1. Linguistic Structure and Inferential Communication Deirdre Wilson
Raymond Moran and Bryanna Hebenstreit

2. Main Aims
“To draw out some of the implications [for the study of linguistic structure]” (p. 2)
“To argue that the impact of the inferential revolution on the study of linguistic structure has yet to be fully realised.” (p.2)

3. Code vs Inferential 1.“treat utterances as encoding messages” (p.1)
2.Message encoded = message received
3.Produces duplication of messages
1.“treat utterances as pieces of evidence about the communicator’s intentions” (p.2)
2.points to meaning without determining the meaning
3.intentions are not decoded but inferred

4. Against Code Theory
Grice (1989) “show[ed] that messages could be communicated without being encoded” (p. 4).
Linguists focused more attention on the “analysis of context dependence” (p. 4).

5. Updated Code Model
It is no longer necessary to assume that every expression encodes a full concept.
It is no longer necessary to assume that what is encoded by an expression is part of the intended message.
Grice himself seems to have thought of explicit communication in code-like rather than inferential terms.

6. Inferential Theory
It’s 10:25.
Peter should hurry up and get ready

7. Cognitive Principle of Relevance
Human cognition tends to be geared towards the maximization of relevance. (p.11-12)

8. Communicative Act of Relevance
Every utterance (or other act of overt communication) communicates a presumption of its own relevance (p. 12)

9. Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure
Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects
Stop when the expected level of relevance is reached

10. Inferential Communication
Q: “How can explicit procedures not be code-like?” (p. 12)
A: “The hearer takes the conceptual structure recovered by linguistic decoding; following a path of least effort, he enriches it at the explicit level and complements it at the implicit level, until the resulting interpretation meets his expectations of relevance; at which point, he stops” (p.13)

11. Example a. Peter: What would you like me to do?
b. Mary: Cut the grass.
“Peter should expect to use the decoded conceptual structure of her utterance as a starting point for inferring an answer to his question” (p.14)

12. Conclusion These proposals are quite tentative.
Inferential approach to communication does have implications for the study of linguistic structure.