmann (2008). Conversational Implicature and the Cancellability Test. Analysis 68 (2):156-160.score: 15.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Christopher Potts (2007). Into the Conventional-Implicature Dimension. Philosophy Compass 2 (4):665–679.score: 15.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Robyn Carston (2004). Truth-Conditional Content and Conversational Implicature. In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Csli. 65--100.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Stephen J. Barker (2000). Is Value Content a Component of Conventional Implicature? Analysis 60 (267):268–279.score: 15.0
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Thomas D. Bontly (2005). Conversational Implicature and the Referential Use of Descriptions. Philosophical Studies 125 (1):1 - 25.score: 15.0
    This paper enters the continuing fray over the semantic significance of Donnellan’s referential/attributive distinction. Some holdthat the distinction is at bottom a pragmatic one: i.e., that the difference between the referential use and the attributive use arises at the level of speaker’s meaning rather the level of sentence-or utterance-meaning. This view has recently been challenged byMarga Reimer andMichael Devitt, both of whom argue that the fact that descriptions are regularly, that is standardly, usedto refer defeats the pragmatic approach. The present (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Mitchell S. Green (2007). Direct Reference Empty Names and Implicature. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (3):419-37.score: 15.0
    Angle Grinder Man removes wheel locks from cars in London.1 He is something of a folk hero, saving drivers from enormous parking and towing fi nes, and has succeeded thus far in eluding the authorities. In spite of his cape and lamé tights, he is no fi ction; he’s a real person. By contrast, Pegasus, Zeus and the like are fi ctions. None of them is real. In fact, not only is each of them different from the others, all differ (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Catharine Abell (2005). Pictorial Implicature. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (1):55–66.score: 15.0
  48. Stephen C. Levinson (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Mit Press.score: 15.0
    When we speak, we mean more than we say. In this book Stephen C. Levinson explains some general processes that underlie presumptions in communication.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Mitchell S. Green (1998). Direct Reference and Implicature. Philosophical Studies 91 (1):61-90.score: 15.0
    On some formulations of Direct Reference the semantic value, relative to a context of utterance, of a rigid singular term is just its referent. In response to the apparent possibility of a difference in truth value of two sentences just alike save for containing distinct but coreferential rigid singular terms, some proponents of Direct Reference have held that any two such sentences differ only pragmatically. Some have also held, more specifically, that two such sentences differ by conveying distinct conversational implicata, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Jennifer M. Saul (2001). Critical Studies: Wayne A. Davis, Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Noûs 35 (4):630–641.score: 15.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 350