Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics

By Robyn Carston. 1998

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Linguistics

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. (2003, background): “There is also much important (and related) discussion about whether the derivation of scalar inference relies mostly on (broadly Gricean) informativeness considerations (Horn, 1972; Levinson, 2000), or a post-Gricean relevance-based mechanism ( Carston, 1998, 1988; Sperber & Wilson, 1995).”
The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation (2007, unknown): “The closely related test of cancellability has also been found to be a necessary but not sufficient characteristic for indentifying an implicature, since any meaning that is derived inferentially can only arise in particular contexts, and thus can be cancelled (Carston, 1988, 2002).”
Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but (2000, background): “Within the Relevance theoretic approach to communication developed by Sperber & Wilson (1995) it has been argued that there is a gap between linguistic meaning and the truth conditional content of the assumption explicitly communicated (see in particular, Carston 1988 ), and hence that the linguist”
Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference (2016, background): “Consider the following examples, slightly modified by Carston (1988):”
What Is Said And Psychological Reality; Grice's Project And Relevance Theorists' Criticisms (2002, background): “…standard Gricean distinction between what is said and what is implicated turn, broadly, on the claim that the principles commonly used to draw this distinction are not “appropriate principle[s] for a PSYCHOLOGICALLY plausible theory of utterance interpretation” (Carston 1991: 39 – her emphasis).”
Truthfulness and Relevance (2002, background): “…checking whether the item falls within the scope of logical operators when embedded into a negative or conditional sentence: explicatures fall within the scope of negation and other logical operators, while implicatures do not (Carston 1988; Recanati 1989; Wilson and Sperber 1998; Ifantidou 2001).”