1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 32, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Communicative intentions, conceived as internal mental states, are subject to an objection already raised by Wittgenstein: since they are not accessible to hearers, they cannot play an explanatory role in utterance understanding. Such an objection has led Sbisà (2001/2023a) and Hansen & Terkourafi (2023) to propose shifting the weight of explanation from speaker’s to hearer’s meaning. This article delineates the scope of that objection, arguing that communicative intentions are irrelevant if conceived as private mental states, but defending an alternative, public conception of communicatively relevant mental states, framed in terms of representations of public correlations between public facts. This allows for the formation of rules which are intersubjective but nonetheless mental. Importantly, such rules are presupposed by intentional communication as described in animal studies. Given this public conception of the mental, neither the speaker nor the hearer holds special authority over the intended content: they share a narrowly constrained authority.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24036.maz
2025-11-13
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.24036.maz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arundale, Robert B.
    2008 Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics5(2). 229–258. 10.1515/IP.2008.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bar-On, Dorit
    2013 Origins of meaning: Must we ‘go Gricean’?Mind & Language28(3). 342–375. 10.1111/mila.12021
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12021 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2024 ‘Pragmatics first’: Animal communication and the evolution of language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bianchi, Claudia
    2023 Varieties of uptake. InLaura Caponetto & Paolo Labinaz (eds.), Sbisà on speech as action, 75–96. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑22528‑4_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22528-4_4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilmes, Jack
    1986 Discourse and behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4899‑2040‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2040-9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Duranti, Alessandro
    1993 Intentions, self, and responsibility: An essay in Samoan ethnopragmatics. InJane H. Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 24–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1999 Intentionality. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology9(1–2). 134–36. 10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1‑2.134
     https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.134 [Google Scholar]
  8. Geurts, Bart
    2019 What’s wrong with Gricean pragmatics. InAntonis Botinis (ed.), ExLing 2019: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Experimental Linguistics, 1–8. ExLing Society: Athens. 10.36505/ExLing‑2019/10/0001/000363
     https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2019/10/0001/000363 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gomez, Juan-Carlos
    2005 Joint attention and the notion of subject: Insights from apes, normal children, and children with autism. InNaomi Eilan, Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Johannes Roessler (eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology, 65–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245635.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245635.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grice, Paul
    1957 Meaning. The Philosophical Review641. 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  11. Guala, Francesco
    2016 Understanding institutions: The science and philosophy of living together. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hansen, Maj-Britt M. & Marina Terkourafi
    2023 We need to talk about hearer’s meaning!Journal of Pragmatics2081. 99–114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  13. Haugh, Michael
    2008 The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. InIstvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 45–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211474.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211474.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobson, Daniel
    1995 Freedom of speech acts? A response to Langton. Philosophy & Public Affairs241. 64–79. 10.1111/j.1088‑4963.1995.tb00022.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00022.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M.
    2019 Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics1451. 15–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.024
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.024 [Google Scholar]
  16. Langton, Rae
    1993 Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs221. 293–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. MacCorquodale, Kenneth & Paul E. Meehl
    1948 On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review55(2). 95–107. 10.1037/h0056029
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056029 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mazzone, Marco
    2021 Cognitive pragmatics. InXu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 433–449. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑30
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-30 [Google Scholar]
  19. . submitted. Communicative intentions or negotiation of meaning: Do we have to choose?
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Rosaldo, Michelle Z.
    1982 The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society11(2). 203–237. 10.1017/S0047404500009209
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009209 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rubio-Fernandez, Paula
    2024 Cultural evolutionary pragmatics: Investigating the codevelopment and coevolution of language and social cognition. Psychological Review131(1). 18. 10.1037/rev0000423
     https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000423 [Google Scholar]
  22. Sanders, Robert E.
    2013 The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self-repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics48(1). 112–122. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020 [Google Scholar]
  23. Saul, Jennifer
    2002a Speaker meaning, what is said and what is implicated. Nous36(2). 228–248. 10.1111/1468‑0068.00369
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.00369 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002b What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy25(3). 347–372. 10.1023/A:1015221313887
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015221313887 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sbisà, Marina
    2001 Intentions from the other side. InGiovanna Cosenza (ed.), Paul Grice’s heritage, 185–206. Turnhout: Brepols.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2023a Intentions from the other side. InMarina Sbisà (ed.), Essays on speech acts and other topics in pragmatics, 72–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192844125.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844125.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2023b Reply to Bianchi. InLaura Caponetto & Paolo Labinaz (eds.), Sbisà on speech as action, 304–306. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Townsend, Simon
    2017 Exorcising Grice’s ghost: An empirical approach to studying intentional communication in animals. Biological Review921. 1427–1433. 10.1111/brv.12289
     https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12289 [Google Scholar]
  29. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1953 Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Whiten, Andrew
    1996 When does smart behavior-reading become mind-reading?InPeter Carruthers, & Peter K. Smith (eds.), Theories of theories of mind, 277–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24036.maz
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): animal studies; communicative intention; conversational authority; hearer’s meaning; intersubjectivity; mental state; speaker’s meaning

Most Cited

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