Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present article focuses on certain points in the semantics/pragmatics debate. Among these, one of the most interesting is the possibility of reconciling, independent of the context, certain aspects of meaning which have always been the subject of discussion in formal semantics, with the view that meaning is socially and situationally conditioned. Recent new insights concerning the importance of pragmatics for enriching the propositional content of the utterance should not lead to a radical contextualism that denies the assignment of any role at all to semantics. Instead, it is possible to argue that both dimensions, semantics and pragmatics, along with their constituent parts, offer fundamental contributions to the transmission and understanding of the overall meaning of a (spoken or written) text.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baron-Cohen, Simon, and Patricia Howlin
    1993 “The theory of mind deficit in autism: some questions for teaching and diagnosis.” InUnderstanding other minds: perspectives from autism, ed. bySimon Baron-Cohen, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron-Cohen, Simon, Alan M. Leslie, and Uta Frith
    1985 “Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?” Cognition, 211: 37–46. 10.1016/0010‑0277(85)90022‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron-Cohen, Simon, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen
    2000 “A note on nosology.” InUnderstanding other minds: perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience, ed. bySimon Baron-Cohen, Helen Tager-Flusberg, and Donald J. Cohen. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brentano, Franz
    1874Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    2010 “Cancellation and intention.” InExplicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. byBelén Soria and Esther Romero. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230292352_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Capone, Alessandro
    2005 “Pragmemes : A study with reference to English and Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics371: 1355–1371. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006 “On Grice’s circle. (Further considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate).” Journal of Pragmatics381: 645–669. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2009 “Are explicatures cancellable?” Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics61: 55–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 “What can modularity of mind tell us about the semantics/pragmatics debate?” Australian Journal of linguistics301: 497–522. 10.1080/07268602.2010.522971
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2010.522971 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 “Embedding explicatures in implicit indirect reports: simple sentences, and substitution failure cases.” InFurther Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy, ed. byAlessandro Capone, Marco Carapezza, and Franco Lo Piparo. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑72173‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72173-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “Pragmemes (again).” Lingua2091: 89–104. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2019Pragmatics and Philosophy. Connections and Ramifications. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑19146‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19146-7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carston, Robyn
    2008 “Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Synthese1651: 321–345. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9191‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cummings, Louise
    2009Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581601
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581601 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dennett, Daniel
    1987The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Devitt, Michael
    2021Overlooking conventions. The trouble with linguistic pragmatism. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑70653‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70653-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Donnellan, Keith S.
    1966 “Reference and definite descriptions”. Philosophical Review75(3): 291–304. 10.2307/2183143
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2183143 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    2003 “Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia.” InConversation and brain damage, ed. byCharles Goodwin. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaszczolt, Kasia M.
    2005Default Semantics. Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 “Situated temporal reference: A case for compositional pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2898–2909. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1988 “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation.” InErving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. byPaul Drew and Anthony Wootton. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewis, Geoffrey L.
    1967Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lyons, John
    1981Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809859
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809859 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Second ed.)
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2010 “Reference and the pragmeme.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2882–2888. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Olness, Gloria S., and Hanna, Ulatowska H.
    2016 “Aphasias.” InResearch in Clinical Pragmatics, ed. byLouise Cummings. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Perry, John
    1986 “Thought without Representation.” Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society601: 263–83. 10.1093/aristoteliansupp/60.1.137
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/60.1.137 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pietroski, Paul
    2005 “Meaning before truth.” InContextualism in philosophy, ed. byGerhard Preyer, and Georg Peter. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sodian, Beate, and Uta Frith
    1992 “Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry331: 591–605. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1992.tb00893.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00893.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stainton, Robert J.
    2005 “In defense of non-sentential assertion.” InSemantics versus pragmatics, ed byZoltan Gendler Szabo. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contextualism; formal semantics; intentionality; semantics/pragmatics debate
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