Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them)

Conversational Implicatures

According to standard pragmatics, we should account for conversational implicatures in terms of Grice's (1975) maxims of conversation. Neo-Griceans like Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Horn (1984) seek to reduce those maxims to the so-called Q and I-principles. In this paper I want to argue that (i) there are major problems for reducing Gricean pragmatics to these two principles, and (ii) that, in ...

Conversational and conventional implicatures

Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them

BACKGROUND Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of "marketing trials" in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic medical literature. DISCUSSION Barbour et al. sought to identify a subgroup of "marketing trial...

rEfErEntial DEscriptions anD conVErsational iMplicaturEs

The standard Gricean defense of russell in the face of referential uses of descriptions has been to claim that these uses are conversational implicatures. My argument in “The case for referential Descriptions” focused on showing that these uses are not particularized implicatures. I now adapt and develop this argument to show that they are not generalized implicatures nor otherwise pragmatic. I...

Conversational Implicatures and Communication Theory

According to standard pragmatics, we should account for conversational implicatures in terms of Grice’s (1975) maxims of conversation. NeoGriceans like Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Horn (1984) seek to reduce those maxims to the so-called Q and I-principles. In this paper I want to argue that (i) there are major problems for reducing Gricean pragmatics to these two principles, and (ii) that, in f...