Abstract
In her book Thoughts and Utterances, Robyn Carston has the following to say on compositionality:
There just is no escaping the fact that the propositions that may be expressed by sentences in use are a function, not only of linguistic meaning, but also of pragmatic inference. Perhaps this marks the demise of an interesting principle of semantic compositionality, or perhaps it points to the possible development of a different sort of compositionality principle, one that can accommodate an interaction of decoded and pragmatically inferred meaning in the determination of the proposition expressed (a principle of semantic/pragmatic compositionality). (2002: 73, italics in the original)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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
Carston, R. (1988) ‘Implicature, Explicature and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’. In R. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–81. Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.), 1991, Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–51.
Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Culicover, P.W. and Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Escandell, M.V. and Leonetti, M. (2002) ‘Coercion and the Stage/Individual Distinction’. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), From Words to Discourse. Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 159–80.
Escandell, M.V. and Leonetti, M. (2005) ‘Fenómenos de Coacción y Teoría Gramatical’. Unpublished manuscript.
Groefsema, M. (1992) Processing for Relevance. A Pragmatically Based Account of How we Process Natural Language. University of London, PhD thesis.
Groefsema, M. (2006) ‘Something out of Nothing? Why Pragmatic Enrichment Needs to Be Constrained’. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hertfordshire.
Jackendoff, R. (1997) The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempson, R. (1988) ‘Grammar and Conversational Principles’. In F.J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–63.
Kempson, R., W. Meyer-Viol, and D. Gabbay (2001) Dynamic Syntax. The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
McElree, B., M.J. Traxler, M.J. Pickering, R.E. Seely, and R. Jackendoff (2001) ‘Reading Time Evidence for Enriched Composition’. Cognition 78: 17–25.
Nicol, J. (1988) Coreference Processing during Sentence Comprehension. MIT, PhD thesis.
Recanati, F. (1993) Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Recanati, F. (2004) Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986/95) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stainton, R. (1994) ‘Using Non-sentences: An Application of Relevance Theory’. Pragmatics and Cognition 2: 269–84.
Stanley, J. (2000) ‘Context and Logical Form’. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2000) ‘Truthfulness and Relevance’. Mind 111: 583–632.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Begoña Vicente Cruz
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cruz, B.V. (2010). The Role of Pragmatic Inferencing in Compositional Semantics. In: Soria, B., Romero, E. (eds) Explicit Communication. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_4
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)