Cover not available
Part of
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 37–66

Chapter 3
Pronouns and implicature

 | Georgetown University
In this chapter I investigate how differences among pronouns are related to differences in implicature. I characterize pronouns within my foundational theory of meaning, according to which words are conventional signs of mental states, principally thoughts and concepts, and meaning consists in their expressions. Indexicals express concepts that are distinctive in the way they link to other concepts or presentations. Indexical concepts are individuated by their sortal and determiner components. Indexicals have deictic, demonstrative and anaphoric uses. Pronouns are indexical words that can be used anaphorically with nouns as antecedents. After reviewing previous findings that the distinction between reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns cannot be explained in terms of implicature or pragmatic principles, I describe a wide range of implicatures that are generated by pronoun use. Some are semantic – what Grice called “conventional implicatures”. Sentences have these uncancelable implicatures because of the specific concepts expressed by the pronouns. Pronoun use also generates a wide range of conversational or pragmatic implicatures, through both non-semantic convention and specific contextual factors.
Keywords: pronouns, conventional implicature, conversational implicature, indexicals, foundational theory of meaning
Article outline
  • 1.The expression theory and non-descriptive meaning
  • 2.Indexical meaning and concepts
  • 3.Indexical determinants
  • 4.Sortal and determiner components
  • 5.Pronouns
  • 6.The binding rules
  • 7.Implicature
  • 8.Neo-Gricean explanations of the binding rules
  • 9.Pronoun implicatures arising from their sortals
  • 10.Pronoun implicatures arising from their determiners
  • 11.Independent pronoun implicatures
  • 12.Interrogative and imperative implicatures
  • Author Query
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.03dav
References (38)
References
Bhat, Darbhe N.S. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1988. “Representing and Accessing Focussed Referents.” Language and Cognitive Processes 3: 207–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. A.. 1998. Implicature. Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Wayne A. 2003. Meaning, Expression, and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “Pronouns and Neo-Gricean Pragmatics.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob Mey, 137–78. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “A Theory of Saying Reports.” In Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo, 36–50. Cham: Springer DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. A.. 2013. Indexicals and de Se Attitudes. In Attitudes ‘de Se’: Linguistics, Epistemology, Metaphysics. ed. by. N. Feit and A. Capone, 29–58. . Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2014. Implicature. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. by. E. N. Zalta, Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne A. (2016c) “Implicature.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Sanford Goldberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
. (2016d) Irregular Negatives, Implicatures, and Idioms. Cham: Springer. DOI logo
. (forthcoming) “The Property Theory and de se Attitudes.” In Reference and Representation in Thought and Language, ed. by Maria de Ponte. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dinneen, Francis P. 1967. An Introduction to General Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2006. English Words: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2004. “Anaphora and the Pragmatics-Syntax Interface.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 288–314. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Anaphora, Cataphora, Exophora, Logophoricity.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Ed., ed. by Keith Brown, 231–240. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Pragmatics (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kullavanijaya, Pranee. 2005. “Pro-forms.” In Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by Philipp Strazny, 877–878. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie, and Matthew Stone. 2015. Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, and Joseph S. Hall. 2004. Dictionary of Smoky Mountain English. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Neale, Stephen. 1992. “Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 509–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, John. 1979. The Problem of the Essential Indexical. Noûs 13:3–21. Reprinted in Meaning and Truth, ed. John Garfield and Michael Kiteley, 613-627. New York: Paragon House, 1991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2004. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Into the Conventional-Implicature Dimension.” Philosophy Compass 2: 665–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 2006. “Pronouns.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Keith Brown, 131–133. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2003. “Pronouns: Pronominals.” In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by William J. Frawley, 407–409. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, Bernd. 1983. “Anaphora by Pronouns.” Linguistics 21: 373–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Davis, Wayne A.
2017. Ideo- and Auto-reflexive Quotation. In The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 15], ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.