3. Implicature and explicature

Carston, Robyn; Hall, Alison

doi:10.1515/9783110214215.47

Cited by 56 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Namely, the relevance of an interpreted text correlates directly with the greatness of its cognitive effects (the implicated conclusions of its interpretation) and inversely with the effort necessary in order to interpret it (Wilson and Sperber 2004: 252-253). 8 For the relevance-theoretic notion of "implicature" see Carston and Hall (2011). Although this presupposition is self-evident to the intuition, the details of its proof go beyond the scope of the present work; I present a proof of this presupposition in my personal website. 9…”

Section: The Sufficiency Claim and Its Proofmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…However, sometimes they present it explicitly; they emphasize, for example, that "A crucial point about the relation between explicatures and implicatures is that implicated conclusions must be deducible from explicatures together with an appropriate set of contextual assumptions" 8 (Sperber and Wilson 2005: 482). Carston presents the principle of deducibility in her survey of relevance theory saying: "The ultimate interpretation should be one in which the explicature together with intended contextual assumptions provides an inferentially sound basis for the implications derived" (Carston and Hall 2011).…”

Section: The Conditions Met By the Addressees' Successful Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency

Azuelos-Atias

2016

Semiotica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present a tool of interpretation that can be applied to legal texts. The tool is intended for people who wish to make sure that they thoroughly understand a certain text -including the meanings hidden between its lines in general, and in particular for legal laypersons who wish to make sure that they thoroughly understand a legal text.I have developed this tool of interpretation from the relevance-theoretic communicative principle of relevance; I will show that the tool supplies a general method of demonstrating that certain meanings (including meta-forms, implications, and socio-semiotic meanings) are hidden in a communicated text. According to relevance theory, the interpretation accepted by the addressees of a spoken utterance reconstructs the speaker's meaning; the tool of interpretation enables other recipients of the utterance's text to identify the addressee's interpretation. This tool consists of three conditions that function as a criterion of correctness of interpretations in the following sense: if an interpretation meets the three conditions then it is the addressee's interpretation -the interpretation that reconstructs the meanings the text's producer intended to convey, whether these meanings were presented explicitly or not.

show abstract

Section: The Sufficiency Claim and Its Proofmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: The Conditions Met By the Addressees' Successful Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency

Azuelos-Atias

2016

Semiotica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is also lively debate within pragmatics which treats and extends the previous issues: for instance, "what is said" vs. explicature, associative vs. inferential method, primary and secondary pragmatic processes, topdown vs. bottom-up processes, explicature vs. impliciture, ad hoc concepts construction, mutual adjustment, backward/forward inference, meta-representations in communication, radical vs. moderate contextualism, etc. Wilson, 1986, 2002;Levinson, 2000;Bezuidenhout, 2002;Recanati, 2007Recanati, , 2010Recanati, , 2012Carston, 2002Carston, , 2007Carston, , 2009Wilson and Carston, 2007;Bach, 2010;Mazzone, 2011;Wilson and Sperber, 2012;Carston and Hall, 2012;Belleri, 2013;Hall, 2014). This article will pay especial attention to the truth-conditional pragmatics of Recanati (2010) and the inferential approach to communication of Sperber and Wilson's (2012) relevance theory.…”

Section: What Is Saidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit Communication: An Interest and Belief-Based Model

2018

Linguis. Philos. Invest.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The paper presents an inferential model of explicit communication based on the speaker's interests and the addressee's beliefs. After the introduction, the paper sets out some notions concerning explicit communication within the frameworks of truth-conditional pragmatics and relevance theory. The third section describes the phenomenon of semantic underdeterminacy, and the fourth section introduces non-demonstrative inferences in communication. The fifth section presents the model. The main notions involved are the speaker's intended meaning and the addressee's intended meaning. The former notion is centered on the speaker's interest in situation: a speaker intends the meaning of an utterance on the basis of a partial order of preference with respect to a set of contextually plausible meanings. The latter notion is centered on the addressee's communicative inference, which is based on the addressee's belief about the speaker's interest. The paper takes the notion of interest from cognitive social theory, the notion of meaning from semantics, and the notion of explicit meaning from pragmatics; and it uses the notion of communicative inference for explicit meaning in partial accordance with relevance theory. In the sixth section, the paper argues in favor of the inferential approach compared with the associative approach in determination of "what is said." The paper's method is conceptual analysis of declarative utterances used in communicative situations. The main finding of the paper has been to show that, in contextual underdeterminacy cases, speaker's interest is a determining factor in communicative processes.

show abstract

“…Instead, hearers identify the words of the initial stretch of the utterance (so-called logical form) and access contextual information, extract an explicit interpretation, and perhaps already derive implicatures from this stretch of the utterance. As in all instances of utterance processing, human cognition takes the decoded linguistic meaning and accessible contextual assumptions as evidence for the interpretation, and this interpretation must ultimately be both inferentially sound and consistent with the presumption of optimal relevance (Carston and Hall 2011). Hearers are not expected to first decode the entire utterance, then enrich it inferentially in order to arrive at the explicature, and only then use the explicature, together with contextual assumptions, to form hypotheses about implicatures.…”

Section: Affective Attitude and Stages Of Irony Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension

Yus

2016

P&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to relevance theory, irony comprehension invariably entails the identification of some opinion or thought (echo) and the identification of the speaker's dissociative attitude. In this paper, it is argued that it is also essential for hearers to identify not only that propositional attitude, but also the affective attitude that the speaker holds towards the source of this echo, so that an optimally relevant interpretive outcome is achieved. The term comprises feelings and emotions of a non-propositional quality which affect the propositional effects obtained in ironical communication. The paper further argues for the need to incorporate non-propositional effects to the traditional propositional object of pragmatic research.

show abstract

3. Implicature and explicature

Cited by 56 publications

References 42 publications

Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency

Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency

Explicit Communication: An Interest and Belief-Based Model

Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About