Although many studies have explored speaker meaning, most of them have focused on 'what is implicated' and relatively little attention has been paid to 'what is said'. The meaning of ‘what is said’ is usually considered unequivocally explicit and ...
Although many studies have explored speaker meaning, most of them have focused on 'what is implicated' and relatively little attention has been paid to 'what is said'. The meaning of ‘what is said’ is usually considered unequivocally explicit and has not been much investigated. This paper aims to show that the explicit meaning of utterance ranges further than Grice's (1975) notion of 'what is said'. To do this we present that as part of speaker meaning a propositional content of 'what is said' can be constructed through pragmatic inference. In particular, we attempt to develop Carston's (2000) idea that deriving the explicit content of utterance ("explicature") involves pragmatic processes such as free enrichment, saturation and ad hoc concept construction as well as reference assignment and disambiguation. Supporting evidence for this proposal is found in the determination of what is said in ordinary public advertisements in Korean. It is observed that it often occurs in some public advertisements that the speaker imposes such tasks upon listeners intentionally in order to both effectively convey the implicated content (implicature) and engage listeners' cognitive environments. We account for the use of these unspoken parts by proposing that some gap between what is said and implicature can be bridged by the conception of explicature. This study illustrates that the understanding of what is said is closely tied to the listener's search for optimal relevance.