Author(s):  
Eros Corazza

In English, Italian, French, and Spanish (to name only a few languages), people’s names tend to suggest the referent’s gender. Thus “Paul,” “Paolo,” “Pierre,” and “Jesús” strongly suggest that their referent is male, while “Ortensia,” “Mary,” “Paola,” “Pauline,” and “Lizbeth” suggest that the referent is a female. To borrow the terminology introduced by Putnam, we can characterize the additional information conveyed by a name as stereotypical information. It doesn’t affect someone’s linguistic and semantic competence: one is not linguistically incompetent if one doesn’t know that “Sue” is used to refer to females. The argument here is that the stereotypical information conveyed by a name can be characterized along the lines of Grice’s treatment of generalized conversational implicatures and that anaphoric resolution exploits it.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Colonna Dahlman

AbstractAccording to Grice’s analysis, conversational implicatures are carried by the saying of what is said (Grice 1989: 39). In this paper, it is argued that, whenever a speaker implicates a content by flouting one or several maxims, her implicature is not only carried by the act of saying what is said and the way of saying it, but also by the act of non-saying what should have been said according to what would have been normal to say in that particular context. Implicatures that arise without maxim violation are only built on the saying of what is said, while those that arise in violative contexts are carried by the saying of what is said in combination with the non-saying of what should have been said. This observation seems to justify two claims: (i) that conversational implicatures have different epistemic requirements depending on whether they arise in violative or non-violative contexts; (ii) that implicatures arising in non-violative contexts are more strongly tied to their generating assertion than those arising with maxim violation.


1991 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Secrest ◽  
Gregory G. Brunk ◽  
Howard Tamashiro

2020 ◽  
pp. 174387212098228
Author(s):  
Stephen Riley

Drawing upon Kant’s analysis of the role of intuitions in our orientation towards knowledge, this paper analyses four points of departure in thinking about dignity: self, other, time and space. Each reveals a core area of normative discourse – authenticity in the self, respect for the other, progress through time and authority as the government of space – along with related grounds of resistance to dignity. The paper concludes with a discussion of the methodological challenge presented by our different dignitarian intuitions, in particular the role of universality in testing and cohering our intuitions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175774382098617
Author(s):  
John Welsh

The bulk of research on academic rankings is policy-oriented, preoccupied with ‘best practices’, and seems incapable of transcending the normative discourse of ‘governance’. To understand, engage, and properly critique the operation of power in academic rankings, the rankings discourse needs to escape the gravity of ‘police science’ and embrace a properly political science of ranking. More specifically, the article identifies three pillars of the extant research from which a departure would be critically fruitful – positivism, managerialism, institutionalism – and then goes on to outline three aspects of rankings that a critical political analysis should explore, integrate, and develop into future research from the discourses of critical theory – arkhè, dispositif, and dialectik.


Ethics ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Gibbard
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document