Linguistic form and relevance

Wilson, Deirdre; Sperber, Dan

doi:10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5

Cited by 583 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

219

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, as Wilson and Sperber (1993) have pointed out, another feature of but and other connectives that is accommodated better by a procedural account than a conceptual one is that they don't interact with other words so that their meanings modify each other. Concepts combine systematically with other concepts to form larger conceptual representations.…”

Section: Bmentioning

confidence: 93%

Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures?

Hall

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Bmentioning

confidence: 93%

Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures?

Hall

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The distinction between truth-conditional and nontruth-conditional uses of 'frankly' is expressed within the relevance theoretic framework in terms of the dichotomy between conceptual and procedural meaning; for discussion, see for instanceBlakemore (1987),Wilson and Sperber (1993),Fraser (1996),Rieber (1997), andBach (1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a semantics for biscuit conditionals

Predelli

2007

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay proposes a semantic analysis of biscuit-conditionals, such as Austin's classic example ''there are biscuits in the cupboard if you want some''. The analysis is grounded on the ideas of contextual restrictions, and of non-character encoded aspects of meaning, and provides a rigorous framework for the widespread intuitions that (i) the if-clause in a biscuit-conditional is truth-conditionally idle, but (ii) it 'qualifies' the speech-act in question. In the concluding section of this essay, the analysis is also applied to the importantly similar phenomenon of speech-act adverbs.

show abstract

“…Within a relevance-theoretic framework, this double speech-act approach to parentheticals has been recast in terms of the distinction between the explicature which carries the main relevance of the utterance and the explicature whose relevance lies in its contribution to the way in which the main explicature is interpreted for relevance (see Blakemore, 1990Blakemore, /1991Ifantidou-Trouki, 1993;Wilson and Sperber, 1993;Ifantidou, 2001). The utterance in (49a) will be understood as communicating the explicatures in (50).…”

Section: The Relevance Of Parentheticalsmentioning

confidence: 99%