| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 932949 | Journal of Pragmatics | 2013 | 12 Pages |
Abstract
In response to Robyn Carston's (2010) defence of explicature as cancellable, the paper examines what Grice meant by ‘cancellable’. It offers reasons for thinking that only generalised conversational implicatures are cancellable, not relevance theory's explicatures and not particularised conversational implicatures. It concludes by questioning relevance theory's re-analysis of Grice's GCIs as explicatures.
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities
Arts and Humanities
Language and Linguistics
Authors
Noel Burton-Roberts,