Shared Content as Speaker Meaning
Cappelen and Lepore (2005; 2006; 2007) have recently emphasised the significance of a minimal notion of perfectly shared content for pragmatic theories. This paper argues for a similar notion, but assumes that a satisfactory defence cannot be achieved along the lines of the existing debate between Minimalism and Contextualism (e.g. Carston 2002, Recanati 2004). Rather, it is necessary to consistently distinguish two functional domains: the subjective processing domain and the interpersonal domain of communication, each with its own kind of utterance meaning. I will argue that it is the mutually recognised content of the speaker's overt commitment that should be identified as ‘speaker meaning’. Diverging from the (post-) Gricean tradition, it is conventionally restricted (minimal), but genuinely pragmatic (speaker-dependent). Functional considerations show that it is, moreover, unnecessary to include further elements in ‘speaker meaning’. The distinction between two notions of utterance meaning with very different characteristics allows us to integrate the assumption of perfect sharing, which explains people's trust in communication, and the subjectivity of the hearer's inferences into a coherent and powerful model.
References
Alston, William P. 2000. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1992. "Intentions and demonstrations." Analysis 52: 140-146, doi: 10.2307/3328374.10.2307/3328374Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Ernie Lepore. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755792Search in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Ernie Lepore. 2006. "Shared content." In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Ernie Lepore and Barry C. Smith, 1020-1055. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Ernie Lepore. 2007. "Relevance theory and shared content." In Pragmatics, edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, 115-135. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_7Search in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2000. "Explicature and semantics." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1-46.Search in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603Search in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2006. "Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 37-69, doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8.10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8Search in Google Scholar
Gauker, Christopher. 2003. Words without Meaning. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7290.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1957. "Meaning." Philosophical Review 66: 377-388.10.2307/2182440Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1969/1989. "Utterer's meaning and intentions." In Studies in the Way of Words, edited by Paul Grice, 86-116. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. "Logic and conversation." In Syntax and Semantics. Vol.3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kenyon, Tim. 2005. "Non-sentences, implicature, and success in communication." In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, edited by Reinaldo Elugardo and Robert J. Stainton, 131-147. Berlin: Springer, doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2301-4_7.10.1007/1-4020-2301-4_7Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. "Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes." Intercultural Pragmatics 4: 71-84, doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.004.10.1515/IP.2007.004Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2008. "Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication." In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, edited by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob Mey, 227-296. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, doi: 10.1515/9783110211474.2.277.10.1515/9783110211474.2.277Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 1998. Dale J. Barr and William S. Horton. "The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach." Current Directions in Psychological Sciences 7: 46-50.10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2003. Shuhong Lin and Dale J. Barr. "Limits on the theory of mind use in adults." Cognition 89: 25-41.10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention. A Philosophical Study. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liedtke, Frank. 1995. "Das Gesagte und das Nicht-Gesagte: Zur Definition von Implikaturen." In Implikaturen, edited by Frank Liedtke, 19-46. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110958867.19Search in Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve and Didier Maillat. 2008. "Intentions and context in uncooperative communication: Pragmatic views on manipulation." Talk presented at the 4th Łódź Symposium New Developments in Linguistic Pragmatics, 17 May 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The Stuff of Thought. Language as a Window into Human Nature. London: Allen Lane.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2008. "Language as a window into human nature." Abstract for talk presented at Cambridge University Linguistic Society, 10 June 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2001. "What is said." Synthèse 128: 75-91.10.1023/A:1010383405105Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2003. "The limits of expressibility." In John Searle, edited by Barry Smith, 189-213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613999.009Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Search in Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. "What is said and psychological reality: Grice's project and relevance theorists' criticisms." Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347-372.10.1023/A:1015221313887Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1980. "The background of meaning." In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, edited by John R. Searle, Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch, 221-232. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_10Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1989. "Individual intentionality and social phenomena in the theory of speech acts." In Semiotics and Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Perpignan Symposium, edited by Gérard Deledalle, 3-17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.18.03seaSearch in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2007. "What is language: Some preliminary remarks." In John Searle's Philosophy of Language. Force, Meaning and Mind, edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 15-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. "Intention and convention in speech acts." The Philosophical Review 73 (4): 439-460, doi: 10.2307/2183301.10.2307/2183301Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2004. "Relevance theory." In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell, doi: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch27.10.1002/9780470756959.ch27Search in Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2006. "Shared assumptions: semantic minimalism and relevance theory." Ms. University of Edinburgh.10.1017/S0022226707004793Search in Google Scholar
This content is open access.
