Conversational silence, reconsidered

Bibliographic Data

ID20143095
AuthorsAnna Klieber (0000-0003-3958-0893, Philosophy, ENCAP Cardiff University Cardiff UK, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume90
Issue6
Pages652-668
Publication date2024-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTheoria (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/theo.12566
OpenAlexW4403222156
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited18

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

Aesthetics · Linguistics · Silence · Communication · Critical Race Theory in Education · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Philosophy · Psychology · Rhetoric and Communication Studies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access