Content area
Full text
Argumentation (2012) 26:233265
DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9232-9
Fabrizio Macagno
Published online: 14 January 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speakers intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, we need to depend on an abductive process of interpretation.
Keywords Implicatures Interpretation Presumption Argumentation
Abductive reasoning Inferences Argumentation schemes Implicit meaning
The Gricean theory of conventional and conversational implicature is rightly considered to be the foundation of modern theories of meaning and implicitness (Levinson 1983, 2000). Grice observed that the meaning of some utterances cannot be retrieved by only considering the semantic meaning of the sentence that they express, and showed that the context and purpose of the communication is part of the linguistic evidence. For instance, consider the following example (Grice 1975,p. 43):
I would like to thank the Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia (Portugal) for the research grant supporting the project Argumentao, Comunicao e Contexto (PTDC/FIL-FIL/110117/2009).
F. Macagno (&)
ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Edifcio I&D4 andar, Avenida de Berna 26, 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugale-mail: [email protected]
Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conicts of Presumptions
123
234 F. Macagno
Implicature 1: Bank Employee
Suppose that A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies, Oh, quite well, I think: he likes his colleagues, and he hasnt been to prison yet.
A retrieves the meaning of the sentence he hasnt been to prison yet not only using his lexical and syntactic knowledge of English, but combining such information with contextual factors. Grice pointed out that what is said does not correspond in this case to what is meant, and distinguished between explicitly saying and indirectly implicating. In his view (Grice 1975, 1989), what a...