Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122 (2008)
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. I argue further, on the basis of this test, that conversational implicature cannot be used to explain quantifier domain restriction or apparent substitution failures involving coreferential names, but that it must be used to explain the phenomenon of referential uses of definite descriptions. I conclude with a brief discussion of the relevance of this point to the semantics/pragmatics distinction
|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
The Reformulation Argument: Reining in Gricean Pragmatics.Zachary Miller - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (2):525-546.
Frege's Puzzle and Descriptive Enrichment.Jeff Speaks - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):267-282.
Similar books and articles
The Top 10 Minconceptions About Implicature.Kent Bach - 2005 - In Festchrift for Larry Horn. John Benjamins.
A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms.P. X. Monaghan - 2010 - Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
A Problem About Conversational Implicature.Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward - 1979 - Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1):19 - 25.
Drawing the Line Between Meaning and Implicature—and Relating Both to Assertion.Scott Soames - 2008 - Noûs 42 (3):440-465.
Truth-Conditional Content and Conversational Implicature.Robyn Carston - 2004 - In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. CSLI Publications. pp. 65--100.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads156 ( #29,831 of 2,168,588 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #49,941 of 2,168,588 )
How can I increase my downloads?