, Volume 128, Issue 1–2, pp 15–44 | Cite as

You Don't Say?

  • Kent Bach


This paper defends a purely semantic notionof what is said against various recent objections. Theobjections each cite some sort of linguistic,psychological, or epistemological fact that issupposed to show that on any viable notion of what aspeaker says in uttering a sentence, there ispragmatic intrusion into what is said. Relying on amodified version of Grice's notion, on which what issaid must be a projection of the syntax of the utteredsentence, I argue that a purely semantic notion isneeded to account for the linguistically determinedinput to the hearer's inference to what, if anything,the speaker intends to be conveying in uttering thesentence.


Semantic Notion Recent Objection Amodified Version Epistemological Fact 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin, J. L.: 1962, How to do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Kent: 1984, ‘Default Reasoning: Jumping to Conclusions and Knowing when to Think Twice’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65, 37-58.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, Kent: 1992, ‘Intentions and Demonstrations’ Analysis 52, 140-146.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Kent: 1994a, ‘Conversational Impliciture’ Mind & Language 9, 124-162.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, Kent: 1994b, Thought and Reference, paperback edition, revised with postscript, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Bach, Kent: 1995, ‘Standardization and Conventionalization’ Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 677-686.Google Scholar
  7. Bach, Kent: 1998, ‘Standardization Revisited’ in A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV, Routledge, London, pp. 712-722.Google Scholar
  8. Bach, Kent: 1999a, ‘The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction:What it is andWhy it Matters’ in Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 65-84.Google Scholar
  9. Bach, Kent: 1999b, ‘The Myth of Conventional Implicature’ Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 327-366.Google Scholar
  10. Bach, Kent: 2000, ‘Quantification, Qualification, and Context’ Mind & Language 15.Google Scholar
  11. Bach, Kent and Robert Harnish: 1979, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Barker, Chris: 1995, Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Barwise, Jon and John Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Bezuidenhout, Anne: 1997, ‘Semantics, Pragmatics, Semantic Underdetermination, and the Referential/Attributive Distinction’ Mind 106, 375-409.Google Scholar
  15. Carston, Robyn: 1988, ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-theoretic Semantics’ in R. M. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 155-181.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbs, Raymond and Jessica Moise: 1997, ‘Pragmatics in Understanding what is Said’ Cognition 62, 51-74.Google Scholar
  17. Grice, Paul: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. King, Jeffrey: 1995, ‘Structured Propositions and Complex Predicates’ Noûs 29, 516-535.Google Scholar
  19. Levinson, Stephen: 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Mauner, Gail and Jean-Pierre Koenig: 1999, ‘Lexical Encoding of Event Participant Information’ Brain and Language 68, 178-184.Google Scholar
  21. May, Robert: 1991, ‘Syntax, Semantics, Logical Form’ in A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 334-359.Google Scholar
  22. Neale, Stephen: 1990, Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Partee, Barbara: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’ Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society 25, 342-365.Google Scholar
  24. Partee, Barbara: 1995, ‘Lexical Semantics and Compositionality’ in L. Gleitman and M. Liberman (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Volume 1: Language, 2nd edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 311-360.Google Scholar
  25. Perry, John: 1986, ‘Thought without Representation’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60, pp. 137-151.Google Scholar
  26. Predelli, Stefano: 1998, ‘I am not Here Now’ Analysis 58, 107-115.Google Scholar
  27. Pustejovsky, James: 1995, The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Recanati, François: 1989, ‘The Pragmatics of what is Said’ Mind and Language 4, 294-328.Google Scholar
  29. Recanati, François: 1993, Direct Reference: From Language to Thought, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Recanati, François: 1995, ‘The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation’ Cognitive Science 19, 207-232.Google Scholar
  31. Recanati, François: this issue, ‘What is Said’.Google Scholar
  32. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Stanley, Jason: 2000, ‘Context and Logical Form’ Linguistics & Philosophy 23.Google Scholar
  34. Stanley, Jason and Zoltan Szabó: 2000, ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’ Mind & Language 15.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, Kenneth: this issue, ‘Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus Interruptus’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent Bach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations