Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 6, pp 1629–1639 | Cite as


  • Robert StalnakerEmail author

Thanks to Mitch, Zoltan and Liz for their insightful and constructive comments. Their expositions of what I am trying to do in the book seem to me entirely accurate, and their suggestions about the way the framework I develop can be modified and extended, as well as their observations about places where more clarity is needed, are well taken. Mostly in these responses I will be elaborating and expressing agreement, though I will push back at just a few points.

Response to Mitchell Green

There is a lot going on in Mitch Green’s comments—too much to respond to all of it—but I will first comment briefly on some of his suggestions about how the central notion of my pragmatic framework—common ground—might usefully be extended, second on his remarks about indirect ways of communicating, and third on his discussion of conversational injustice.

Common ground is something like mutual acceptancefor the purposes of the conversation, but different conversations have different purposes, and a...


Common Ground Conversational Implicature Epistemic Modal Illocutionary Force Indirect Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations