Abstract
I am often asked to explain the difference between my notion of impliciture (Bach 1994) and the relevance theorists’ notion of explicature (Sperber and Wilson 1986; Carston 2002). Despite the differences between the theoretical frameworks within which they operate, the two notions seem very similar. Relevance theorists describe explicatures as ‘developments of logical forms’, whereas I think of implicitures as ‘expansions’ or ‘completions’ of semantic contents (depending on whether or not the sentence’s semantic content amounts to a proposition). That is not much of a difference. We agree that implicitures/explicatures go beyond what is said (in a strict sense) and yet fall short of being implicatures. So, what is the difference, or is it just terminological? As we will see, the real differences emerge when the two notions are situated in their respective theoretical frameworks with their contrasting conceptions of what is involved in linguistic communication.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Austin, J.L. (1962) How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. (1994) ‘Conversational Impliciture’. Mind and Language 9: 124–62.
Bach, K. (2001) ‘You don’t Say?’ Synthese 128: 15–44.
Bach, K. Semantics-Pragmatics Series, at http://online.sfsu.edu/~kbach.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carston, R. (2000) ‘Explicature and Semantics’. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44. Reprinted in S. Davis and B. Gillon (eds), 2004, Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 817–45.
Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. (2004a) ‘Truth-conditional Content and Conversational Implicature’. In C. Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 65–100.
Carston, R. (2004b) ‘Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction’. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 633–56.
Grice, H.P. (1957/89) ‘Meaning’. In Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, chapter 14, pp. 213–23.
Grice, H.P. (1967/89) ‘Logic and Conversation’. In Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, chapter 2, pp. 22–40.
Levinson, S.C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Neale, S. (2004) ‘This, That, and the Other’. In M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 68–182.
Schelling, T. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1968) ‘Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts’. Philosophical Review 77: 405–24.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Kent Bach
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bach, K. (2010). Impliciture vs Explicature: What’s the Difference?. In: Soria, B., Romero, E. (eds) Explicit Communication. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36099-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29235-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)