What‐is‐Said From Different Points of View

Abstract

‘What‐is‐said’ was introduced as a technical term by Paul Grice in his William James lectures of 1967 as a way of drawing the line between what we know upon hearing an utterance based on our knowledge of the language, and ‘what is implicated’, i.e. what we can infer from the fact that an utterance has been made in context. Sometimes identified with the truth‐conditional or propositional content of an utterance, ‘what‐is‐said’ is nowadays hotly contested between literalist and contextualist approaches to meaning and has been variously reformulated or even downright rejected. This article summarizes the relevant debates in post‐Gricean pragmatics and presents some empirical evidence in favor of a literalist conception of ‘what‐is‐said’ as the content of the speaker’s locutionary act, which is prior to pragmatic enrichment and not cancellable.

Are false implicatures lies? An empirical investigation

“…Using numerous courtroom and literary encounters to highlight the importance of this 4 Definitions of what is said in the literature range from minimalist, subpropositional ones (Bach, 2001) to more inflationary accounts (Recanati, 2001), while other scholars (e.g., Carston, 1999) challenge the usefulness of this notion altogether. For an overview, see Terkourafi (2010). 5 For others (e.g., Bach, 2001) WIS does not need to be propositional in this way.…”

“…Definitions of what is said in the literature range from minimalist, subpropositional ones (Bach, ) to more inflationary accounts (Recanati, ), while other scholars (e.g., Carston, ) challenge the usefulness of this notion altogether. For an overview, see Terkourafi ().…”

Konzepte des Lügens

“…Semantik-Pragmatik-Verhältnis: In der minimalistischen Sicht von Grice (1989aGrice ( , 1989bGrice ( , 1989c (Terkourafi 2010 (Levinson 2000;Carston 2002;Recanati 2004;Bach 2010). Es gibt sehr viele kontextualistische Ansätze, deren systematischer Vergleich ein Gegenstand anhaltender Kontroversen ist (vgl.…”