Search

In this paper, I consider implicit meaning in a perspective focusing on explicitation practices, which is also suitable for highlighting its communicative functions, both cognitive and persuasive. I present an outline of my approach, which pays specific attention to how we detect implicit meaning and make it explicit, and to the functions it serves with respect to the overall significance of a text. I illustrate a way of distinguishing between presupposition and implicature that takes into account their modes of explicitation and their functional features. I then examine some varieties of implicit meaning (with the aid of examples from the press or the web): existential presupposition, supplements, Gricean conventional implicature, and conversational implicature according to Relation. These discussions yield some refinements of the initial distinction between presupposition and implicature, which I hope will serve to make it more suitable to the task of matching each variety of implicit meaning with the most appropriate mode of explicitation. Finally, I briefly discuss the potential and the limitations of explicitation practices, suggesting that their exercise can usefully foster the mastery of implicit meaning in everyday contexts too. • Explicitation of implicit meaning maximizes understanding and enables criticism. • For each variety of implicit meaning, explicitation is governed by rules or reasons. • Presupposed contents and implicata serve different functions. • Supplements are functionally closer to presupposition than to implicature. • Conventional implicata amount to conditions of non-central speech acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]