Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:45:19.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - The Role of Context in Gricean and Neo-Gricean Pragmatics

from Part III - Pragmatic Approaches to Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Jacques Moeschler
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the role of context in the computation of implicit pragmatic meanings (implicatures). In the classic view of Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatics, conversational implicatures are triggered by the Cooperative Principle and the maxims of conversation, and are defined as non-contextual, with the exception of particularized conversational implicatures (PCIs). On the other hand, it is assumed that generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs) and conventional implicatures (CIs) are not contextual, although GCIs can be defeated by the context or denied by the speaker. This non-contextual approach to pragmatics (the Gricean turn) has given rise to a default approach to implicatures. The second purpose of this chapter is to tackle the contextual dimension of neo-Gricean pragmatics, which has been developed by exponents of neo-Gricean pragmatics. Their approaches to pragmatics, limited to GCIs as scalar implicatures, are based either on pragmatic principles, the Q-Principle and R- or I-principle (Horn, Levinson), or on the reformulation of conversational maxims and reasoning (Gazdar, Chierchia, Fox). It is argued that the focus on GCIs, although it should minimize the role of context in the generation of implicatures, demonstrates on the contrary the pervasive function of context, which is not limited to implicature cancellation.

Keywords

cooperative principlemaxims of conversationgeneralized conversational implicatureconventional implicaturescalar implicaturepragmatic principles
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 183 - 204
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., and Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blochowiak, J., and Castelain, T. (2018). How logical is natural language conjunction? An experimental investigation of the French conjunction et. In Saint-Germier, P. (ed.), Language, Evolution and Mind: Essays in Honour of Anne Reboul (pp. 97–125). London: College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Blochowiak, J., and Grisot, C. (2018). The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: experimental data from French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blochowiak, J., Castelain, T., Rodriguez-Villagra, O. A., and Musolino, J. (2022). If and only if people were logical! The effect of pragmatic enrichment on reasoning with abstract and realistic materials. Journal of Pragmatics, 197, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., and Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inference in face-threatening contexts. Cognition, 112, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., and Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized conversational implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. ( 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, R., Baker, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., and Ward, G. (2009). On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 211–248.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Sauerland, U. and Stateva, P. (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. [1892] (1948). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicatures, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gotzner, N., Solt, S., and Benz, A. (2018). Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1659. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Meaning. In Studies in the Way of Words. (pp. 213–223). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT’84) (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1989. Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures. In Oh, C.-K. and Dinneen, D. A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI: Presuppositions (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2012). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2015). Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2018). A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 58. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2019). Non-Lexical Pragmatics: Time, Causality and Logical Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2021). Why Language? What Pragmatics Tells Us about Language and Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, E. J., Choo, H., and Koh, S. (2013). Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 78(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., and Sperber, D., eds. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., and Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., Chevallier, C., Chevaux, F., Musolino, J., and Bott, L. (2009). Children enrichment of conjunctive sentences in context. In P. De Brabanter M. and M. Kissine (eds.), Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface (pp. 211–234) Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., and Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2019). Particularized Conversational Implicatures: Why there are Conversational Implicatures. In Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A., Implicatures (pp. 67–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory (pp. 156–166). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 281–297). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1977). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Rogers, A., Wall, B., and Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures (pp. 135–147). Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Weissman, B., and Roy, J. (2020). Different scalar terms affected by face differently. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Tiel, B., Pankratz, E., and Sun, C. (2019). Scales and scalarity: Processing scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, L. (2018). Scalar and ignorance inferences are both computed immediately upon encountering the sentential connective: The online processing of sentences with disjunction using the visual world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 61. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., and Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×