Advertisement

On the Nature of Pragmatic Increments at the Truth-Conditional Level

  • Alessandro Capone
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 22)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to reflect on the necessity of the pragmatic development of propositional forms and to reach a better understanding of the level of meaning that Sperber and Wilson and Carston famously call ‘explicatures’ (or ‘explicature’) and to support the claim that (the pragmatically conveyed elements of) explicatures are not cancellable – unlike conversational implicatures (Someone alleged that my claim is not original; however, I have to modestly assert that I put forward this claim in my 2003 paper, which was revised and reprinted in 2006.). While Capone (RASK: Int J Lang Commun 19:3–32, 2003) (A paper that antecedes Burton-Roberts claim that explicatures are non-cancellable.) addressed the issue of the cancellability of explicatures from the point of view of Grice’s circle, a number of important theoretical questions are raised and discussed here. In particular, I propose that the analysis of the notion of intentionality and of the nature of pragmatic intrusion will settle the question concerning the non-cancellability of explicatures. An explicature can be considered to be a two-level entity, in that it consists of a logical form and a pragmatic increment which this logical form gives rise to (in the context of utterance). However, both the initial logical form and the pragmatic increment are the target of pragmatic processes, in that we need a pragmatic process to promote the initial logical form to a serious intended interpretation and another pragmatic process to derive further increments starting from this initial logical form and being promoted to serious utterance interpretations.

References

  1. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (1994). “Conversational impliciture”. Mind and Language 9. 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, Kent (1998). “Review of Thornstein, F. and Gundel, J. eds, Reference and referent accessibility”. Pragmatics & Cognition 8, 335–338.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Kent (2001), Semantically speaking. In Kenesei, I. & Harnish, R.M., eds., Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse. A festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,146–170.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, K. (2006). “Impliciture vs. Explicature: What’s the difference? Workshop on “Explicit communication””, May 31–June 2 2006, University of Granada.Google Scholar
  6. Bezuidenhout, A. (1997). “Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction”. Mind 106, 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakemore, D. (2000). “Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but”. Journal of Linguistics 36. 463–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blakemore, D. and Carston, R. (2005). “The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and∗”. Lingua 115/4. 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borg, E. (2006). “Intention-based semantics”. In E. Lepore and B. Smith, (eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burton-Roberts, N. (1994). “Ambiguity, sentence and utterance: a representational approach”. Transactions of the Philological Society 92/2, 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton-Roberts, N. (2005). “Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics, and ‘encoding’”. Journal of Linguistics 41. 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burton-Roberts, N. (2006). “Cancellation and intention”. Newcastle University, School of English, Mn. To be published in the Newcastle working papers in linguistics. To appear in E. Romero & B. Soria (eds.). Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics. London, Plagrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Burton-Roberts, N. (2007). “Varieties of semantics and encoding: negation, narrowing/loosening and numericals”. In N. Burton-Roberts, (ed.), Advances in pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 90–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capone, A. (2003). “On Grice’s circle (further considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate)”. RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication 19, 3–32.Google Scholar
  16. Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1355–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Capone, A. (2006). “On Grice’s circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type)”. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 645–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Capone, A. (2008a). “Belief reports and pragmatic intrusion: the case of null appositives”. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1019–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capone, A. (2008b). Review of Insensitive Semantics. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  20. Capone, Alessandro. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: a defence of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2006a). “The myth of unarticulated constituents”. Rutgers University Mn.Google Scholar
  23. Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2006b). “Reply to Bach”. PPR Symposium on Insensitive semantics.Google Scholar
  24. Carpintero, Manuel Garcia, 2001. Gricean rational reconstructions and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 128, 93–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carston, R. (1999). “The semantics/pragmatics distinction”. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Oxford, Elsevier, 85–125.Google Scholar
  26. Carston, R. (2002a) Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carston, R. (2002b). “Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics”. Mind & Language 17, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Carston, Robyn (2004a). “Explicature and semantics”. In S. Davis. & B. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: a reader. Oxford: OUP, 817–845.Google Scholar
  29. Carston, R. (2004b). “Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction”. In L.R. Horn. and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 633–656.Google Scholar
  30. Carston, R. and Powell George (2006). “Relevance theory – new directions and developments”. In E. Lepore, and B. Smith (eds.), Handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  31. Castelfranchi, Cristiano, Paglieri, Fabio (2007). The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155, 237–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cohen, L.J. (1971). “Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language”. In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of natural languages. Dordrech: Reidel, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Corazza, Eros. 2007. “Contextualism, Minimalism, and Situationalism”. Pragmatics & Cognition 15 (1): 115–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dummett, M. (1971). Frege philosophy of language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fodor, J. and Lepore, E. 1991. Why meaning (probably) isn’t conceptual role. Mind & Language 6, 328–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fodor, J. and Lepore, E. (1998). “The emptiness of the lexicon: reflections on James Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon”. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 269–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  40. Heath, J. (1997). “Foundationalism and practical reason”. Mind 106/423, 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang, Y. (2004). “Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory: looking back on the past; looking ahead to the future”. Journal of Foreign languages 149/1, 2–25.Google Scholar
  42. Jaszczolt, K. (1999). Discourse, beliefs and intentions. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default semantics. Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jaszczolt, K. (2006). “Defaults in semantics and pragmatics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  45. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2007). “The syntax/pragmatics merger: belief reports in the theory of default semantics”. Pragmatics & Cognition 15/1, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: a dynamic model of context meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lepore, E. and Ludwig, K. (2005). Donald Davidson. Meaning, truth, language and reality. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyons, J. (1975) Semantics (vol. 1–2). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  51. Marti, L. (2006). “Unarticulated constituents revisited”. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 135–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Montminy, M. (2006). “Semantic content, truth conditions and context”. Linguistics & Philosophy 29, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Powell, J. (2001). “The referential-attributive distinction: a cognitive account”. Pragmatics & Cognition 9/1. 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Recanati, F. (1989). “The pragmatics of what is said”. Mind & Language 4, 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Recanati, F. (2002). “Does linguistic communication rest on inference?” Mind & Language 17, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Recanati, F. (2003). “Embedded implicatures”. Philosophical perspectives 1, 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  58. Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival thought. A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sadock, J. (1978). “On testing for conversational implicature”. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic, 281–298.Google Scholar
  60. Saul, J.. (2002). “Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated”. Nous 36/2, 228–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saul, J. (2004). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics & Philosophy 25/3, 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sperber, D. (1997). “Intuitive and reflective beliefs”. Mind and Language 12/1, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted with postface in 1995.Google Scholar
  64. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2004). “Relevance theory”. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607–632.Google Scholar
  65. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2005). “Pragmatics”. In F. Jackson and M. Smith, Oxford handbook of analytic philosophy. Oxford: OUP, 468–501.Google Scholar
  66. Stainton, Robert J (1994). “Using non-sentences: an application of Relevance Theory”. Pragmatics & Cognition 2(2), pp. 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stainton, Robert. 1998. Quantifier phrases, meaningfulness in isolation and syntactic ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 21/3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stanley, J. and Williamson, T. (2001). “Knowing how”. Journal of Philosophy 98/8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wedgwood, Daniel (2007). Shared assumptions: semantic minimalism and relevance theory. Journal of Linguistics 43, 647–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson, D. (1998a). “Discourse, coherence, and relevance: a reply to Rachel Giora”. Journal of Pragmatics 29, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson, D. (1998b). “Linguistic structure and inferential communication”. In B. Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the 16 th International Congress of Linguists (Paris 20–25 July 1997). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993). “Linguistic form and relevance”. Lingua 90, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2002). “Truthfulness and relevance”. Mind 111, 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Capone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations