Relational and independent and conjunctions

Pragmatic accounts for and conjunctions offer a unified analysis for all conjunctions ( Blakemore and Carston, 2005, Gómez Txurruka, 2003 and Zeevat and Jasinskaja, 2007). I propose two distinct interpretative strategies instead. On the relational strategy, the inferred relation between the conjuncts is computed first, and only then is relevance to the discourse sought for the two conjuncts taken as a single processing unit. On the independent strategy, each conjunct by itself makes a separate, but parallel contribution to the same discourse point. Different formal indicators cue addressees as to which of the pragmatic strategies was most likely intended. The most dramatic difference between the two readings is that the inferred relation between the two conjuncts may form part of the truth-conditional proposition expressed under the relational strategy, but under the independent strategy such relations, if inferred at all, are either truth-compatible inferences, or at best, conversational implicatures.

► And conjunctions cannot receive a unified pragmatic analysis. ► Relational and conjunctions make a single discourse contribution. ► Independent conjunctions make two parallel discourse contributions. ► And-related coherence inferences are explicated for relational conjunctions. ► And-related coherence inferences are not intended with independent conjunctions.