Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067



In recent years, the concept of unarticulated constitutes has generated a fierce debate both in the philosophy of language and in linguistic semantics and pragmatics. By unarticulated constituent is meant a propositional (or conceptual) constituent of a sentence that is communicated by the speaker in uttering that sentence, but is not linguistically represented in that uttered sentence. The main aim of this article is to provide a neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis of unarticulated constituents, showing that the current existing mechanism of neo-Gricean pragmatic theory can handle unarticulated constituents in a straightforward and elegant way. Second, I defend the neo-Gricean position that the pragmatic enrichment of unarticulated constituents is nothing but a neo-Gricean, pre-semantic conversational implicature. And third and finally, I briefly evaluate an alternative, formal syntactico-semantic analysis of unarticulated constituents.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Atlas, Jay D. & Levinson, Stephen C.
    1981 It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach, Kent
    1994 Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language9(2). 124–162. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  3. 2000 Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind & Language15(2–3). 262–283. doi:  10.1111/1468‑0017.00131
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00131 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2004 Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 463–487. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2012 Context dependence. In Garcia-Carpintero, Manuel & Kolbel, Max (eds.), The Continuum companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bezuidenhout, Anne
    2017 Contextualism and semantic minimalism. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 21–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borg, Emma
    2005 Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication. In Elugardo, Reinaldo & Stainton, Robert J. (eds.), Ellipsis and nonsentential speech, 237–262. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/1‑4020‑2301‑4_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2301-4_13 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cappelen, Herman & Lepore, Ernie
    2007 The myth of unarticulated constituents. In O’Rourke, Michael & Washington, Corey (eds.), Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry, 199–214. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, Belén & Romero, Esther (eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition), 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230292352_14
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_14 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, Noam
    1995The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, L. Jonathan
    1971 Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (ed.), Pragmatics of natural languages, 50–68. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1713‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1713-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crimmins, Mark
    1992Talk about beliefs. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H. P.
    1975 Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hall, Alison
    2008 Free enrichment or hidden indexicals?Mind & Language23(4). 426–456. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2008.00350.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00350.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Horn, Laurence R.
    1984 Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2004 Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007 Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In Burton-Roberts, Noel (ed.), Pragmatics, 158–183. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_9 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 Implying and inferring. In Allan, Keith & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 69–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139022453.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, Yan
    1991 A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics27(2). 301–335. doi:  10.1017/S0022226700012706
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012706 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1992a Against Chomsky’s typology of empty categories. Journal of Pragmatics17(1). 1–29. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90026‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90026-8 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992b Hanyu de kongfanchou [Empty categories in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [ Studies of the Chinese Language ] 1992(5). 384–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1994/2007The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511554292
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554292 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2000Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2004 Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 288–314. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 Pragmatic intrusion into what is said: Explicature, pragmatically enriched ‘said’, implicIture or implicAture? (Paper presented at the27th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society, Cologne, 23–26 February 2005.)
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007Pragmatics (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2011 Types of inference: Entailment, presupposition, and implicature. In Bublitz, Wolfram & Norrick, Neal R. (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 1), 397–422. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110214260.397
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.397 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2012 Relevance and neo-Gricean pragmatic principles. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 4), 25–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110214215.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.25 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2013a Micro- and macro-pragmatics: Remapping their terrains. International Review of Pragmatics5(1). 129–162. doi:  10.1163/18773109‑13050106
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050106 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013b Bayesian probabilistic model of discourse anaphoric comprehension, linguistic typology, and neo-Gricean pragmatics. Theoretical Linguistics39(1–2). 95–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013cDe se attitude/belief ascription and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics: Logophoric expressions in West African languages and long-distance reflexives in East, South, and Southeast Asian languages. In Feit, Neil & Capone, Alessandro (eds.), Attitude de se: Linguistics, epistemology, metaphysics, 185–209. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013d Logophoricity and neo-Gricean truth-conditional pragmatics. In Capone, Alessandro & Lo Piparo, Franco & Carapezza, Marco (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2), 217–241. New York: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01014‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014Pragmatics (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). 2nd edn.New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015 Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 615–639. 2nd edn.New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2016 Pragmatics: Language use in context. In Allan, Keith (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics, 205–220. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017a Implicature. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 155–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2017b Neo-Gricean pragmatics. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 47–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017c Implicitness in the lexis: Lexical narrowing and neo-Gricean pragmatics. In Cap, Piotr & Dynel, Marta (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276), 67–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.276.04hua
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.04hua [Google Scholar]
  42. (ed.) 2017dThe Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Katz, Jerrold J.
    1972Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. King, Jeffrey C.
    2007The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226061.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226061.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. King, Jeffrey C. & Stanley, Jason
    2005 Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics, 111–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kripke, Saul
    1977 Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy2(1). 255–276. doi:  10.1111/j.1475‑4975.1977.tb00045.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Kripke, Saul A.
    1980Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1987 Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics23(1987). 379–434. doi:  10.1017/S0022226700011324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011324 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. MacFarlane, John
    2007 Semantic minimalism and nonindexical contextualism. In Preyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics, 240–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Marti, Luisa
    2006 Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy29(2). 135–166. doi:  10.1007/s10988‑005‑4740‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-4740-4 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nunberg, Geoffrey
    1995 Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics12(2). 109–132. doi:  10.1093/jos/12.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  53. Partee, Barbara H.
    1989 Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In Wiltshire, Caroline & Graczyk, Randolph & Music, Bradley (eds.), CLS 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 342–365. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Perry, John
    1986 Thought without representation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volumes601. 137–151. doi:  10.1093/aristoteliansupp/60.1.137
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/60.1.137 [Google Scholar]
  55. 1993The problem of the essential indexical: And other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 1998 Indexicals, contexts, and unarticulated constituents. In Aliseda-Llera, Atocha & Van Glabbeek, Rob & Westerståhl, Dag (eds.), Computing natural language, 1–11. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Recanati, François
    1993Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2002 Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy25(3). 299–345. doi:  10.1023/A:1015267930510
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015267930510 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2004Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2007 It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy30(1). 123–146. doi:  10.1007/s10988‑006‑9007‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9007-1 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2010Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Saul, Jennifer M.
    2002 What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy251. 347–372. doi:  10.1023/A:1015221313887
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015221313887 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schiffer, Stephen
    1977 Naming and knowing. Midwest Studies in Philosophy2(1). 28–41. doi:  10.1111/j.1475‑4975.1977.tb00026.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00026.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Sennet, Adam
    2011 Unarticulated constituents and propositional structure. Mind & Language26(4). 412–435. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2011.01423.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01423.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Stainton, Robert
    2006Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250387.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250387.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stanley, Jason
    2000 Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy23(4). 391–434. doi:  10.1023/A:1005599312747
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2002 Making it articulated. Mind & Language17(1–2). 149–168. doi:  10.1111/1468‑0017.00193
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00193 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2005 Semantics in context. In Preyer, Gerhard & Peter, Georg (eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth, 221–254. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Stanley, Jason & Szabó, Zoltán Gendler
    2000a On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language15(2–3). 219–261. doi:  10.1111/1468‑0017.00130
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00130 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2000b Reply to Bach and Neale. Mind & Language15(2–3). 295–298. doi:  10.1111/1468‑0017.00133
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00133 [Google Scholar]
  72. Taylor, Kenneth A.
    2001 Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus. Synthese128(1–2). 45–61. doi:  10.1023/A:1010349621943
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010349621943 [Google Scholar]
  73. Vicente, Begoña & Groefsema, Marjolein
    2013 Something out of nothing? Rethinking unarticulated constituents. Journal of Pragmatics47(1). 108–127. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  74. Walker, Ralph C. S.
    1975 Conversational implicatures. In Blackburn, Simon (ed.), Meaning, reference, and necessity: New studies in semantics, 133–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Westerståhl, Dag
    1985 Determiners and context sets. In van Benthem, Johan & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural languages, 45–72. Dordrecht: Foris. doi:  10.1515/9783110867909.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867909.45 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error