Cover not available
Part of
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 15–36

Chapter 2
What’s a reading?

| Tel Aviv University
Linguists sometimes assume that the readings associated with linguistic utterance, both explicit and implicit, are self-evident. I here problematize the concept of a reading associated with linguistic expressions, and restrict it to interpretations systematically intended by the speaker using the utterance. This is a stronger condition than is sometimes adopted, namely, meshing the utterance with the objective reality that must lie behind the utterance (according to the speaker). I reanalyze assumptions commonly considered part of the reading associated with and, or and scalar quantifiers as Background or as Truth-Compatible inferences. On this account, these assumptions do not fall under the speaker’s communicative intention, and therefore do not constitute readings.
Keywords: what is said, Truth-Compatible inferences, Background assumptions, scalar quantifiers, explicature
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Tests identifying interpretation status
    • 2.1(Un)faithful report tests
    • 2.2The including/excluded test
  • 3. And-coherence inferences
  • 4.Scalar quantifiers
  • 5.So-called exclusive or interpretations
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.02ari
References (17)
References
Ariel, Mira. 2004. “Most.” Language 80: 658–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “A ‘Just That’ Lexical Meaning for Most .” In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 49–91. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Relational and Independent and Conjunctions.” Lingua 7: 1682–1715.Google Scholar
. 2014. “What Discourse Can(not) Teach Us.” International Review of Pragmatics 6: 181–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Doubling Up: Two Upper Bounds for Scalars.” Linguistics 53: 34–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Revisiting the Typology of Pragmatic Interpretations.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13: 150–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, and Caterina Mauri. in press. Why use ‘or’? Linguistics.
Bach, Kent. 1994. “Semantic Slack: What is Said and More.” In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 267–291. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2006. “The Top 10 Misconceptions about Implicature.” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. by Betty J. Birner and Gregory L. Ward, 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. “Implicature, Explicature and Truth-theoretic Semantics.” In Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1991. “Scalar Predicates and Negation: Punctual Semantics and Interval interpretations.” Chicago Linguistic Society 27: 140–155.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A. 2001. “When Children Are More Logical than Adults: Experimental Investigations of Scalar Implicature.” Cognition 78: 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1980. “The Background of Meaning.” In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, ed. by John RJohn R. Searle, Ferenc Kiefer, and Manfred Bierwisch, 221–232. Boston: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1998. “Pragmatics and Time.” In Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar