Abstract
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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bach, K. & R. Harnish: (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Blakemore, D.L. (1987): Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Blakemore, D.L. (1988b): “The organization of discourse”. In: F. Newmeyer, ed.: Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229–250.
Blakemore, D.L. (1992): Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D.L. (forthcoming): “Are reformulation markers discourse markers?”. To appear in: Journal of Linguistics.
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.
Carston, R. (1993): “Conjunction, explanation and relevance”. Lingua 90 (1/2), 27–48.
Carston, R. (forthcoming): “Quantity maxims and generalised implicature”. To appear in: Lingua. Dummett, M. (1973): Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.
Espinal, M. Teresa (1991): “The representation of disjunct constituents”. Language 67 (4), 726–762.
Fabb, N. (1990): “The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses”. Journal of Linguistics 26 (1), 57–78.
Fraser, B. (1990): “An approach to discourse markers”. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383–395.
Grice, H.P. (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
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.
Hobbs, J. (1979): “Coherence and co-reference”. Cognitive Sciences 3, 67–90.
Ifantidou, E. (1994): Evidentials and Relevance. University of London PhD thesis.
Karttunen, L. (1974): “On pragmatic and semantic aspects of meaning”. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Philosophy Colloquium.
Karttunen, L. & S. Peters (1975): “Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar”. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1, 266–278.
Knott, A. & R. Dale (1994): “Using a set of linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations”. Discourse Processes 18, 35–62.
Schiffrin, D. (1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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-
losophy: Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197–213.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1993): “Linguistic form and relevance”. Lingua 90, 5–25.
Urmson, J. (1963): “Parenthetical verbs”. In: C. Caton, ed.: Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 220–240.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blakemore, D. (1997). On Non-Truth Conditional Meaning. In: Rolf, E. (eds) Pragmatik. Linguistische Berichte. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_6
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-13105-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-663-11116-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive