@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}
}