Default interpretations

Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt
Table of contents

At the current state of post-Gricean pragmatic research, it can be accepted without much controversy that communicators convey more information than is contained in the expressions they utter. Even a cursory glance at sentences (1)–(3) suffices to form an impression that they normally convey (1’)–(3’) respectively.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Asher, N. & A. Lascarides
1995 Lexical disambiguation in a discourse context. Journal of Semantics 12: 69–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N.A. Lascarides.
1998 The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics 15: 239–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128: 183–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K.
1984 Default reasoning: Jumping to conclusions and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65: 37–58.Google Scholar
1987a Thought and reference. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
1987b On communicative intentions: A reply to Récanati. Mind and Language 2: 141–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Semantic slack: What is said and more. In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives: 267–291. Routledge.Google Scholar
1995 Remark and reply. Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 677–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Postscript (1995): Standardization revisited. In A. Kasher (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical concepts, vol. 4: 712–722. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A.L. & R.K. Morris
2004 Implicature, relevance and default ragmatic inference. In I.A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.): 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R.
2000 Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. & H. Zeevat
2004 Editors’ introduction: Pragmatics in Optimality Theory. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.) Optimality Theory and pragmatics: 1–24. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bultinck, B.
2005 Numerous meanings: The meaning of English cardinals and thelegacy of Paul Grice. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
1988 Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R.M. Kempson (ed.) Mental representations: The interface between language and reality: 155–181. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1998a Postscript (1995) to Carston 1988. In A. Kasher (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical concepts, vol. 4: 464–479. Routledge.Google Scholar
1998b Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.) Relevance theory: Applications and implications: 179–236. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2001 Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction’. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 1–34.Google Scholar
2002a Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell. DOI logo  MetBibGoogle Scholar
2002b Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17: 127–148. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
2004 Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3: 39–103. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, A.R.
1999 How the brain creates the mind. Scientific American, December 1999: 74–79.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1975 Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. Academic Press. [Reprinted in H. P. Grice (1989) Studies in the way of words: 22–40. Harvard University Press.]  BoPGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.R.
1984 Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schffrin (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984: 11–42. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1988 Pragmatic theory. In F.J. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, vol. 1: 113–145. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989 A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1992 The said and the unsaid. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 40(SALT II Proceedings): 163–192.Google Scholar
2004 Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.) The Handbook of pragmatics: 3–28. Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In K. Von Heusinger & K. Turner (eds.) Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers: 21–48. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Husserl, E.
1900–1901 Logische Untersuchungen, vol. 2. Max Niemeyer. [Reprinted in 1984 after the second edition (1913–21). Martinus Nijhoff. Husserliana 19/1. Transl. as Logical investigations by J. N. Findlay in 1970. Routledge and Kegan Paul.]Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1990 Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41. [Reprinted in B. Levin & S. Pinker (eds.) Lexical and conceptual semantics: 9–45. Blackwell.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M.
1997 The Default De Re Principle for the interpretation of belief utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 315–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998a Reports on beliefs: Default interpretations and default intentions. Journal of Literary Semantics 27: 31–42.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b Referring in discourse: Referential intention and the ‘taking for granted’ principle. Journal of Literary Semantics 27: 96–109.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999a Default semantics, pragmatics, and intentions’. In K. Turner (ed.) The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points ofview: 199–232. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
1999b Discourse, beliefs, and intentions: Semantic defaults and propositional attitude ascription. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2000a Belief reports and pragmatic theory: The state of the art. In K.M. Jaszczolt (ed.) The pragmatics of propositional attitude reports: 1–12. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2000b The default-based context-dependence of belief reports. In K.M. Jaszczolt (ed.). The pragmatics of propositional attitude reports: 169–185. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2002 Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. Longman.Google Scholar
2005a Default Semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b Prolegomena to Default Semantics. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou & E. Antonopoulou (eds.) Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st Century: 107–142. Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005c Varieties of defaults. http://​www​.cus​.cam​.ac​.uk​/∼kmj21Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & U. Reyle
1993 From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J. -P.
1993 Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago Linguistic Society 27 Part, The Parasession on Negation: 140–155.Google Scholar
Landman, F.
2000 Events and plurality. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A. & N. Asher
1993 Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 437–493. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A. & J. Oberlander
1993 Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge. Theoretical Linguistics 19: 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C.
1987 Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.) The pragmatic perspective. Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference: 61–129. J. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Three levels of meaning. In F.R. Palmer (ed.) Grammar and meaning. Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons: 90–115. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003 Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, W.
1995 Approaches to intentionality. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Musolino, J.
2004 The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition 93: 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I.A.
2001 When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Pragmatic inferences related to logical terms. In I.A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.): 301–321. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I.A. & D. Sperber
(eds.) 2004 Experimental pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. & J. Musolino
2003 Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Récanati, F.
1989 The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. [Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A reader: 97–120. Oxford University Press.]  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002 Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language 17: 105–126. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2003 Embedded implicatures. http://​jeannicod​.ccsd​.cnrs​.fr​/documents.
2004 Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Van Der Sandt, R.A.
1992 Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saul, J.M.
2002 What is said and psychological reality; Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
1983 Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell. [Reprinted in 1995, 2nd edition.]  BoPGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon: 57–149. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Veltman, F.
1996 Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H.
2000 Demonstratives in discourse. Journal of Semantics 16: 279–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers. In R. Blutner, & H. Zeevat (eds). Optimality Theory and pragmatics. 91–111. Palgrave Macmillan DOI logoGoogle Scholar