The Argument From Binding*

Elbourne, Paul

doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00142.x

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For further discussion of degrees of strength of implicature, see Sperber andWilson (1986/1995: 197-202;2008). Another respect in which the way implicatures are construed in relevance theory differs from the Gricean conception is that entailments can, on occasion, be implicated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3. Implicature and explicature

Carston¹,

Hall²

2012

Cognitive Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8. Different versions of this proposal have the hidden indexical attached to the nominal (Stanley and Szabó 2000), the determiner (von Fintel 1994;Martí 2003;Elbourne 2008), or adjoinable in different positions (Stanley 2005). 9.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

3. Implicature and explicature

Carston¹,

Hall²

2012

Cognitive Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Yet this is a significant omission in many discussions of free enrichment by semantically-oriented theorists. Here I just discuss one example, from Elbourne (2008), which illustrates this well.…”

Section: The Systematicity Issue Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…But what emerges from the discussion of Stanley (2002) and Elbourne (2008) is that it is not enough for the contextualist to define enrichment as not including adding these extra propositions or semantic arguments or predicates. They claim that a theory that posits these powerful pragmatic processes able to freely enter into truthconditional content without any linguistic mandate, appears to contain nothing to exclude extra propositions that are salient, relevant, etc., from similarly 'intruding'.…”

Section: A Solution To the Overgeneration Objection 31 Excluding Glomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned in section 1, it is one of the more plausible candidates for being underpinned by covert linguistic structure, though the seemingly intractable question of where to locate the variables -on the determiner, on the noun, adjoinable in different sites (the latter being Stanley's latest position: Stanley 2007: 223, note 15) -increases the appeal of the conclusion that there aren't any. The reason I'm using an example of domain restriction to illustrate this methodological point about the explanatory power of free enrichment is that it is widely considered a knockdown example against the enrichment approach to quantifier domain restriction (Elbourne 2008;Partee 2009: 6; several other people in conversation). So even if it turns out that this is an instance of saturation, that will be the result of other evidence (for example, weak crossover, mentioned in a footnote in section 1), which will not affect the conclusion I aim to establish, which is that these overgeneration claims fail because they seriously underestimate the resources of the pragmatic approach.…”

Section: The Systematicity Issue Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Free’ Enrichment and the Nature of Pragmatic Constraints

Hall

2014

Int Rev Pragmat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contextualist approach to utterance interpretation posits processes of “free” pragmatic enrichment that supply unarticulated constituents of the explicit content of utterances. While this proposal is faithful to our intuitions about the truth conditions of utterances, and accommodates the optionality of these pragmatic effects, there remains a doubt about whether contextualism can account in any principled way for what pragmatically derived material enters into explicit content, and what does not. This gap in the theory leads to objections that the putative process of pragmatic enrichment would massively overgenerate interpretations of utterances, having no way to exclude from explicit content elements of meaning that are truth-conditionally irrelevant. Here I discuss how a derivational account can sort explicit content from implicatures, where the former is a result of “developing” the linguistically-encoded form, while implicatures are entirely inferred, from fully propositional premises. Using the idea that enrichment is constrained to the minimum necessary to inferentially warrant the implications of the utterance, I show how the derivational account can address existing examples of alleged overgeneration, and that these rest on a failure to properly appreciate that the occurrence of such “free” pragmatic processes depends on the details of the particular context in which the utterance was tokened. I conclude with a discussion of what kind of systematicity should be expected from an account of processes whose outcome is inevitably context-specific.

show abstract

What the Weatherman Said: Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism

Rahman

2021

Logic, Argumentation &Amp; Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Argument From Binding*

Cited by 18 publications

References 33 publications

3. Implicature and explicature

3. Implicature and explicature

‘Free’ Enrichment and the Nature of Pragmatic Constraints

What the Weatherman Said: Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About