September 26, 2005

Quick Work

Analysis obviously hasn't got with the program; they have accepted my paper "Are All Conversational Implicatures Cancelable?" I think about two weeks after I submitted it. In fact, they worked so quickly that I haven't got the new version up on my site yet; but see this old post.
[UPDATE: New version is up; you may want to look at the older post, but the link to the paper in that post is dead.] (Perhaps later I will reveal why it took me 17 months to revise it; though in the meantime thanks to Brian W for linking the earlier post.)

If it isn't the first philosophy of language paper to discuss the Sex Pistols, it's the first philosophy of language paper to discuss the Sex Pistols essentially--that is, I couldn't have used the Ramones or the Clash instead. That's important.

Posted by Matt Weiner at September 26, 2005 05:56 PM

For what I know about relative prestige of Philosophy Journals (nothing!), that's great news. Congratulations. If you ever want to publish something in a law review, I have no authority at all over mine, and never will, but other than that I'm willing to do what's in my power to help out internet acquaintances.

Posted by: washerdreyer at September 26, 2005 08:44 PM

Next year a friend of mine will be running Stanford's environmental law review. Just sayin'. Slip a fifty into your submission, no problem.

Posted by: ben wolfson at September 27, 2005 11:52 AM

The link to your paper in the old post is broken.

Posted by: andrew at September 28, 2005 02:54 AM

Ah, thanks for letting me know. Here is a link to the first draft; as I said, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to put up the final draft.

Posted by: Matt Weiner at September 28, 2005 07:23 AM

I am allowed to put up the final draft, so long as I acknowledge that it's forthcoming in Analysis; I have now done so. (The above link now takes you to the final draft, modulo the changes for house style.)

Posted by: Matt Weiner at September 28, 2005 12:51 PM
Even though the speaker's utterance of A implicates B, uttering something like "A but not B" would not commit herself to A without committing herself to B.

Shouldn't those "herself"s be "her"s?

Posted by: ben wolfson at September 28, 2005 08:37 PM

Probably. Thanks.

Posted by: Matt Weiner at September 29, 2005 12:14 PM

My contribution to philosophy having now been made, I will retire.

Posted by: ben wolfson at September 30, 2005 07:30 PM

Are the Sex Pistols essential to your paper because they are the band that sang "God Save the Queen", or because the Clash or the Ramones were not sufficiently irreverent to make the implicature non-cancellable?

Very nice paper, and (to borrow a bit of praise from Robert Audi) admirably brief.

Posted by: Leo Iacono at September 30, 2005 11:55 PM

So I finally read this paper Matt, and I liked it so much it spurred me to write a quick 4 pages saying something about what is going on here. You can find it here if you are interested:

Posted by: Nicole Wyatt at October 2, 2005 03:29 PM