Cover not available

In:Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 147–176

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

Chapter 7
Lexical pragmatics and implicit communication

 | University College London
 | New York College Athens
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.07wil
In this paper, we consider what is implicitly communicated when the linguistically-specified (encoded) meaning of a word or phrase is modified in use. Well-studied examples of such modification include lexical narrowing, approximation and metaphorical extension. A striking feature of much research in this area is that narrowing, approximation and metaphorical extension tend to be seen as distinct processes which lack a common explanation; indeed, the philosopher Donald Davidson famously argued that since metaphor does not always determine “a cognitive content that its author wishes to convey and that the interpreter must grasp if he is to get the message”, it does not fall within the scope of a theory of communication at all. Using corpus data to shed light on some of the issues raised by this research, we will make two main points. First, there is a continuum of cases between literal use, approximation, hyperbole and metaphor, which favours the search for a unitary account that applies across the whole continuum. Second, what is implicitly communicated is not always a specific “cognitive content that the speaker wishes to convey”: rather, there is a continuum of cases with varying degrees of specificity, and an adequate theory of communication should explain the whole range.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexical narrowing
  • 3.The continuum of literal, loose and metaphorical uses
  • 4.When narrowing and broadening combine
  • 5.The scope of a theory of communication
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. “Lexical Pragmatics.” Journal of Semantics 15: 115–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Pragmatics and the Lexicon.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 488–514. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1997. “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?” Linguistische Berichte 8: 103–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Catherine Wearing. 2011. “Metaphor, Hyperbole and Simile: A Pragmatic Approach.” Language and Cognition 3: 283–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1978. “What Metaphors Mean.” Critical Inquiry 5: 31–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002: The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2009. “Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics.” Mind and Language 24: 51–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “The Psycholinguistics of Metaphor.” Trends in Cognitive Science 7: 92–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1967. “Logic and Conversation” (William James Lectures), Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2004. “Implicature.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Histoire d’*O: Lexical Pragmatics and the Geometry of Opposition.” In New Perspectives on the Square of Opposition, ed. by J.-Y. Béziau and G. Payette, 393–426. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2014. “Defaults in Semantics and Pragmatics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolaiti, Patricia, and Deirdre Wilson. 2014. “Corpus Analysis and Lexical Pragmatics: An Overview.” International Review of Pragmatics 6: 211–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie, and Matthew Stone. 2010. “Against Metaphorical Meaning.” Topoi 29: 165–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alex, and Ann Copestake. 1998. “Pragmatics and Word Meaning.” Journal of Linguistics 34: 55–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. “Pragmatic Halos.” Language 75: 522–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira, and Dan Sperber. 2007. “The Why and How of Experimental Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 184–212. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1985. “Loose Talk.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86: 153–171.
. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1998. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” In Language and Thought, ed. by P. Carruthers and J. Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2002. “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mindreading.” Mind and Language 17: 3–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor in Language and Thought, ed. by Raymond Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy vol. XV, no. 44: 117–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Aletta Dorst, Berenike Herrman, Anna J. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2003. “Natural Pragmatics and Natural Codes.” Mind and Language 18: 447–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011a. “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 177–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and A. Ahern, 66–84. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual–Procedural Distinction.” Lingua175–176: 5–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Relevance Theory.” In Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79-100.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2006. “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind and Language 21: 404–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and ad hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Metaphor and the ‘Emergent Property’ Problem: A Relevance-theoretic Treatment.” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3: 1–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2002. “Truthfulness and Relevance.” Mind 111: 583–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Liang, Nina, Yanfei Zhang & Yuan Zhang
2025. Delineating how PCIs develop into GCIs from a cognition-pragmatics diachronic perspective. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Su, Ruili & Yanfei Zhang
2025. Conversational implicature: a diachronic cognitive pragmatic approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
Wieczorek, Magdalena
2025. Imperfect homophony as a source of wordplay in the sitcom Modern Family: A relevance-theoretic lexical pragmatic approach. Crossroads A Journal of English Studies :48(1) ► pp. 66 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2025. Inferring from Emojis: From Propositions to Feelings and Emotions. In Emoji Pragmatics, ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Scott, Kate
2021. Memes as multimodal metaphors. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Diez-Arroyo, Marisa
2020. The pragmatics of luxury. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 83 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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