Mind and Language 21 (2):166–186 (2006)
Gricean pragmatics seems to pose a dilemma. If semantics is limited to the conventional meanings of types of expressions, then the semantics of an utterance does not determine what is said. If all that figures in the determination of what is said counts as semantics, then pragmatic reasoning about the specific intentions of a speaker intrudes on semantics. The dilemma is false. Key points: Semantics need not determine what is said, and the description, with which the hearer begins, need not provide the hearer with knowledge of what was said, or the ability to express what was said, from the hearer's context.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
On Quantifier Domain Restriction.Jason Stanley & Zoltan Gendler Szabó - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (2‐3):219-261.
Citations of this work BETA
Are Explicit Performatives Assertions?Mark Jary - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2):207 - 234.
Same-Saying, Pluri-Propositionalism, and Implicatures.Eros Corazza - 2012 - Mind and Language 27 (5):546-569.
How Demonstrative Pictorial Reference Grounds Contextualism.Alberto Voltolini - 2009 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (3):402-418.
Similar books and articles
The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface From Different Points of View.Ken Turner (ed.) - 1999 - Elsevier.
Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.Robyn Carston - 2008 - Synthese 165 (3):321-345.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads80 ( #64,987 of 2,164,580 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #347,995 of 2,164,580 )
How can I increase my downloads?