Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2018) ► pp.1–31

Unarticulated constituents and neo-Gricean pragmatics

 | The University of Auckland
In recent years, the concept of unarticulated constitutes has generated a fierce debate both in the philosophy of language and in linguistic semantics and pragmatics. By unarticulated constituent is meant a propositional (or conceptual) constituent of a sentence that is communicated by the speaker in uttering that sentence, but is not linguistically represented in that uttered sentence. The main aim of this article is to provide a neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis of unarticulated constituents, showing that the current existing mechanism of neo-Gricean pragmatic theory can handle unarticulated constituents in a straightforward and elegant way. Second, I defend the neo-Gricean position that the pragmatic enrichment of unarticulated constituents is nothing but a neo-Gricean, pre-semantic conversational implicature. And third and finally, I briefly evaluate an alternative, formal syntactico-semantic analysis of unarticulated constituents.
Keywords: unarticulated constituent, neo-Gricean pragmatics, pragmatic enrichment, pre-semantic conversational implicature, hidden indexical analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is an unarticulated constituent?
    • 2.1Linguistic underdeterminacy
    • 2.2What is an unarticulated constituent?
    • 2.3Some representative examples
    • 2.4Two types of proposition with unarticulated constituents
      • Type (i)Propositions that need to be completed
      • Type (ii)Propositions that need to be expanded
  • 3.A formal syntactico-semantic account of unarticulated constituents
  • 4.A neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis of unarticulated constituents
    • 4.1Classic Gricean pragmatics
    • 4.2Horn’s bipartite neo-Gricean model
    • 4.3Levinson’s trinitarian neo-Gricean pragmatic model
    • 4.4Unarticulated constituents in neo-Gricean pragmatics
      • Type (i) propositions
      • Type (ii) propositions
  • 5.Pragmatic enrichment of unarticulated constituents: Explicature, the pragmatically enriched said, conversational impliciture or conversational implicature?
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 5 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00001.hua
References (75)
References
Atlas, Jay D. & Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2). 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind & Language 15(2–3). 262–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 463–487. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2012. Context dependence. In Garcia-Carpintero, Manuel & Kolbel, Max (eds.), The Continuum companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2017. Contextualism and semantic minimalism. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 21–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Emma. 2005. Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication. In Elugardo, Reinaldo & Stainton, Robert J. (eds.), Ellipsis and nonsentential speech, 237–262. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, Herman & Lepore, Ernie. 2007. The myth of unarticulated constituents. In O’Rourke, Michael & Washington, Corey (eds.), Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry, 199–214. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, Belén & Romero, Esther (eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition), 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (ed.), Pragmatics of natural languages, 50–68. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crimmins, Mark. 1992. Talk about beliefs. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2008. Free enrichment or hidden indexicals? Mind & Language 23(4). 426–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In Burton-Roberts, Noel (ed.), Pragmatics, 158–183. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Implying and inferring. In Allan, Keith & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 69–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27(2). 301–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992a. Against Chomsky’s typology of empty categories. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992b. Hanyu de kongfanchou [Empty categories in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [ Studies of the Chinese Language ] 1992(5). 384–393.Google Scholar
. 1994/2007. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 288–314. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. Pragmatic intrusion into what is said: Explicature, pragmatically enriched ‘said’, implicIture or implicAture? (Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society, Cologne, 23–26 February 2005.)
. 2007. Pragmatics (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Types of inference: Entailment, presupposition, and implicature. In Bublitz, Wolfram & Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 1), 397–422. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Relevance and neo-Gricean pragmatic principles. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 4), 25–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Micro- and macro-pragmatics: Remapping their terrains. International Review of Pragmatics 5(1). 129–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Bayesian probabilistic model of discourse anaphoric comprehension, linguistic typology, and neo-Gricean pragmatics. Theoretical Linguistics 39(1–2). 95–108.Google Scholar
. 2013c. De se attitude/belief ascription and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics: Logophoric expressions in West African languages and long-distance reflexives in East, South, and Southeast Asian languages. In Feit, Neil & Capone, Alessandro (eds.), Attitude de se: Linguistics, epistemology, metaphysics, 185–209. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2013d. Logophoricity and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics. In Capone, Alessandro & Lo Piparo, Franco & Carapezza, Marco (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2), 217–241. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Pragmatics (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 615–639. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Pragmatics: Language use in context. In Allan, Keith (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics, 205–220. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Implicature. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 155–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Neo-Gricean pragmatics. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 47–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017c. Implicitness in the lexis: Lexical narrowing and neo-Gricean pragmatics. In Cap, Piotr & Dynel, Marta (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276), 67–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2017d. The Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 2007. The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. & Stanley, Jason. 2005. Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics, 111–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1977. Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2(1). 255–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23(1987). 379–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2007. Semantic minimalism and nonindexical contextualism. In Preyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics, 240–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marti, Luisa. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2). 135–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12(2). 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In Wiltshire, Caroline & Graczyk, Randolph & Music, Bradley (eds.), CLS 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 342–365. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1986. Thought without representation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volumes 601. 137–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. The problem of the essential indexical: And other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Indexicals, contexts, and unarticulated constituents. In Aliseda-Llera, Atocha & Van Glabbeek, Rob & Westerståhl, Dag (eds.), Computing natural language, 1–11. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1993. Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford. Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(3). 299–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1). 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 347–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1977. Naming and knowing. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2(1). 28–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sennet, Adam. 2011. Unarticulated constituents and propositional structure. Mind & Language 26(4). 412–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4). 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Making it articulated. Mind & Language 17(1–2). 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Semantics in context. In Preyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth, 221–254. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason & Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2000a. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3). 219–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Reply to Bach and Neale. Mind & Language 15(2–3). 295–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Kenneth A. 2001. Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus. Synthese 128(1–2). 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vicente, Begoña & Groefsema, Marjolein. 2013. Something out of nothing? Rethinking unarticulated constituents. Journal of Pragmatics 47(1). 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Ralph C. S. 1975. Conversational implicatures. In Blackburn, Simon (ed.), Meaning, reference, and necessity: New studies in semantics, 133–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. 1985. Determiners and context sets. In van Benthem, Johan & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural languages, 45–72. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Glazkov, Alexey V.
2022. SITUATIONALITY AS A BASIS OF TEXT COHERENCE. Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Russian philology) :1 ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Yan
2021. I like you may actually implicate ‘I love you’: A reconsideration of some scalar implicatures. In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 28], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Li, Xiaochen & Mingyou Xiang
2019. Semantic evolution at the microscopic level: the case of suoyi. Language Sciences 74 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Aijun & Stephen Crain
2014. Acquisition of the numerical wh-pronoun ji ‘how many’ in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua 145 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.