Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Implicatures and hierarchies of presumptions
Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the paradigm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best exp...
متن کاملQuantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation
Quantity implicatures are inferences triggered by an utterance based on what other utterances a speaker could have made instead. Using ideas and formalisms from game theory, I demonstrate that these inferences can be explained in a strictly Gricean sense as rational behavior. To this end, I offer a procedure for constructing the context of utterance insofar as it is relevant for quantity reason...
متن کاملConflicts in Interpretation
In this article we take an Optimality Theoretic approach to interpretation which integrates various factors into a set of typically conflicting constraints of varying strengths. The hypothesis that optimization is a leading principle in natural language interpretation strengthens the connection between linguistic theory and other cognitive disciplines. We will provide further support for this v...
متن کاملScalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning
This paper shows that both scalar implicatures and exhaustification of answers can be understood as the outcome of a pragmatic reasoning based on Gricean maxims. I offer a formalization of the Gricean reasoning that solves the problems (cf. Chierchia 2001) faced by standard neo-Gricean accounts. I further show that positive and non-positive answers pattern very differently, in a way that can be...
متن کاملReasoning with Moral Conflicts
Let us say that a normative conflict is a situation in which an agent ought to perform an action A, and also ought to perform an action B, but in which it is impossible for the agent to perform both A and B. Not all normative conflicts are moral conflicts, of course. It may be that the agent ought to perform the action A for reasons of personal generosity, but ought to perform the action B for ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Argumentation
سال: 2012
ISSN: 0920-427X,1572-8374
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9232-9