Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BASIC CONCEPTS I
The phenomenon of deixis ('pointing/indicating' via
language) constitutes the singlemost
obvious way in which the relationship between language
and context is reflected in the
structure of languages themselves
any linguistic form used to accomplish this pointing is called
a deictic expression (or
indexical sign)
- among the first forms to be used by very young children
- used in face-to-face spoken interaction, to be easily
understood by the people present (but
difficult for someone not right there and then or in
darkness).
I'll put this here.
Meet me here a week from now with a stick about this big
Listen, Im not disagreeing with you but with you, and not about this, but
about this
If the semantic content of a sentence is identified with its
truth conditions, then utterances
with deictic elements cannot be assessed (without context
information)
I am the mother of Napoleon
There is a man on Mars
How should indexicals be accomodated so that the notion of
logical consequence can be
applied to them?
a. John Henry McTavitty is six feet tall and weighs 200 pounds
b. John Henry McTavitty is six feet tall
c. I am six feet tall and weigh 200 pounds
d. I am six feet tall
while b. can be inferred from a., the only way for d. to be
a valid inference from c. is if
they were uttered by the same speaker (need for pragmatic
indices or reference points
THE DEICTIC CENTER
proximal vs.distal
there is a basic distinction between things 'near' or 'away
from' the speaker
PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND
1930s: - logical positivism (unless a sentence can be tested
for its truth or falsity,
it is strictly speaking meaningless)
vs.
- Wittgenstein: Meaning is use
Austin 1962: - theory of Speech Acts
- series of lectures (posthumously published as How to do
things with words)
truth conditions are not central to language
understanding
- performatives vs. constatives
I christen this ship the Imperial Flagship Mao
and events
SPEECH ACTS
An action performed by producing an utterance consists of
three related acts
locutionary act: basic act of utterance, producing a
meaningful linguistic expression
Aha mokofa ( not a locutionary act)
I've just made some coffee ( locutionary act)
illocutionary act:function/communicative force of the
utterance (also called illocutionary
force), can be a statement, offer, explanation etc.
perlocutionary act:intended effect of the action (also
called perlocutionary effect)
- speecht acts are often interpreted narrowly as just the
illocutionary force of an utterance
- the same locutionary act can count as different
illocutionary forces
I'll see you later
can be a prediction, promise or warning
How can speakers be sure that the intended illocutionary
force will be recognized by the
hearer? IFIDs and felicity conditions
IFIDS
An IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device) is an
expression with a slot for a verb
that explicitly names the illocutionary act being
performed.
- such verbs are called performative verbs
THE PERFORMATIVE
HYPOTHESIS I
Performative Hypothesis:
One way to think about the speech acts being performed
via utterances is to assume that
underlying every utterance (U) there is a clause containing
a performative verb (Vp) which
makes the illocutionary force explicit
I (hereby) Vp you that U
THE PERFORMATIVE
HYPOTHESIS II
I'll be back
I'm going to get it right next time
We will not do that
the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words via the
speaker
Summary
Speech Act Type Direction of fit Form (S = speaker, X = situation)
Declarations words change the world S causes X
Representatives make words fit the world S believes X
Expressives make words fit the world S feels X
Directives make the world fit words S wants X
Commissives make the world fit words S intends X
EXERCISE
Classify the following speech acts
1 Ill make him an offer he cant refuse (Mario Puzo)
commissive
2 I baptize this baby John
declarative
3 Better remain silent and be thought a fool, than open
your
mouth and remove all possible doubt (Chinese proverb)
directive
4 Ifd known I was gonna live that long, Id have taken
better care of myelf (Eubie Blake)
expressive
5 I came, I saw, I conquered (Julius Caesar)
SPEECH EVENTS I
An indirect request can be interpreted as question whether
the necessary conditions for a
request are in place, i.e., a preparatory condition would
be that the speaker assumes that
the hearer is able ('CAN') to perform the action. A content
condition concerns the future
action that the hearer WILL perform the action.
Content condition Future act of hearer 'WILL you do X?'
(= hearer will do X)
Preparatory condition Hearer is able to perform act 'CAN you do
X?'
(= hearer CAN do X)
SPEECH EVENTS II
A speech event is an activity in which participants interact
via language in some
conventional way to arrive at some outcome.
!! not the same meaning as in ordinary usage (John wrote Harry a letter,
presupposing he
could read)!!
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND II
Russell (1905): Sentences that lack proper referents are
meaningful (vs. (iiii) in Frege)
The King of France is wise
The sentence is meaningful because it is simply false
The King of France is not wise
can be taken in two ways:
a. there is a King of France and he is not wise (narrow
scope of negation)
b. there is no King of France and he is not wise (wide
scope of negation)
(The King of France is not wise because there is no such
person)
PRESUPPOSITION
Presupposition is treated as a relationship between two
propositions
Mary's dog is cute (= proposition p)
Mary has a dog (= proposition q)
p >> q (p presupposes q)
TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION I
Linguistic forms (words, phrases, structures) are indicators
(or triggers) of potential
presuppositions which can only become actual
presuppositions in contexts with speakers.
A. Existential Presupposition
speaker is committed to the existence of the entities named
the King of Sweden
the cat
the girl next door
the Counting Crows
your car
B. Factive Presupposition
certain verbs/construction indicate that something is a fact
Everybody KNOWS that John is gay (>> John is gay)
She didn't REALIZE he was ill (>> He was ill)
We REGRET telling him (>> We told him)
I WASN'T AWARE that she was married (>> She was married)
It ISN'T ODD that he left early (>> He left early)
I'M GLAD that it's over (>> It's over)
TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION II
C. Lexical Presupposition
The use of a form with its asserted meaning is conventionally
interpreted with the presupposition that
another, non-asserted, meaning is understood
He MANAGED to repair the clock (>> he tried to repair the
clock)
Asserted meaning: he suceeded
He didn't MANAGE to repair the clock (>> he tried to repair the
clock)
Asserted meaning: he failed
He STOPPED smoking (>> he used to smoke)
They STARTED complained (>> they weren't complaining
before)
You're late AGAIN (>> You were late before)
D. Structural Presupposition
certain sentence structures conventionally and regularly
presuppose that part of the structure is already
assumed to be true
Wh-questions: When did he leave? (>> he left)
Where did you buy the bike? (>> You bought the bike)
This type of presupposition can lead listeners to believe that the
information presented is necessarily
true, rather than just the presupposition of the person asking the
question
How fast was the car going when it ran the red light? (>> the car
ran the red light)
If the question is answered with some estimate of the speed the
speaker would appear to be accepting
the truth of the presupposition (very popular with lawyers)
F. Counterfactual Presupposition
structures mean that what is presupposed is not only not
true, but is the opposite of what is
true, i.e. contrary to facts
If you were my friend, you would have helped me (>> You are not
my friend)
SUMMARY
Type Example Presupposition
existential the X >> X exists
factive I regret leaving >> I left
non-factive He pretended to be happy >> He wasn't happy
lexical He managed to escape >> He tried to escape
structural When did she die? >> She died
counterfactual If I weren't ill >> I am ill
ORDERED ENTAILMENTS
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic (i.e.
having to do with speaker meaning),
but a purely logical concept.
Rover chased three squirrels (= p)
a. Something chased three squirrels (= q)
b. Rover did something to three squirrels (= r)
c. Rover chased three of something (= s)
d. Something happened (= t)
foreground entailment
Cleft-constructions can fulfil the same purpose
It was ROVER that chased the squirrels
MAXIMS
A. Quantity
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required
(for the current purposes of the exchange)
HEDGES I
hedges: cautious notes to indicate that a speaker is aware
of maxims, but fears not to adhere
to them completely. Speakers are aware of the maxims and
show that they are trying to
observe them.
Examples Quality
As far as I know, they're married
I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her
finger
I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret ceremony in
Hawaii
He couldn't live without her, I guess
Examples Quantity
As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs
So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran
I won't bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip
Examples Relation
Oh by the way, his nephew is a member of parliament
Anyway, that's also part of the program
I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing
This may sound like a dumb question, but whose handwriting is
this?
Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget?
and implicature
HEDGES II
Examples Manner
This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car
I'm not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights
I don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was
reversing
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Basic assumption in conversation:
Unless otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering
to the cooperative principle and the
maxims
Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese
Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread
GENERALIZED
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? (b & c?)
Mary: I invited Bella (b +> NOT c)
SCALAR IMPLICATURES
Words of a certain type can be classified as expressing one
value from a scale of values,
e.g., terms for expressing quantity
<all, most, many, some, few> <always, often, sometimes>
<must, should, may> <n, , 5,4,3,2,1>
PARTICULARIZED
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE I
Most conversations take place in very specific contexts in
which locally recognized
inferences are assumed
particularized conversational implicatures
- by far the most common type of implicature, therefore
usually just called implicatures
Rick: Hey, coming to the party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting
- seems to violate maxim of relevance. In order to make Tom's
response relevant, Rick has to draw on
assumed knowledge that one college student expects another to
have (Tom will be spending the evening
with his parents, who are unlikely to come to the party,
consequently +> Tom not at party)
Lloyd: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil?
Winston: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas!
- any reasonably informed participant in the 1970s (and today)
would know that Bs utterance is
blatantly false. That being so, Winston cannot be trying to deceive
Lloyd. His seeming violation of the
maxim of quality must be intended to mean something different,
namely the opposite ( irony)
Possibilities: hyperbole (Im starving), metaphor (She devoured
this book), irony (friendly way of
being offensive: I just love being woken up at 4 a.m. by a fire
alarm), sarcasm (less friendly form of
irony: Why dont you leave all your dirty clothes on the floor?),
banter (offensive way of being
PARTICULARIZED
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE II
Ann: Where are you going with the dog?
Sam: To the V - E - T
Sam 'flouts' (i.e. does not adhere to) the maxim of manner.
The dog is known to recognize
the word 'vet' and to hate being taken there, therefore Sam
produces a more elaborate, i.e.
less brief, version
Jane: John still has not said if hell come
Beth: Hell either come or he wont
n and implicature
EXERCISE
PROPERTIES OF
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
I
conversational implicatures are defeasible
Because implicatures are part of what is communicated
and not said, speakers can always
deny that they intended the communicate such meanings.
You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five) standard implicature:
only five dollars won
PROPERTIES OF
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
II
conversational implicatures are non-detachable
(except those due to the maxim of manner)
An implicature is attached to the semantic content of what
is said, not to linguistic form, and
therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an
utterance simply by changing the words
of the utterance for synonyms
If for example an ironic interpretation of Johns a genius
(i.e., Johns an idiot) is forced
by flouting, then it does not matter, if it is worded
differently
Johns a mental prodigy
Johns a big brain
Johns an enormous intellect
PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL
IMPLICATURES III
conversational implicatures are calculable
For every putative implicature it should be possible to
construct an argument showing how
from the literal meaning or the sense of the utterance on
the one hand, and the co-operative
CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES I
Conventional implicatures are not based on the
cooperative principle or the maxims. They
don't have to occur in conversation and depend on special
contexts for interpretation. They
are associated with specific words and result in additional
conveyed meanings when those
words are used.
'but'
p but q will be based on the conjunction p & q plus an
implicature of contrast between the
information in p and the information in q
Mary suggested black, but I chose white
p & q (+> p is in contrast to q)
'even'
CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES
II
'yet'
the present situation is expected to be different, perhaps
the opposite, at a later time
Dennis isn't here yet (= NOT p)
NOT p is true (+> p expected to be true later)
'and'
the so-called different meanings of 'and' in English can be
explained as instances of
conventional implicature in different structures.
Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work (p & q, +> p plus
q)
She put on her clothes and left the house (p & q, +> q after p)