Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction
In . pp. 155--181 (2004)
It is widely accepted that there is a distinction to be made between the explicit content and the implicit import of an utterance. There is much less agreement about the precise nature of this distinction, how it is to be drawn, and whether any such two-way distinction can do justice to the levels and kinds of meaning involved in utterance interpretation. Grice’s distinction between what is said by an utterance and what is implicated is probably the best known instantiation of the explicit/implicit distinction. His distinction, along with many of its post-Gricean heirs, is closely entwined with another distinction: that between semantics and pragmatics. Indeed, on some construals they are seen as essentially one and the same; “what is said” is equated with the truthconditional content of the utterance which in turn is equated with (context-relative) sentence meaning, leaving implicatures (conventional and conversational) as the sole domain of pragmatics.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Truth-Conditional Content and Conversational Implicature.Robyn Carston - 2004 - In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. CSLI Publications. pp. 65--100.
Virtus Sermonis and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction.Frederic Goubier & Nausicaa Pouscoulous - 2011 - Vivarium 49 (1-3):214-239.
Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.Robyn Carston - 2008 - Synthese 165 (3):321-345.
The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View From Relevance Theory.Robyn Carston - 1999 - In Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface From Different Points of View. Elsevier. pp. 85125.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads129 ( #37,134 of 2,168,628 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,317 of 2,168,628 )
How can I increase my downloads?