Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures

Discourse connectives such as but and moreover, while obviously meaningful, are widely seen as not affecting the truth conditions of the utterances they occur in; instead, they indicate how the truth-conditional content is to be understood. One way of explaining this is to analyse them as encoding procedural meaning, whose function is to guide pragmatic inference rather than to form part of the communicated message (cf. Blakemore, 2002). In this paper, I defend the idea of procedural meaning and reply to the main objections that have been raised against it. I focus on discourse connectives, showing how a procedural analysis explains their non-truth-conditional contribution, and compare this approach with that of Bach (1999), on which some discourse connectives are seen as contributing to 'what is said' by an utterance. I also discuss cases of discourse connectives embedded in attitude contexts, where their behaviour has been seen as a major obstacle to a procedural account, and suggest how such examples can be accommodated. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  Peter Carruthers,et al.  Language and Thought , 1998 .

[2]  D. Terence Langendoen,et al.  Studies in linguistic semantics , 1979 .

[3]  Colin Lyas,et al.  Philosophy and linguistics , 1971 .

[4]  D. Blakemore.  Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers , 2002 .

[5]  P. Werth.  Conversation and Discourse , 2022 .

[6]  Howard K. Wettstein,et al.  Themes from Kaplan , 1989 .

[7]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics , 1998 .

[8]  François Récanati,et al.  The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[10]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[11]  D. Sperber,et al.  On Grice's Theory of Conversation , 1981 .

[12]  MARCELO DASCAL,et al.  BETWEEN SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS: THE TWO TYPES OF ‘BUT’— HEBREW ‘AVAL’ AND ‘ELA’ , 1977 .

[13]  Ruth Kempson.  Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality , 1990, Language.

[14]  G. Lakoff.  The Role of Deduction in Grammar , 1971 .

[15]  S. Levinson.  Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[16]  K. Bach.  The Myth of Conventional Implicature , 1999 .

[17]  Steven Rieber,et al.  Conventional Implicatures as Tacit Performatives , 1997 .

[18]  R. Carston.  Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistisc , 1997 .

[19]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Linguistic form and relevance , 1993 .

[20]  J. Anscombre,et al.  Deux mais en français , 1977 .

[21]  Robyn Carston,et al.  The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. , 2005 .

[22]  D. Blakemore,et al.  Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics , 1992 .

[23]  K. Bach,et al.  Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts , 1983 .

[24]  G. Segal,et al.  Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Theory , 1995 .

[25]  J. Saul,et al.  Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. , 1993 .

[26]  D. Blakemore.  Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis ofbut , 1989 .

[27]  Jerry A. Fodor,et al.  Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science , 1981 .

[28]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[29]  Kent Bach.  Thought and Reference , 1987 .

[30]  R. Stainton.  Using Non-Sentences: An Application of Relevance Theory , 1994 .

[31]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication , 2002 .

[32]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[33]  Diane Blakemore,et al.  Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but , 2000, Journal of Linguistics.

[34]  D. Blakemore.  Semantic Constraints on Relevance , 1987 .

[35]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1997 .

[36]  D Sperber,et al.  The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon (Reprint of Sperber & Wilson 1998) , 1998 .

[37]  Kent Bach,et al.  You Don't Say? , 2001, Synthese.

[38]  Christopher Potts.  The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[39]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong , 1998 .

[40]  D. Sperber,et al.  Truthfulness and Relevance , 2002 .

[41]  J. Fodor.  Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[42]  E. Lepore,et al.  On an alleged connection between indirect speech and the theory of meaning , 1997 .

[43]  Corinne Iten,et al.  'Non-truth-conditional' meaning, relevance and concessives , 2000 .