Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:1 (2023) ► pp.170–184

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

On the nature of pragmatic constituents

Considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate

 | University of Messina
Published online: 14 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21001.gra
Abstract
The present article focuses on certain points in the semantics/pragmatics debate. Among these, one of the most interesting is the possibility of reconciling, independent of the context, certain aspects of meaning which have always been the subject of discussion in formal semantics, with the view that meaning is socially and situationally conditioned. Recent new insights concerning the importance of pragmatics for enriching the propositional content of the utterance should not lead to a radical contextualism that denies the assignment of any role at all to semantics. Instead, it is possible to argue that both dimensions, semantics and pragmatics, along with their constituent parts, offer fundamental contributions to the transmission and understanding of the overall meaning of a (spoken or written) text.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Structure of Capone’s book
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (33)
References
Baron-Cohen, Simon, and Patricia Howlin. 1993. “The theory of mind deficit in autism: some questions for teaching and diagnosis.” In Understanding other minds: perspectives from autism, ed. by Simon Baron-Cohen, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Alan M. Leslie, and Uta Frith. 1985. “Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?” Cognition, 211: 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen. 2000. “A note on nosology.” In Understanding other minds: perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience, ed. by Simon Baron-Cohen, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2010. “Cancellation and intention.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Belén Soria and Esther Romero. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2005. “Pragmemes : A study with reference to English and Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1355–1371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “On Grice’s circle. (Further considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate).” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 645–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Are explicatures cancellable?” Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 61: 55–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “What can modularity of mind tell us about the semantics/pragmatics debate?” Australian Journal of linguistics 301: 497–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Embedding explicatures in implicit indirect reports: simple sentences, and substitution failure cases.” In Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Marco Carapezza, and Franco Lo Piparo. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Pragmemes (again).” Lingua 2091: 89–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Pragmatics and Philosophy. Connections and Ramifications. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2008. “Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Synthese 1651: 321–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummings, Louise. 2009. Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 2021. Overlooking conventions. The trouble with linguistic pragmatism. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. “Reference and definite descriptions”. Philosophical Review 75(3): 291–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2003. “Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia.” In Conversation and brain damage, ed. by Charles Goodwin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. “Situated temporal reference: A case for compositional pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2898–2909. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. by Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Second ed.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. “Reference and the pragmeme.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2882–2888. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olness, Gloria S., and Hanna, Ulatowska H. 2016. “Aphasias.” In Research in Clinical Pragmatics, ed. by Louise Cummings. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1986. “Thought without Representation.” Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 601: 263–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2005. “Meaning before truth.” In Contextualism in philosophy, ed. by Gerhard Preyer, and Georg Peter. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sodian, Beate, and Uta Frith. 1992. “Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 331: 591–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert J. 2005. “In defense of non-sentential assertion.” In Semantics versus pragmatics, ed by Zoltan Gendler Szabo. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Graci, Roberto
2024. Exploring the Neurological Substrates of Pragmatics: Insights from Neuroscience. In Philosophy, Cognition and Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 34], ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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