@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 29 Mar 2024}, author = {Walker, R.C.S.}, subject = {Implicature}, note = {Meggle I 438 Counterfactual conditional/speech act/conversational implicature/Walker: the speaker takes the trouble to express a certain counterfactual conditional and not another - hence the wrong antecedent is not idle. >Contrafactual conditionals, >Presuppositions, >Antecedents. Meggle I 439 "Even if"/Walker: "even if p, q" - Mackie: proposes instead "And equally, p > q". Conversational implicature: in a context where casually ~ p > q can be assumed, a statement of "And equally, p > q" should suggest that this is (~ p > q), with which "p > q" should be connected. Meggle I 445 Conversational implicature: no matter what circumstances are present, we find: "~ (p > q)" significantly less clear than "p u ~ q". Meggle I 471 Conversational implicature/Walker: Conversational implicatures can harden into metaphors and thus make classes superfluous. >Metaphors.}, note = { Walker I Ralph C. S. Walker "Conversational Inmplicatures", in: S. Blackburn (ed) Meaning, Reference, and Necessity, Cambridge 1975, pp. 133-181 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1979 Grice: > Meg I G. Meggle (Hg) Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung Frankfurt/M 1979 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=538877} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=538877} }