Classical Gricean pragmatics is usually conceived as dealing with far-side pragmatics, aimed at computing implicatures. It involves reasoning about why what was said, was said. Near-side pragmatics, on the other hand, is pragmatics in the service of determining, together with the semantical properties of the words used, what was said. But this raises the specter of ‘the pragmatic circle.’ If Gricean pragmatics seeks explanations for why someone said what they did, how can there be Gricean pragmatics on the near-side? Gricean reasoning seems to require what is said to get started. But then if Gricean reasoning is needed to get to what is said, we have a circle.
KeywordsNear-side pragmatics Far-side pragmatics Reflexive content Locutionary content Critical referentialism
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
- Korta, K., & Perry, J. (forthcoming). How to say things with words. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), John Searle’s philosophy of language: Force, meaning, and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Perry J. (2001). Reference and reflexivity. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Recanati F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Recanati F. (2006). Predelli and Garcia-Carpintero on Literal meaning. Crítica 38(112): 69–79Google Scholar
- Searle J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Stojanovic, I. (2007). What is said as lexical meaning. Cuadernos de filosofía 19 (in press).Google Scholar