Advertisement

Conversational Implicatures of Normative Discourse

  • Francesca PoggiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

Grice (1967) formulated his famous maxims having mainly in mind the assertive discourse, i.e. a discourse which aims to inform, and can be true or false. However, as it is well known, norms do not aim to inform: they aim to guide behaviours, and, therefore, they are neither true nor false. However, Grice conceived of the cooperative principle as a general principle that also guides non-assertive conversations. Following a classical Gricean approach (although with some modifications), this essay aims to restate Gricean conversational maxims in order to make them applicable to normative discourse. The restatement will also seek to shed new light on debated issues of normative discourse, such as the relation of sub-contrariety between deontic concepts or the distinction between commands, on the one hand, and suggestions and requests, on the other. Moreover, it provides some clues to reconstruct the mechanisms through which we usually interpret certain utterances as normative, i.e. as instances of a normative discourse.

Keywords

Grice Conversational implicature Normative discourse Deontic logic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this essay was delivered on 19thMay2016at the International Conference Pragmasophia (Palermo, Italy) and on 24thNovember 2016at a seminar which took place at Jagiellonian University (Kracow, Poland).I would like to thank all the members of the audience for discussion, and in particular Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki and Andrzej Grabowsk for their useful comments and criticisms.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1969. Logic of Norms and Logic of Normative propositions. Logique & Analyse 12, 242–268.Google Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, Carlos E, Bulygin, Eugenio. 1981.The Expressive Conception of Norms. In:Hilpinen, R. (Ed.),New Studies in Deontic Logic.Holland, Dordrecht: pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. 1957.Intention.Basil Blackwell,Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Atlas, Jay D. 1993. The Implication of Conversation: the 1990 Leuven Lectures.Pomona College, Claremont.Google Scholar
  5. Atlas, Jay D. 2005.Logic, Meaning and Conversation.OUP, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atlas, Jay D., Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. It-Clefts, Informativeness, and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics. In: Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York: pp. 1–61.Google Scholar
  7. Bach, Kent. 1994.Conversationalimplicature. Mind& Language 9, 124–162.Google Scholar
  8. Bach, Kent. 1997.The semantic-pragmatic distinction: What it is and why it matters. Pragmatik 8, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bach, Kent, Harnish, Robert M. 1979.Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press,Cambridge (Mass.)-London.Google Scholar
  10. Barberis, Mauro. 2003.Filosofia Del Diritto. Un’introduzione Teorica. Giappichelli,Torino.Google Scholar
  11. Bentham, Jeremy. 2010.Of the limits of the penal branch of jurisprudence. P. Schofield (Ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2008. Conversationalimplicature and the cancellability test. Analysis68 (2), 156–160.Google Scholar
  13. Borge, Steffen. 2009. Conversationalimplicatures andcancellability. Acta Analytica 24 (2), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bulygin, Eugenio. 1982. Norms, Normative Propositions and Legal Statements. In:Fløistad, G. (Ed.),Contemporary Philosophy. A New Survey, vol. 3, Philosophy of Action.MartinusNijhoff Publishers, The Hague-Boston-London: pp. 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics. In:Kempson,R.M. (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge: 155–181.Google Scholar
  16. Carston, Robyn. 1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96,213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Celano, Bruno. 1994.Dialettica Della GiustificazionePratica,Giappichelli, Torino.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, Donald.1984.Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation.OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, Wayne A. 1998.Implicature, Intention, Convention and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory.Cambridge University Press.Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. Academic Press,New York.Google Scholar
  21. Geach, Peter Thomas. 1963.Imperative Inference. Analysis (Suppl.) 23,37–42.Google Scholar
  22. Green, Mitchell S. 2007.Moorean Absurdity and Showing What’s Within. In: Green,M.S.,Williams,G.N. (Eds.), Moore’s Paradox. Clarendon Press, Oxford: pp. 189–214.Google Scholar
  23. Grice, Paul H. 1967.Logic and Conversation.In Cole,P., andMorgan,J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3, Speech Acts.Academic Press,New York-London: 1975, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in Grice 1989, pp.22–40.Google Scholar
  24. Grice, Paul H. 1969. Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions. Philosophical Review 78: 147–177. Reprinted in Grice 1989: pp. 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grice, Paul H. 1989.Studies in the Way of Words.Harvard University Press,Cambridge-London.Google Scholar
  26. Guastini, Riccardo. 1990. Dalle fonti alle norme. Giappichelli,Torino.Google Scholar
  27. Hare, Richard Mervyn. 1949.Imperative Sentences. Mind 58,21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hare, Richard Mervyn. 1952. The Language of Morals. Clarendon Press,Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Hintikka, Kaarlo Jaakko Juhani.1974.Questions about Questions. In:Muniz, M.K., Unger,P.K. (Eds.),Semantics and Philosophy. New York University Press,New York:pp. 103–138.Google Scholar
  30. Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. A Theory of Scalar Implicature.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  31. Horn, Laurence R. 1972.On the semantic properties of logical operator in English.Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  32. Horn, Laurence R.1989.A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Humberstone, Lloyd. 1992.Direction of Fit.Mind 101,59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jørgensen, Jørgen. 1937. Imperatives and Logic.Erkenntnis 7,288–296.Google Scholar
  35. Kempson, Ruth M. 1975.Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Kempson, Ruth M. 1986.Ambiguity and Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction. In: Travis,C. (Ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Blackwell,Oxford:77–104.Google Scholar
  37. Kenny, Anthony. 1963.Action, Emotion and Will. Routledge&Kegan Paul,London.Google Scholar
  38. Kobes, Bernard W. 1995. Telic Higher-order Thoughts and Moore’s Paradox.Philosophical Perspectives9,291–312.Google Scholar
  39. Leonard, Henry S. 1959.Interrogatives, Imperatives, Truth, Falsity and Lies.Philosophy of Science26,172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000.Presumptive Meaning. MIT Press,Cambridge-London.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, David, 1969.Convention. Harvard University Press,Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  43. Pistoia Reda, Salvatore. 2014. Semantica E Pragmatica Linguistica: Tracce Di Normalità Nelle Implicature Scalari. Carocci,Roma.Google Scholar
  44. Poggi, Francesca. 2000.“Obbligatorio” implica “permesso”.Analisi e diritto 2000,195–215.Google Scholar
  45. Poggi, Francesca, 2004a. Norme Permissive.Giappichelli,Torino.Google Scholar
  46. Poggi, Francesca, 2004b. I Permessi nel diritto.Materiali Per Una Storia Della Cultura Giuridica 3(1), pp.147–187.Google Scholar
  47. Poggi, Francesca, 2016. Grice, the Law and the Linguistic Special Case Thesis.In: Capone, A., Poggi, F. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives. Springer,Dordrecht, pp. 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ratti, Giovanni Battista. 2016. “Obligatorio” implica “Permitido”. ¿Implicación formal o material?, Analisi e diritto 2016, 419–425.Google Scholar
  49. Récanati, François. 1980.Some Remarks on Explicit Performatives, Indirect Speech Acts, Locutionary Meaning and Truth-Value. In:Bierwisc,M.,Kieferand,F., Searle,J.R. (Eds.),Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. D. Reidel Publishing Company,Dordrecht-Boston-London: pp. 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Recanati, François. 2013. Content, Mood, and Force.In: Barnes, E. (Ed.), Philosophy Compass,Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (NJ): pp. 622–632.Google Scholar
  51. Reimer, Marga.1998.Whatismeant by “Whatissaid”. A reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Mind&Language 13 (4), 598–604.Google Scholar
  52. Ross, Alf. 1968.Directives and Norms.Routledge&Kegan Paul,London.Google Scholar
  53. Rysiew, Patrick. 2007. Beyond words: Communication, truthfulness, and understanding.Episteme 4,285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sadock, Jerrold M.1981. Almost. In: Cole, P.(Ed.), Radical Pragmatics.Academic Press,New York:pp. 281–297.Google Scholar
  55. Sardo, Alessio. 2016. The Dark Side of Imperatives. In: Poggi, F., Capone, A. (Eds.), Law and Pragmatics: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht: pp. 243–271.Google Scholar
  56. Schiffer, Stephen R. 1972.Meaning.Clarendon Press,Oxford.Google Scholar
  57. Searle, John R. 1969.Speech Acts.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Searle, John R. 1975a.A Taxonomy of Illocutory Acts. In: Gunderson,K. (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge.University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis: pp. 344–369.Google Scholar
  59. Searle, John R. 1975b. Indirect Speech Acts. In:Cole, P., Morgan,J.L.(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics – Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York-London: pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
  60. Searle, John R., Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundation of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  61. Soames, Scott. 1982.How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem.Linguistic Inquiry 13,483–545.Google Scholar
  62. Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1973. Austin and “locutionary meaning”. In: Berlin, I et al. (Eds.),Essays on J.L. Austin. Clarendon Press, Oxford: pp. 46–68.Google Scholar
  63. Villa, Vittorio. 2004.Il Positivismo Giuridico: Metodi, Teorie E Giudizi Di Valore. GiappichelliTorino.Google Scholar
  64. Warnock, Geoffrey James. 1971.The Object of Morality. Methuen,London.Google Scholar
  65. Weiner, Matthew. 2006. Are allconversationalimplicaturescancellable? Analysis 66 (2), 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980.Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. I. G. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wright, Georg Henrik von. 1963. Norm and Action. A Logical Enquiry.Routledge&Kegan Paul,London.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, Georg Henrik von. 1969. On the Logic and Ontology of Norms. In:Davis, J.W., Hockney,D.J.,Wilson,W.K. (Eds.),Philosophical Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht: pp. 89–107.Google Scholar
  69. Wright, Georg Henrik von. 1983. Practical Reason.Blackwell,Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department “Cesare Beccaria”Università degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations