Skip to main content
Log in

Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended?

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. L. Jonathan Cohen, ‘Some Remarks on Grice's Views about the Logical Particles of Natural Language’, in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.),Pragmatics of Natural Languages, 1971, pp. 50–68. Grice's second Lecture has now been published separately under the litle of ‘Logic and Conversation’, inThe Logic of Grammar (ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman), 1975, pp. 64–75.

  2. Ralph C. S. Walker, ‘Conversational Implicature’, in S. Blackburn (ed.),Meaning, Reference and Necessity, 1975 pp. 133–181.

  3. Op. cit., p. 153.

  4. Op. cit., p. 139.

  5. Op. cit., p. 140.

  6. Op. cit., p. 139.

  7. Op. cit., p. 138.

  8. Op. cit., pp. 143/4.

  9. Op. cit., p. 134.

  10. Cf. L. Jonathan Cohen and Avishai Margalit. ‘The Role of Inductive Reasoning in the Interpretation of Metaphor’,Synthese 21 (1970) 469–487, reprinted in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, 1972, pp. 722–740.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. C. S. Walker,op, cit., pp. 158/9.

  12. Op. cit., p. 140.

  13. Op. cit., p.. 178.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, L.J. Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended?. Philos Stud 31, 81–90 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01857178

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01857178

Navigation