| Title |
On explicatures, cancellability and cancellation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2789-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregor Walczak |
| Abstract |
Within the Gricean framework only what is conversationally implicated is cancellable, whereas what is conventionally implicated and what is said cannot be cancelled without giving rise to contradiction. In the relevance-theoretic framework, however, the question is whether explicatures, which replace the Gricean notion of what is said, are cancellable. In recent years, various objections to the cancellability of explicatures have been raised. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that these objections are due to a misinterpretation of the Gricean cancellability test. In particular, they disregard the fact that this test is merely one of several diagnostic tools that are used by Grice to distinguish between conventional and conversational implicatures. Once we have recognized the essence of the cancellability test, the objections to the cancellability of explicatures turn out to be unwarranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 7 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#15,824,728
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#945
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,582
of 365,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#126
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.