the General Gricean view consists of two stages.
That said, one should demand an independent reason for adopting the Gricean thesis.
This registers an important general fact about pragmatic explanations in the Gricean style.
Finally, the Burgean appeal to Gricean mechanisms to set levels of truth has been challenged.
Thompson (2007, 2008) provides one approach to defend a (neo)Gricean account against these arguments.
However, Gricean mechanisms may not determine the intuitively correct semantic assignments (e.g., Brehany 2006).
The Gricean maxims aid us in explaining why there is a difference between what is said and the meaning conveyed by the saying of it.
Defaults in OT pragmatics combine the precision of a formal account with the psychological reality of Gricean intention-based explanations.
The different uses of descriptions then stem from the application of Gricean principles of conversational implicature to what was literally said.
Marmor 2008, 2014, Soames 2008, Ekins 2012 (see pp 205-211), Carston 2013, Solum 2013; on Gricean and post-Gricean pragmatics, see Pragmatics).
Bidirectional Optimality Theory and Game Theory are quite natural, and similar, frameworks to formalize Gricean ideas about interactive, goal-oriented pragmatic reasoning in context.
Stephen Schiffer (1972) and Jonathan Bennett (1976) offer alternative “neo-Gricean” accounts that combine Lewisian convention with more explicit appeal to Gricean speaker-meaning.
The fact that presuppositions associated with unembedded triggers are not cancelable is one of the features that distinguishes most presuppositions from Gricean conversational implicatures (Grice, 1989).
On the other hand, there are efforts to rehabilitate the classical Gricean implicature account of metaphor by challenging the specific diagnostics for ‘what is said’ insisted upon by contemporary contextualists.
We will illustrate using the case that has been most extensively studied, and is generally considered a paradigm application of Gricean theory: the derivation of quantity implicatures from the maxim of Quantity.
But at least one prominent Gricean, Stephen Schiffer (1987), eventually concluded, partly from such counter-examples, that the program of explicating linguistic meaning through Lewisian convention and Gricean speaker-meaning was hopeless.
An important alternative to the Gricean analysis, which shares the Gricean’s commitment to a mentalist analysis of meaning in terms of the contents of mental states, is the analysis of meaning in terms of the beliefs rather than the intentions of speakers.
Given the Gricean resources discussed above, one might speculate that the distinction between definite and indefinite descriptions can be collapsed—that is, perhaps ‘the’ and ‘a’ have the same literal meaning and the only relevant distinction between them is pragmatic.
The existence of normative criteria governing language use, aiming at the avoidance of harm (ahiṁsā) and the preservation of truth (satya) can be compared to Gricean conversational maxims, although the intentional flouting of these principles does not lead to conversational implicatures.
Bi-OT can also account for Horn's division of pragmatic labor or M-implicatures, as they are alternatively sometimes called after Levinson (2000)—according to which an (un)marked expression (morphologically complex and less lexicalized) typically gets an (un)marked interpretation—which Horn (1984) claimed to follow from the interaction between both Gricean submaxims of Quantity, and the maxims of Relation and Manner.
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for Gricean. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
Bi-OT can also account for Horn's division of pragmatic labor or M-implicatures as they are alternatively sometimes called after Levinson 2000—according to which an unmarked expression morphologically complex and less lexicalized typically gets an unmarked interpretation—which Horn 1984 claimed to follow from the interaction between both Gricean submaxims of Quantity and the maxims of Relation and Manner