What is said
Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8):969-991 (2002)
AbstractA common misunderstanding of Grice's distinction between <br>saying and implicating is that the hearer in a conversation <br>needs to use what is said in a calculation to determine what <br>is implicated. This mistake lead some to misconstrue the relation <br>between pragmatics and semantics.
Similar books and articles
Conversational implicature, thought, and communication.Jeff Speaks - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122.
Rationality and Conversation: A Thesis on Grice’s Theory of Conversation.Matthew D. Schoolfield - unknown
Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.Robyn Carston - 2004 - In . pp. 155--181.
Situated inference versus conversational implicature.Christopher Gauker - 2001 - Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature.Robyn Carston - 2004 - In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. CSLI Publications. pp. 65--100.
Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated.Jennifer M. Saul - 2002 - Noûs 36 (2):228–248.
Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface.Jay David Atlas - 2000 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Turning speaker meaning on its head: Non-verbal communication an intended meanings.Marta Dynel - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (3):422-447.
References found in this work
No references found.