Pragmatik pp 92-102 | Cite as

On Non-Truth Conditional Meaning

  • Diane Blakemore
Part of the Linguistische Berichte book series (LINGB)


For some time now semanticists have been concerned with a range of phenomena which suggest that linguistic meaning cannot be defined in terms of truth conditions. Some phenomena have become more notorious than others, and different writers have their different favourites. For example, speech act theorists have tended to focus their attention on illocutionary adverbials like the one in (1) and attitudinal adverbials such as the one in (2) (see Bach & Harnish 1979, Urmson 1963). Those working in Gricean pragmatics have been more interested in a range of so-called ‘little’ words which include the ones in (3–5) (see Grice 1989, Karttunen & Peters 1975). And in discourse theory and theories of text representation, where the interest in non-truth conditionality is perhaps more incidental, the focus is on so-called discourse connectives like the ones in (4–6) and particles like the one in (7) (see Knott & Dale 1994, Fraser 1990, Schiffrin 1987).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach, K. & R. Harnish: (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blakemore, D.L. (1987): Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Blakemore, D.L. (1988a): “So as a constraint on relevance”. In: R. Kempson, ed.: Mental Representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183196.Google Scholar
  4. Blakemore, D.L. (1988b): “The organization of discourse”. In: F. Newmeyer, ed.: Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blakemore, D.L. (1992): Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Blakemore, D.L. (forthcoming): “Are reformulation markers discourse markers?”. To appear in: Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  7. Carston, R. (1988): “Implicature, explicature and truth theoretic semantics”. In: R. Kempson, ed.: Mental Representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–82.Google Scholar
  8. Carston, R. (1993): “Conjunction, explanation and relevance”. Lingua 90 (1/2), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carston, R. (forthcoming): “Quantity maxims and generalised implicature”. To appear in: Lingua. Dummett, M. (1973): Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  10. Espinal, M. Teresa (1991): “The representation of disjunct constituents”. Language 67 (4), 726–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabb, N. (1990): “The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses”. Journal of Linguistics 26 (1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. (1990): “An approach to discourse markers”. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice, H.P. (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Haegeman, L. (1988): “Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach”. In: S. Chiba et al., ds.: Aspects of Modern English Linguistics: papers presented to Nasdano Uhagi on his 60th birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakushi, 232–254.Google Scholar
  15. Hobbs, J. (1979): “Coherence and co-reference”. Cognitive Sciences 3, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ifantidou, E. (1994): Evidentials and Relevance. University of London PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  17. Karttunen, L. (1974): “On pragmatic and semantic aspects of meaning”. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Philosophy Colloquium.Google Scholar
  18. Karttunen, L. & S. Peters (1975): “Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar”. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1, 266–278.Google Scholar
  19. Knott, A. & R. Dale (1994): “Using a set of linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations”. Discourse Processes 18, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schiffrin, D. (1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986): Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stalnaker, R. (1974): “Pragmatic presupposition”. In: M. Munitz & P. Unger, eds.: Semantics and Phi-Google Scholar
  22. losophy: Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197–213.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1993): “Linguistic form and relevance”. Lingua 90, 5–25.Google Scholar
  24. Urmson, J. (1963): “Parenthetical verbs”. In: C. Caton, ed.: Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 220–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Blakemore
    • 1
  1. 1.SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations