Saying What You Mean: Unarticulated Constituents and Communication

  • Emma Borg
Part of the En]Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 81)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, K., “Referential/Attributive.” Synthese 49 (1981): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, K., “Semantic Slack: what is said and more.” In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: philosophical and linguistic perspectives, ed. S. Tsohatzidis. London: Routledge. 1994a: 267–291.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K., “Conversational Impliciture.” Mind and Language 9 (1994b): 124–162.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K., and Harnish, R., Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bertolet, R., What is Said: A theory of indirect speech acts. London: Kluwer. 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Bezuidenhout, A., “Pragmatics, Semantic Underdetermination and the Referential/Attributive Distinction.” Mind 106 (1997): 375–410.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Borg, E., “An Expedition Abroad: metaphor, thought and reporting.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy. XXV, P. French and H. Wettgtein (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. 2001: 227–248.Google Scholar
  8. Borg, E., “The Semantic Relevance of What is Said.” Protosociology 17 (2002): 6–24.Google Scholar
  9. Cappelen, H., and Lepore, E. “On an Alleged Connection Between Indirect Speech and the Theory of Meaning.” Mind and Language 12 (1997): 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. “Reply to Richard and Reimer.” Mind and Language 13 (1998): 617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappelen, H., and Lepore, E., “Radical and Moderate Pragmatics: Does meaning determine truthconditions?” In Semantics vs. Pragmatics, ed. Z. Gendler Szabo. Oxford: OUP. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  12. Carston, R., “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” In Mental Representations, R. Kempson (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988: 155–81.Google Scholar
  13. Carston, R., “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. Crimmins, M., Talk About Beliefs. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Crimmins, M., and Perry, J., “The Prince and the Phone-Booth.” Journal of Philosophy 86 (1989): 685–711.Google Scholar
  16. Dalrymple, M., “Against Reconstruction in Ellipsis.” This volume.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J., Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: OUP. 1998.Google Scholar
  18. Elugardo, R., and Stainton, R. “Grasping Objects and Contents.” In The Epistemology of Language, A. Barber (ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. 2003: 257–302.Google Scholar
  19. Grice, P., “Logic and Conversation (William James Lectures).” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, P. Cole and J. Morgan (ed.) New York: New York Academic Press. 1967: 41–48.Google Scholar
  20. Higginbotham, J. “Tensed Thoughts.” Mind and Language 10 (1995): 226–249.Google Scholar
  21. Levinson, S., Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. 2000.Google Scholar
  22. Perry, J. “Thought Without Representation.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LX (1986): 263–283.Google Scholar
  23. Pinker, S., The Language Instinct. London: Penguin. 1994.Google Scholar
  24. Recanati, F., “Unarticulated Constituents.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (2002): 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reimer, M., “What is Meant by ‘What is Said’? A Reply to Cappelen and Lepore.” Mind and Language 13 (1998): 598–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richard, M., “Semantic Theory and Indirect Speech.” Mind and Language 13 (1998): 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sperber, D., and Wilson, D., Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. 1986.Google Scholar
  28. Stanley, J., “Context and Logical Form.” Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (2000): 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stanley, J., and Szabo, Z., “On Quantifier Domain Restriction.” Mind and Language 15 (2000): 219–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, K., “Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus Interruptus.” Synthese 128 (2001): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Travis, C., “On what is strictly speaking true.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (1985): 187–229.Google Scholar
  32. Travis, C., “Meaning’s role in truth.” Mind 105 (1996): 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma Borg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations