Saying What You Mean: Unarticulated Constituents and Communication

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


Semantic Theory Semantic Content Literal Meaning Component Expression Argument Place 
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. 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