Cover not available

In:Beyond Meaning
Edited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 11–28

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

Beyond meaningNN and ostension

Pragmatic inference in the wild

 | University of Malta
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c1
Abstract
Inferential pragmatics is typically considered to deal exclusively with meaning that has been overtly and intentionally communicated. This paper sets out to investigate whether this established domain of enquiry can be extended to include instances of information transmission that may not be characterised by an underlying communicative intention on the part of a stimulus producer. Adopting a relevance-theoretic perspective, I argue that this can indeed be done and show how it can be quite naturally accommodated in the framework. The upshot of my argumentation in this regard is that pragmatic inference has a central role to play in interpretation even beyond the confines of what has been traditionally viewed as communication proper.
Article outline
  • 1.Overtness and the domain of pragmatics
  • 2.Relevance theory
  • 3.Relevance and the interpretation of non-ostensive stimuli
    • 3.1Comprehension in the absence of ostension
    • 3.2The pragmatic processing of non-ostensive stimuli
  • 4.Pragmatics and the territory beyond meaning
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2017. “Relevance.” In The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Anne Barron, Yueguo Gu, and Gerard Steen, 310‒322. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, Hanno T. 2007. “Comprehension Procedures and Non-communicative Utterances.” MS. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2012. “Relevance theory.” In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Gillian Russell, and Delia Graff Fara, 163‒176. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. 1992. “Speaker Meaning.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 223‒253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis, and Tim Wharton. 2019. “La notion de pertinence au défi des effets émotionnels [Relevance and emotional effects].” TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage 35. Retrieved from: [URL].
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377‒388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1969. “Utterer’s Meaning and Intention.” Philosophical Review 78: 147‒177. 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
Haugh, Michael. 2008. “Intention in Pragmatics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5: 99‒110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolaiti, Patricia. 2009. “The Limits of Expression: Language, Poetry, Thought.” PhD diss., University College London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The Limits of Expression: Language, Literature, Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L., and Mary Talbot. 1988. “Computation and the Soul.” Journal of Pragmatics 12: 743‒789. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1982. “Mutual Knowledge and Relevance in Theories of Comprehension.” In Mutual Knowledge, ed. by Neil V. Smith, 61‒85. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan.1994. “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations." In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by Lawrence A. Hirschfeld & Susan A. Gelman, 39–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. “Fodor’s Frame Problem and Relevance Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 530‒532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. “Remarks on Relevance Theory and the Social Sciences.” Multilingua 16: 145‒151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading.” Mind and Language 17: 3‒23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15: 117‒149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2008. “‘MeaningNN’ and ‘Showing’: Gricean Intentions and Relevance-Theoretic Intentions.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5: 131‒152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim, and Claudia Strey 2019. “Slave to the Passions: Making Emotions Relevant.” In Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robyn Carston, 253‒267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 1993. “Relevance and Understanding.” Pragmalingüística 1: 335‒366.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation.” In Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, ed. by Terence Cave, and Deirdre Wilson, 185‒204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31‒38. https://doi.org/ Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1985. “On Choosing the Context for Utterance-Interpretation.” In Foregrounding Background, ed. by Jens Allwood, and Erland Hjelmquist, 51‒64. Lund: Doxa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1‒25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Lawrence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607‒632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2015. Relevance Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed., ed. by Bendt Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 642‒662. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Anna Piata & Dimitris Serafis
2025. Using humour to call out racism. Pragmatics & Cognition 32:1 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Assimakopoulos, Stavros & Dimitris Serafis
2025. Why soft hate speech matters: argumentativity and the dispersion of hatred towards minorities. Critical Discourse Studies ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2023. Relevance Theory, Humour and Internet Communication. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Assimakopoulos, Stavros
2021. Interpretation, relevance and the ideological effects of discursive practice. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 394 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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