|Implicature, philosophy of language: Implicature is an expression by H. P. Grice on prerequisites within a communication, which are accepted tacitly by the participants and which can be noticed in the formulation of a single sentence, e.g. through an ironic formulation. (See Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard 1989, pp. 22-40.)_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
|Meg I 438
Counterfactual conditional/speech act/conversational implicature/Walker: the speaker takes the trouble to express a certain counterfactual conditional and not another - hence the wrong antecedent is not idle.
Meg I 439
"Even if"/Walker: "even if p, q" - Mackie: proposes instead "And equally, p > q". - Conversational implicature: in a context where casually ~ p > q can be assumed, a statement of "And equally, p > q" should suggest that this is (~ p > q), with which "p > q" should be connected.
Conversational implicature: no matter what circumstances are present, we find: "~ (p > q)" significantly less clear than "p u ~ q".
Meg I 471
Conversational implicature/Walker: can harden into metaphors and thus make classes superfluous._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
|Link to abbreviations/authors|