Grice coined the term ‘conventional implicature’ in a short passage in ‘Logic and conversation’. The description is intuitive and deeply intriguing. The range of phenomena that have since been assigned this label is large and diverse. I survey the central factual motivation, arguing that it is loosely uni- fied by the idea that conventional implicatures contribute a separate dimen- sion of meaning. I provide tests for distinguishing conventional implicatures from other kinds of meaning, and I briefly explore ways in which (...) one can incorporate multiple dimensions of meaning into a single theory. (shrink)

Las conjunciones coordinantes adversativas son estructuras coordinantes que conllevan necesariamente un contraste entre dos elementos relacionados con los enunciados que unen. El contraste es un concepto heterogéneo, ya que podemos identificar tres tipos de contraste : restrictivo, correctivo y aditivo. Propondremos una interpretación semántica para cada tipo de contraste, y defenderemos el carácter presuposicional del contraste restrictivo. Con ello, pondremos de relieve que el discurso en el que se insertan las conjunciones coordinantes adversativas debe plantear alternativas que, cuando el tipo (...) de contraste no está unívocamente lexicalizado, guían la interpretación de las conjunciones coordinantes adversativas. (shrink)

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..

Adversative coordinative conjunctions necessarily involve a contrast between two elements related to the utterances they coordinate. Contrast is a heterogeneous concept. In this article, three types of contrast are identified: restrictive, corrective and additive. These types give rise to three different readings of the adversative coordinative conjunctions. In this work, a semantic function for each type of contrast is proposed, and the presuppositional character of restrictive contrast is defended. These hypotheses lead us towards the discourses in which the coordinative adversative (...) conjuncts are inserted. The discourse has to contain alternatives such that when the type of contrast is not univocally lexicalized, the alternatives will guide the interpretation of the conjunction. (shrink)