Conversational silence, reconsidered

2Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In ‘Conversational Pressure. Normativity in Speech Exchanges’ (2020), Sanford Goldberg discusses the significance of conversational silence, arguing that, absent certain defeating conditions, we have a general entitlement to assume that somebody who remains silent in a conversation doesn't reject what was said. Call this ‘No-Silent-Rejection’ (NSR). I reconsider Goldberg's account of conversational silence by arguing that silence cannot be explained via a universal claim like NSR: I show that there are at least some examples where, absent defeating conditions, silence doesn't communicate assent—argue that my account of silent conversational implicature can meet and better capture the complexity of silences.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Klieber, A. (2024). Conversational silence, reconsidered. Theoria (Sweden), 90(6), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12566

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free