Dear all,
In the last few months I have read some RT-related articles in which a definition of the term explicature was provided and about which I've got some doubts. It's probably my fault, but I thought the list was the best place to clear my mind.
According to S&W, the interpretation of an utterance starts off with the identification of its logical form, the so-called decoding phase of interpretation. For instance an identification of (1) as a grammatical English sentence:
(1) The teibl is tu: waid ("the table is too wide").
The hearer is then supposed to enrich this logical form inferentially with such contextual operations as reference assignment, disambiguation, narrowing, or loosening. The result is the proposition expressed by the utterance. In the case of (1) it could be, for instance, (2):
(2) The table [which is in the downstairs sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
The hearer is also expected to identify which attitude the speaker holds upon uttering (2), and normally the hearer will -in his/her search for optimal relevance- embed the proposition expressed in an assumption schema yielding a higher-level explicature such as (3a-c):
(3)
a. The speaker regrets that the table [which is in the downstairs sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
b. The speaker warns that the table [which is in the downstairs sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
c. The speaker suggests that the table [which is in the downstairs sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
NOW, I have read in several articles a description of this interpretive procedure in which (2) is defined as the explicature of (1) and in which the (basic) explicit message (4) below is defined as another possible higher-level explicature of (1):
(4) The speaker says that the table [which is in the downstairs sitting-room] is too wide [to go through the door].
However, if I'm not wrong, explicatures are propositions WHICH ARE COMMUNICATED explicitly. In other words, for me if (2) WAS communicated, then it would turn into an explicature. Of course there are many cases in which (2) is not communicated as an explicature (novel metaphors, many instances of irony, non-assertive speech acts...). Consequently, for me (2) would only be the proposition expressed by (1), and (4) would be an explicature of (1), and NOT, as I have read several times already, (2) as the explicature of (1) and (4) as a higher-level explicature of (1).
What do you think?
Thanks in advance. My apologies if you find this question utterly naive.
Dr. Francisco Yus
University of Alicante
Department of English Studies
http://www.ua.es/dfing/personal/profs/yus.htm
http://cibersociedad.rediris.es/yus/
Apartado 99
E-03080 Alicante (Spain)
e-mail (university) francisco.yus@ua.es
e-mail (home) f.yus@mail.ono.es
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 20 2001 - 22:05:14 GMT