[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-589561-105":59,"doc-detail-589561-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","explicit-implicit-distinction-a-review-of-related-literature","Explicit-implicit Distinction - A Review of Related Literature","","This paper sketches the main views of major pragmatic approaches—Grice’s theory of conversation, Relevance Theory, and Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory—on the explicit–implicit distinction. It explains how the distinction is drawn differently for utterance interpretation across these frameworks. The review also identifies recurring problems that emerge within each approach and concludes that no consensus exists on the dividing lines of this dichotomy.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":15,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literature/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/explicit-implicit-distinction-a-review-of-related-literature/589561/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/explicit-implicit-distinction-a-review-of-related-literature/589561.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Terk","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the paper cover regarding the explicit–implicit distinction?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It reviews how Grice’s theory, Relevance Theory, and Neo-Gricean approaches account for explicit–implicit distinctions in utterance interpretation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What problem does the paper highlight about different approaches?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It emphasizes that there is no general agreement on the precise nature and dividing lines of the explicit–implicit distinction across major approaches.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does Grice connect explicit–implicit distinction with semantics and pragmatics?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The paper presents Grice’s framework that treats what is said as explicit and what is implicated as implicit, aligning semantics with truth-conditional content and pragmatics with non-truth-conditional meanings.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},589561,1792479299,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":14,"category_name":15,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":52,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Advances in Language and Literary Studies ISSN: 2203-4714  \nVol. 7 No. 1; February 2016  \n Australian International Academic Centre, Australia  \n|  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |\n|  | Flourishing Creativity & Literacy |  |\n|  |  |  |\n\nExplicit-implicit Distinction: A Review of Related Literature  \nMarwan A. Jarrah  \nUniversity of Jordan, Jordan  \n&  \nNewcastle University, UK  \n[Emails: m.a.s.jarrah@ncl.ac.uk](Emails: m.a.s.jarrah@ncl.ac.uk); [masaljarrah@yahoo.com](masaljarrah@yahoo.com)  \nDoi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.175  \nURL: [http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.175](http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.175)  \nReceived: 23/09/2015  \nAccepted: 05/12/2015  \nAbstract  \nThis paper sketches out the main views of the major pragmatic approaches (i.e., Grice’s theory of conversation, Relevance Theory, and Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory) on explicit-implicit distinction. It makes clear how this distinction has been differently drawn for utterance interpretation. Additionally, it highlights several corresponding problems that have arisen within such approaches. It demonstrates ultimately that no consensus has been reached on the dividing lines of the dichotomy of this distinction.  \nKeywords: explicit-implicit distinction, Grice’s theory of conversation, Relevance Theory, Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory  \n1. Introduction  \nExplicit-implicit distinction (E-ID) has recently emerged as one of the pressing issues in contemporary pragmatic theory as well as truth-conditional semantics (see, e.g., Carston 1998 Burton-Roberts 2005, and Dew and Cabeza 2011) . When comparing views on E-ID, one finds that there has been no general agreement within the major pragmatic approaches regarding the precise nature of E-ID. For example, semantics vs. pragmatics was isomorphic for Grice with explicit vs. implicit (cf. Burton-Roberts 2006, Attardo 2011, and Blakemore 2014, among others) . Differently, for Relevance Theory (RT) (Sperber and Wilson 1986a, 1987a,b, 1995, 1998a, 2002 and subsequent work) pragmatic enrichment has been proven essential to recovery of explicit content, an inherent combination of both linguistically-encoded and contextually-inferred conceptual components (Carston 2002, 2008, Braseth 2010, Carston and UCHIDA 2012, Clark 2013, and Wilson and Sperber 2015) .  \nFollowing this, the current paper reviews some monumental works that attempt to define this two-way distinction. It capitalises on the issue how this distinction has been formulated in various pragmatic approaches, highlighting their corresponding problems relevant to this distinction. It reflects that the differences between pragmatic approaches under discussion are significant. Some have assumed that E-ID follows naturally from language use, while others argue that it is a philosophical artefact and vacuous projection of Grice’s theory of conversation whose theory-internal problems and inevitable complications are incontrovertible (cf. Levinson 2000, Atlas 2005, Horn 2006, and Erdelyi 2012) .  \nThis review is organised as follows. Section 2 introduces an outline of Grice’s perspective on E-ID. It poses, at the sametime, two problems against Grice’s: the total significance of an utterance and the unobserved overlap between A-saying and B-saying. Section 3 discusses E-ID within RT, the current dominating pragmatic practice. It also addresses some problems against RT’s treatment of E-ID, including the definition of ‘explicature ’. Section 4 sheds light on Bach’s impliciture. It explores in brief neo-Griceans’ assumptions on Grice’s circle and hence their call to decline E-ID. Section 5 concludes the review.  \n2. Grice’s E-ID and problems  \n2.1 Grice’s treatment of E-ID  \nGrice's invaluable views on speaker meaning and, particularly, his theory of implicatures have considerably influenced contemporary pragmatics (Wilson and Sperber 1981: 155) . He pioneered a systematic way of distinction between semantics and pragmatics whose actual character and interaction","cbCaimuXA7rIGQGk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimuXA7rIGQGk","pdf",641477,"English","# Introduction\n## Grice’s treatment of E-ID\n# Grice’s E-ID and problems\n## Grice’s treatment of E-ID","[{\"question\":\"What does the paper cover regarding the explicit–implicit distinction?\",\"answer\":\"It reviews how Grice’s theory, Relevance Theory, and Neo-Gricean approaches account for explicit–implicit distinctions in utterance interpretation.\"},{\"question\":\"What problem does the paper highlight about different approaches?\",\"answer\":\"It emphasizes that there is no general agreement on the precise nature and dividing lines of the explicit–implicit distinction across major approaches.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Grice connect explicit–implicit distinction with semantics and pragmatics?\",\"answer\":\"The paper presents Grice’s framework that treats what is said as explicit and what is implicated as implicit, aligning semantics with truth-conditional content and pragmatics with non-truth-conditional meanings.\"}]","Explicit-implicit Distinction - A Review of Related Literature | PDF",1792067624,15]