Cover not available

Article published In: New Perspectives on Utterance Interpretation and Implicit Contents
Edited by Daniela Rossi and Nicolas Ruytenbeek
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28] 2014
► pp. 71–95

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Is inference necessary to pragmatics?

 | University College London
Published online: 28 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.04maz
The assumption that pragmatic processes are inferential is standardly held by Gricean and post-Gricean pragmatic theories. Recently, however, it has been challenged by accessibility-based approaches to pragmatics. Recanati (2002, 2004) proposes that primary pragmatic processes (i.e. processes that contribute to the recovery of the explicit content of the utterance) are underpinned by a simple dynamics of activations-and-associations, with no need for any further (specifically inferential) step or ‘confirmatory stage’ to warrant the selected interpretation. Mazzone (2009, 2011) extends this account to secondary pragmatic processes (i.e. processes of implicature derivation): the recovery of the explicit and implicit content of the utterance is the result of a unified associative comprehension process. This paper argues that, on close analysis, the role played by information about the speaker’s mental states (i.e. her beliefs and intentions) indicates that inference is indispensable in an adequate account of pragmatic processing.
References (27)
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, and Joy E. Hanna. 2011. “Talking in another person’s shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing”. Dialogue and Discourse 21: 11–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2007. “How many pragmatic systems are there?” In Saying, Meaning, Referring. Essays on the Philosophy of François Recanati, ed. by Maria J. Frapolli, 18–48. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2011. “Experimental evidence for embedded implicatures”. Journal of Semantics 28 (3): 359–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Carpintero, Manuel. 2006. “Recanati on the semantics/pragmatics distinction”. Crítica 38 (112): 35–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandy, Richard E. 1989. “On Grice on language”. Journal of Philosophy 861: 514–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Henry P. 1957. “Meaning”. Philosophical Review 661: 377–388. Reprinted in Grice, Henry P. 1989, 213–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice Henry P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Reprinted in Grice, Henry P. 1989, 22–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Henry P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2013. “Two types of implicature: material and behavioural”. Mind & Language 28 (5): 638–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2011. “Accessibility and relevance: a fork in the road”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 231: 11–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “ ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: the role of epistemic vigilance”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251: 20–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzone, Marco. 2009. “Pragmatics and cognition: intentions and pattern recognition in context”, International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2): 321–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Pragmatica lessicale: processi associativi o inferenziali?” In Linguaggio e cervello. Atti del XLII Covegno della società di linguistica italiana, 2, ed. by Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bambini, and Irene Ricci. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2148–2159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Attention to the speaker. The conscious assessment of utterance interpretation in working memory”, Language & Communication 331: 106–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation, Cognitive Science 191: 207–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind & Language 17 (1&2): 105–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Reply to Carston”. In Saying, Meaning, Referring. Essays on the Philosophy of François Recanati, ed. by Maria J. Frapolli, 49–54. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon”. In Thought and language, ed. by Peter Carruthers, and Jill Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading”. Mind & Language 17 (1&2): 3–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic vigilance”. Mind & Language 24 (4): 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference ad Hoc concepts”. In Pragmatics (Palgrave Advances in Linguistics), ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tomoko Matsui. 1998. “Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence, relevance”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 101: 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yeh, Wenchi, and Lawrence W. Barsalou. 2006. “The situated nature of concepts”. American Journal of Psychology 119 (3): 349–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Elder, Chi-Hé & Michael Haugh
2024. The role of inference and inferencing in pragmatic models of communication. Journal of Pragmatics 229 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Allott, Nicholas
2023. Encapsulation, inference and utterance interpretation. Inquiry ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ryzhova, Margarita & Vera Demberg
2023. Processing cost effects of atypicality inferences in a dual-task setup. Journal of Pragmatics 211 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Mazzarella, Diana & Filippo Domaneschi
2018. Presuppositional effects and ostensive-inferential communication. Journal of Pragmatics 138 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue