Contextual effects on explicature

Optional pragmatics or optional syntax?

in International Review of Pragmatics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



The debate between advocates of free pragmatic enrichment and those who maintain that any pragmatic contribution to explicature is mediated by a covert linguistic indexical took a new turn with the claim that these covert elements may be optional (Martí, 2006). This prompted the conclusion (Recanati, 2010b) that there is no longer any issue of substance between the two positions, as both involve optional elements of utterance meaning, albeit registered at different representational levels (conceptual or linguistic). We maintain, on the contrary, that the issue remains substantive and we make the case that, for a theory of the processes involved in utterance comprehension, the free pragmatic enrichment account is indispensable. We further argue that the criticism of free enrichment that motivates at least some indexicalist accounts rests on a mistaken assumption that it is the semantic component of the grammar (linguistic competence) that is responsible for delivering truth-conditional content (explicature).

Contextual effects on explicature

Optional pragmatics or optional syntax?

in International Review of Pragmatics



  • Altmann Gerry. 1998. Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2: 146–152.

  • Bezuidenhout Anne. 2002. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 105–134.

  • Blakemore Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Borg Emma. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Bourmayan Anouch and Francois Recanati. 2013. Transitive meanings for intransitive verbs. In L. Goldstein (ed.) Brevity 122–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Breheny Richard. 2003. A lexical account of implicit (bound) contextual dependence. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13.

  • Breheny Richard Napoleon Katsos and John Williams. 2006. Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An online investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100: 434–463.

  • Cappelen Herman and John Hawthorne. 2007. Locations and binding. Analysis 67: 95–105.

  • Cappelen Herman and Ernie Lepore. 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Cappelen Herman and Ernie Lepore. 2007. The myth of unarticulated constituents. In M. O’Rourke and C. Washington (eds.) Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry 199–214. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Carston Robyn. 1988. Implicature explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.) Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Carston Robyn. 2000. Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44.

  • Carston Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Carston Robyn. 2004. Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Carston Robyn. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165: 321–345.

  • Carston Robyn. 2009. Relevance theory: contextualism or pragmaticism? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 17–24.

  • Clapp Lenny. 2012a. Three challenges for indexicalism. Mind & Language 27: 435–465.

  • Clapp Lenny. 2012b. Indexical color predicates: Truth conditional semantics vs truth conditional pragmatics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42: 71–100.

  • Collins John. 2007. Syntax more or less. Mind 116: 805–850.

  • Elbourne Paul. 2008. The argument from binding. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 89–110.

  • Frazier Lyn. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.) Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading 13–26. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Hall Alison. 2008. Free enrichment or hidden indexicals? Mind & Language 23: 426–456.

  • Hall Alison. 2009. Free Pragmatic Processes and Explicit Utterance Content. Ph.D. dissertation University of London.

  • Heim Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Horn Laurence. 2004. Implicature. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Horn Laurence and Gregory Ward (eds.) 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Kehler Andrew and Hannah Rohde. 2015. Pronominal reference and pragmatic enrichment: A Bayesian account. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: 1063–1068.

  • King Jeffrey and Jason Stanley. 2005. Semantics pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (ed.) Semantics versus Pragmatics 30–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ludlow Peter. 2005. A note on alleged cases of non-sentential assertion. In R. Elugardo and R. Stainton (eds.) Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech 95–108. New York: Springer.

  • Martí Luisa. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 135–166.

  • Neale Stephen. 2007. Heavy hands magic and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3: 77–131.

  • Recanati François 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Recanati François. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.

  • Recanati François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Recanati François. 2007. It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 123–146.

  • Recanati François. 2010a. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Recanati François. 2010b. Pragmatics and logical form. In B. Soria and E. Romero (eds.) Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics 25–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Recanati François. 2012. Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russell and D. Fara (eds.) Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language 67–78. London: Routledge.

  • Sennet Adam. 2011. Unarticulated constituents and propositional structure. Mind & Language 26: 412–435.

  • Soames Scott. 2008. The gap between meaning and assertion. In S. Soames Philosophical Essays vol. 1 278–297. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Sperber Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Stainton Robert. 2006. Words and Thoughts: Subsentences Ellipsis and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Stanley Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.

  • Stanley Jason. 2002. Making it articulated. Mind & Language 17: 149–168.

  • Stanley Jason. 2007. Language in Context. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Stanley Jason and Zoltán Gendler Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15: 219–261.

  • Stern Josef. 2006. Metaphor literal and literalism. Mind & Language 21: 243–279.

  • Szabó Zoltán Gendler. 2001. Adjectives in context. In I. Kenesei and R.M. Harnish (eds.) Perspectives on Semantics Pragmatics and Discourse 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Szabó Zoltán Gendler. 2011. Review of Scott Soames Philosophy of Language. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2: 13–30.

  • Weiskopf Daniel. 2007. Compound nominals context and compositionality. Synthese 156: 161–204.

  • Wilson Deirdre and Tomoko Matsui. 2000. Recent approaches to bridging: Truth coherence and relevance. Lengua Discurso Texto 1: 103–131.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 126 112 10
Full Text Views 241 241 1
PDF Downloads 24 24 1
EPUB Downloads 1 1 0