1 composing utterance meaning: an interface between pragmatics and psychology anna sysoeva and kasia...

11

Composing Utterance Meaning:Composing Utterance Meaning:

An Interface Between Pragmatics and PsychologyAn Interface Between Pragmatics and Psychology

Anna Sysoeva and Kasia JaszczoltAnna Sysoeva and Kasia Jaszczolt

University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

22

1.1. In search for Primary Meaning: what is said, In search for Primary Meaning: what is said, explicature, impliciture, meaning mergerexplicature, impliciture, meaning merger

33


2.2. ContextualismContextualism

44


2.2. Contextualism Contextualism

3.3. Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraintPrimary Meaning and the syntactic constraint

55

1.1. In search for Primary Meaning: what is said, In search for Primary Meaning: what is said, explicature, impliciture, meaning merger explicature, impliciture, meaning merger

2.2. ContextualismContextualism3.3. Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraintPrimary Meaning and the syntactic constraint4.4. Experimental evidence from English and Experimental evidence from English and

Russian: our pilot studyRussian: our pilot study

66


2.2. ContextualismContextualism

3.3. Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraintPrimary Meaning and the syntactic constraint

4.4. Experimental evidence from English and Experimental evidence from English and Russian: a pilot studyRussian: a pilot study

5.5. Truth-conditional analysis and psychological Truth-conditional analysis and psychological realityreality

77

(1) Mary hasn’t eaten. (1) Mary hasn’t eaten. (minimal (minimal proposition)proposition)

(2) Mary hasn’t eaten breakfast yet. (what (2) Mary hasn’t eaten breakfast yet. (what is said)is said)

Modulation: a top-down pragmatically Modulation: a top-down pragmatically controlled process (Recanati, e.g. 2004, controlled process (Recanati, e.g. 2004, 2005)2005)

88

ContextualismContextualism

‘‘Contextualism ascribes to modulation a form of Contextualism ascribes to modulation a form of necessity which makes it ineliminable. necessity which makes it ineliminable. Without Without contextual modulation, no proposition could be contextual modulation, no proposition could be expressedexpressed…’ Recanati (2005: 179-180).…’ Recanati (2005: 179-180).

‘…‘…there is no level of meaning which is both (i) there is no level of meaning which is both (i) propositional (truth-evaluable) and (ii) minimalist propositional (truth-evaluable) and (ii) minimalist (that is, unaffected by top-down factors)’. (that is, unaffected by top-down factors)’. Recanati (2004: 90)Recanati (2004: 90)

avs29

99

Our ViewOur View

There is a top-down process of pragmatic There is a top-down process of pragmatic inference that interacts with the aspects of inference that interacts with the aspects of meaning provided by the sentence and the meaning provided by the sentence and the aspects of meaning provided by cultural and aspects of meaning provided by cultural and social assumptions ( cf. contextualism).social assumptions ( cf. contextualism).

Not all utterances make use of this pragmatic Not all utterances make use of this pragmatic process of ‘modulation’ (vs. contextualism)process of ‘modulation’ (vs. contextualism)

1010

The object of study of the truth-conditional The object of study of the truth-conditional theory of utterance meaning is the Primary theory of utterance meaning is the Primary Meaning intended by the Model Speaker and Meaning intended by the Model Speaker and recovered by the Model Addressee.recovered by the Model Addressee.

This Primary Meaning need not obey the This Primary Meaning need not obey the syntactic constraint, i.e. need not be dependent syntactic constraint, i.e. need not be dependent on the syntactic representation of the uttered on the syntactic representation of the uttered sentence. sentence.

1111

In Search for Primary MeaningIn Search for Primary Meaning

‘‘What is said’: What is said’:

‘‘What is said results from fleshing out the What is said results from fleshing out the meaning of the sentence (which is like a meaning of the sentence (which is like a semantic ‘skeleton’) so as to make it semantic ‘skeleton’) so as to make it propositional.’propositional.’

Recanati (2004: 6)Recanati (2004: 6)

1212

ExplicatureExplicature

‘‘An assumption communicated by an utterance An assumption communicated by an utterance U is U is explicitexplicit if and only if it is a development of a if and only if it is a development of a logical form encoded by U’. logical form encoded by U’.

Sperber and Wilson (1986/95: 182).Sperber and Wilson (1986/95: 182).

1313

Middle level of ‘impliciture’, going beyond ‘what Middle level of ‘impliciture’, going beyond ‘what is said’ (Bach 1994, 2001, 2004, 2005): shares is said’ (Bach 1994, 2001, 2004, 2005): shares the same constraint of the sentence’s syntactic the same constraint of the sentence’s syntactic form as the ‘skeleton’ form as the ‘skeleton’

1414

Default Semantics Default Semantics (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007)(Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007)

Stage I: Processing of the truth-conditional contentStage I: Processing of the truth-conditional contentcompositional merger representationcompositional merger representation

Sources of information about meaning:Sources of information about meaning:1.1. Combination of word meaning and sentence structure Combination of word meaning and sentence structure

(WS)(WS)2.2. Cognitive defaults (CD)Cognitive defaults (CD)

3.3. Social-cultural defaults (SCDSocial-cultural defaults (SCD11))

4.4. Conscious pragmatic inference (CPIConscious pragmatic inference (CPI11))

1515

Stage II: Processing of implicaturesStage II: Processing of implicatures

Sources of information about meaning:Sources of information about meaning:

1.1. Social-cultural defaultsSocial-cultural defaults22 (SCD (SCD22))

2.2. 2. Conscious pragmatic inference2. Conscious pragmatic inference22 (CPI (CPI22))

1616

Merger representation has to satisfy the Merger representation has to satisfy the methodological requirement of methodological requirement of

compositionalitycompositionality

1717

Principle of compositionality for the Principle of compositionality for the meaning mergermeaning merger

The meaning of the act of communication The meaning of the act of communication is a function of the meaning of the words; is a function of the meaning of the words; the sentence structure; cognitive, social the sentence structure; cognitive, social and cultural assumptions, and conscious and cultural assumptions, and conscious pragmatic inference.pragmatic inference.

1818

(1)(1) Mary hasn’t eaten.Mary hasn’t eaten.

(2)(2) Mary hasn’t eaten breakfast yet.Mary hasn’t eaten breakfast yet.

(3)(3) Mary is hungry.Mary is hungry.

1919

Do we need the syntactic form Do we need the syntactic form constraint?constraint?

1.1. Intuitively available what is said, automatically Intuitively available what is said, automatically processed (Recanati, e.g. 2004)processed (Recanati, e.g. 2004) xx

2.2. Explicature + Explicature + ad hocad hoc concept construction concept construction (Carston, e.g. 2002)(Carston, e.g. 2002) xx

3.3. Meaning merger (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005) Meaning merger (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005) xx

2020

The boundary between the primary The boundary between the primary meaning (salient meaning, meaning meaning (salient meaning, meaning merger) and secondary meaning merger) and secondary meaning (implicatures) has to be psychologically (implicatures) has to be psychologically real and empirically testable, but need not real and empirically testable, but need not necessarily obey the syntactic constraint.necessarily obey the syntactic constraint.

2121

ExperimentalExperimental Evidence Evidence

Pilot StudyPilot Study

2222

Aim of the experimentAim of the experiment

Testing intuitions about primary Testing intuitions about primary meaning (PM)meaning (PM)

2323

Research questionsResearch questions

Does the PM that is available to people’s Does the PM that is available to people’s intuitions have to rely on the structural intuitions have to rely on the structural content of the uttered sentence?content of the uttered sentence?

2424


Does the PM that is available to people’s Does the PM that is available to people’s intuitions have to rely on the structural intuitions have to rely on the structural content of the uttered sentence?content of the uttered sentence?

HypothesisHypothesis: NO: NO

2525


What factors influence the type of intuitive What factors influence the type of intuitive truth conditions, their degree of closeness truth conditions, their degree of closeness to the logical form (LF) of the uttered to the logical form (LF) of the uttered sentence?sentence?

2626


What factors influence the type of intuitive What factors influence the type of intuitive truth conditions, their degree of closeness truth conditions, their degree of closeness to the logical form (LF) of the uttered to the logical form (LF) of the uttered sentence?sentence?

- degree of directness of culturedegree of directness of culturedegree of directness of the speech act degree of directness of the speech act

(SA)(SA)- addressee's genderaddressee's gender

2727

Degree of directness of cultureDegree of directness of culture

Performing speech acts (SAs): Russians Performing speech acts (SAs): Russians use more direct strategies than speakers use more direct strategies than speakers of British English (Sysoeva 2005, of British English (Sysoeva 2005, Wierzbicka 1992).Wierzbicka 1992).

2828


Performing speech acts (SAs): Russians Performing speech acts (SAs): Russians use more direct strategies than speakers use more direct strategies than speakers of British English (Sysoeva 2005, of British English (Sysoeva 2005, Wierzbicka 1992).Wierzbicka 1992).

Does the cultural preference for using Does the cultural preference for using more/less direct strategies have an effect more/less direct strategies have an effect on how often PM is represented by LF or on how often PM is represented by LF or by proposition functionally independent of by proposition functionally independent of LF?LF?

2929

Degree of directness of culture (2)Degree of directness of culture (2)

HypothesesHypotheses:: Both (developed) LFs and functionally Both (developed) LFs and functionally

independent propositions (FIPs) may independent propositions (FIPs) may function as PMs in both cultures (despite function as PMs in both cultures (despite differences in directness).differences in directness).

3030


HypothesesHypotheses:: For Russians PM is more frequently close For Russians PM is more frequently close

to literal meaning of the uttered sentence to literal meaning of the uttered sentence than for British people.than for British people.

3131


HypothesesHypotheses:: For Russians PM is more frequently close For Russians PM is more frequently close

to the LF of the uttered sentence than for to the LF of the uttered sentence than for British people.British people.

““It’s chilly in here”It’s chilly in here”- British culture: request to close the window (in a British culture: request to close the window (in a

suitable context);suitable context);- Russian culture: statementRussian culture: statement

3232

Degree of directness of SADegree of directness of SA

Object of study – requestsObject of study – requests Blum-Kulka et al. (1989): classification of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989): classification of

request strategies on a universally valid request strategies on a universally valid scale of indirectness:scale of indirectness:

- directdirect- conventionally indirectconventionally indirectnon-conventionally indirectnon-conventionally indirect Does the degree of directness of the Does the degree of directness of the

strategy have an effect on the type of PM?strategy have an effect on the type of PM?

3333

DesignDesign

Questionnaire: 14 story contexts Questionnaire: 14 story contexts containing utterances relying on request containing utterances relying on request strategies with different degrees of strategies with different degrees of directness. Continuum from most direct to directness. Continuum from most direct to most indirect strategies.most indirect strategies.

3434

Request strategies in the Request strategies in the questionnairequestionnaire

Direct requests:Direct requests:

3535

Request strategies in the Request strategies in the questionnairequestionnaire


1.1. Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF indicating devices:IF indicating devices:

3636

Strategies of request performanceStrategies of request performance


1.1. Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF indicating devices:IF indicating devices:

a)a) mood derivablemood derivableMichael: Hi George! How did your conference presentation go?Michael: Hi George! How did your conference presentation go?

George: It went very well. I got a lot of positive feedback.George: It went very well. I got a lot of positive feedback.

Michael: Congratulations! I’m sorry I couldn’t be there. Michael: Congratulations! I’m sorry I couldn’t be there. Please, send me Please, send me a copy of your talk.a copy of your talk. I’m very interested in your topic. I’m very interested in your topic.

3737



1.1. Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF indicating devices:indicating devices:

a)a) mood derivablemood derivable

b)b) IF is explicitly named (explicit performative)IF is explicitly named (explicit performative)Mr Smith: I am happy to tell you that we’ve decided to make you a job Mr Smith: I am happy to tell you that we’ve decided to make you a job

offer, Mr White.offer, Mr White.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Smith. But I’m not really sure…Mr White: Thank you, Mr Smith. But I’m not really sure…

Mr Smith: Please, don’t decide straight away, Mr White. Mr Smith: Please, don’t decide straight away, Mr White. I’m asking you I’m asking you to think about it first.to think about it first.

3838



1.1. Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF indicating devicesfrom IF indicating devices

2.2. IF is derivable from semantic IF is derivable from semantic meaning of the locutionmeaning of the locution

Melanie: Are you really going to drive in this weather, John? Melanie: Are you really going to drive in this weather, John?

John: Don’t worry, Melanie. I’ve driven in worse conditions. John: Don’t worry, Melanie. I’ve driven in worse conditions.

Melanie: Ok. Melanie: Ok. But you should be carefulBut you should be careful. I’m very worried.. I’m very worried.

3939


Conventionally indirect requestsConventionally indirect requests

Kate: Will you see Jenny today? Kate: Will you see Jenny today?

Vicky: Yes, I’ll see her during lunch break.Vicky: Yes, I’ll see her during lunch break.

Kate: Kate: Can you give this book to her?Can you give this book to her?

4040


Non-conventionally indirect requests (IF Non-conventionally indirect requests (IF is derivable from speaker’s intention in a is derivable from speaker’s intention in a particular context)particular context)

Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?

Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. I I heard you’re good at maths, Andrew.heard you’re good at maths, Andrew.

4141

Task formulationTask formulation

““Please read the dialogues given below. Please read the dialogues given below. For each For each underlinedunderlined sentence, write down sentence, write down the speaker’s main meaning in the space the speaker’s main meaning in the space provided as clearly as you can.” provided as clearly as you can.”

Free choice questionnaire: A better way Free choice questionnaire: A better way testing people’s intuitions than forced testing people’s intuitions than forced choice questionnaires.choice questionnaires.

4242

ParticipantsParticipants

20 British male undergraduates20 British male undergraduates 20 British female undergraduates20 British female undergraduates 20 Russian male undergraduates20 Russian male undergraduates 20 Russian female undergraduates20 Russian female undergraduates

4343

Variable under studyVariable under study

Type of proposition that is identified by Type of proposition that is identified by native speakers as primary communicated native speakers as primary communicated

meaningmeaning

4444


Type of PM:Type of PM:

1.1. (D)LF - (developed) logical form – inferable on (D)LF - (developed) logical form – inferable on the basis of semantic content of the uttered the basis of semantic content of the uttered sentence which may be developed to better sentence which may be developed to better reflect speaker’s intentionsreflect speaker’s intentions

Jenny: Is this ring made of silver?Jenny: Is this ring made of silver?

Shop-assistant: Yes.Shop-assistant: Yes.

Jenny: Jenny: Show me size N, please.Show me size N, please.

PM:PM: Jenny is asking the shop assistant to show her a ring Jenny is asking the shop assistant to show her a ring of size “N”. of size “N”.

4545



1.1. (D)LF (D)LF

2.2. FIP(s) – proposition(s) functionally FIP(s) – proposition(s) functionally independent from the LF with its independent from the LF with its developmentsdevelopments

Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?

Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. I I heard you’re good at maths, Andrew.heard you’re good at maths, Andrew.

Response: Response: Andrew, please help me do the maths problem.Andrew, please help me do the maths problem.

4646



1.1. (D)LF (D)LF

2.2. FIP(s) FIP(s)

3.3. (D)LF + FIP(s)(D)LF + FIP(s)

4747

(D)LF+FIP or FIP+(D)LF?(D)LF+FIP or FIP+(D)LF? (D)LF+FIP(D)LF+FIPJane: Hi Mary! I didn’t see you at the first lecture.Jane: Hi Mary! I didn’t see you at the first lecture.Mary: I forgot to set my alarm clock again. Mary: I forgot to set my alarm clock again. Do you have your notes with you?Do you have your notes with you?

PM: PM: Mary is asking if Jane has the lecture notes from the Mary is asking if Jane has the lecture notes from the lecture she has missed, presumably so that she can lecture she has missed, presumably so that she can borrow them to copy them up.borrow them to copy them up.

FIP+(D)LFFIP+(D)LFJames: Do you want me to open the window?James: Do you want me to open the window?Jessie: Jessie: Well, it’s quite chilly in here actually.Well, it’s quite chilly in here actually.

PM:PM: Jessie doesn’t want James to open the window as she Jessie doesn’t want James to open the window as she thinks it is cold.thinks it is cold.

4848



1.1. (D)LF (D)LF

2.2. FIP(s) FIP(s)

3.3. (D)LF + FIP(s)(D)LF + FIP(s)

4.4. (D)LF/FIP(D)LF/FIP

5.5. (D)LF/FIP + FIP(s)(D)LF/FIP + FIP(s)Kate: Will you see Jenny today? Kate: Will you see Jenny today?

Vicky: Yes, I’ll see her during lunch break.Vicky: Yes, I’ll see her during lunch break.

Kate: Can you give this book to her?Kate: Can you give this book to her?

PM: PM: Can you give this book to her when you see her?Can you give this book to her when you see her?

4949

ResultsResults

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not have to : Intuitive PM does not have to rely on the LF.rely on the LF.

5050

Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not have to rely on LF.have to rely on LF.

Overall distribution of responses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(D)LF (D)LF+FIP(s) FIP(s) DLF/FIP DLF/FIP+FIP(s)

perc

en

tag

e

5151

Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not have to rely on LF.have to rely on LF.

Overall distribution of responses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

tag

e

5252

ResultsResults

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1: Intuitive PM does not have to : Intuitive PM does not have to rely on the LF. rely on the LF.

5353

ResultsResults


Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 2: Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may : Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may function as PMs in both cultures (despite function as PMs in both cultures (despite differences in directness).differences in directness).

5454

Hypothesis 2: Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may Hypothesis 2: Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may function as PMs in both cultures.function as PMs in both cultures.

Distribution of responses in British and Russian cultures

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

tag

e

British

Russian

5555

ResultsResults



5656

ResultsResults



Hypothesis 3Hypothesis 3: Less FIP(s) and more : Less FIP(s) and more (D)LF(s) enter into PM in Russian as (D)LF(s) enter into PM in Russian as compared to British English.compared to British English.

5757

Hypothesis 3: Russians interpret PM as closer to Hypothesis 3: Russians interpret PM as closer to literal meaning than British people.literal meaning than British people.

Distribution of responses in British and Russian cultures

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

tag

e

British

Russian

5858

ResultsResults



Hypothesis 3Hypothesis 3: Less FIP(s) and more : Less FIP(s) and more (D)LF(s) enter into PM Russian as (D)LF(s) enter into PM Russian as compared to British English.compared to British English.

5959

Differences between direct and Differences between direct and indirect SAsindirect SAs

Distribution of responses between strategies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

tag

e

Direct SAsConventionally indirect SAsNon-conventionally indirect SAs

6060

All the strategies elicited majority implicature All the strategies elicited majority implicature responsesresponses


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

tag

e


6161

Distinct preference for FIP(s) in indirect SAs: more than Distinct preference for FIP(s) in indirect SAs: more than 80% of indirect SAs give rise to FIP(s). 80% of indirect SAs give rise to FIP(s).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

tag

e


6262

Direct SAs are interpreted more heterogeneously. FIP(s) Direct SAs are interpreted more heterogeneously. FIP(s) still have majority (53%), but the preference for FIP(s) is still have majority (53%), but the preference for FIP(s) is not as strong as in indirect SAs. not as strong as in indirect SAs.

89% of all the DLF(s) recovered is constituted by 89% of all the DLF(s) recovered is constituted by answers to direct SAs. answers to direct SAs.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

tag

eDirect SAsConventionally indirect SAsNon-conventionally indirect SAs

6363

Direct SAs give rise to FIP(s) becauseDirect SAs give rise to FIP(s) because Implicature interpretation appears to be most relevant in Implicature interpretation appears to be most relevant in

some situations for some informants. PM emerges out of some situations for some informants. PM emerges out of the merger of output of grammar with information that the merger of output of grammar with information that comes from other sources: context, default assumptions.comes from other sources: context, default assumptions.

Michael: Hi George! How did your conference presentation go?Michael: Hi George! How did your conference presentation go?George: It went very well. I got a lot of positive feedback.George: It went very well. I got a lot of positive feedback.Michael: Congratulations! I’m sorry I couldn’t be there. Michael: Congratulations! I’m sorry I couldn’t be there. Please, send me a copy Please, send me a copy

of your talk.of your talk. I’m very interested in your topic. I’m very interested in your topic.

PM: PM: I want to sound like I am interested in your I want to sound like I am interested in your presentation (or am genuinely interested) even though I presentation (or am genuinely interested) even though I wasn’t there.wasn’t there.

Some situations gave rise to default interpretations:Some situations gave rise to default interpretations:Jenny: Is this ring made of silver?Jenny: Is this ring made of silver?Shop-assistant: Yes.Shop-assistant: Yes.Jenny: Jenny: Show me size N, please.Show me size N, please.

PMPM: I’d like to try on size N.: I’d like to try on size N.

6464

Variability of responses between Variability of responses between peoplepeople

Non-conventionally indirect requests (hints) gave rise to most Non-conventionally indirect requests (hints) gave rise to most unambiguous interpretations (most people recovered the same unambiguous interpretations (most people recovered the same implicated content). implicated content).

Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?Andrew: Struggling with maths, Mary?Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. Mary: Yes, I’m not sure I’ll manage to solve this problem by myself. I heard you’re good at maths, I heard you’re good at maths,

Andrew.Andrew.

PM: PM: The speaker is asking Andrew for help with her Maths.The speaker is asking Andrew for help with her Maths.

By contrast, interpretation of direct SAs (especially derivable from By contrast, interpretation of direct SAs (especially derivable from semantic meaning of locution) varied between people.semantic meaning of locution) varied between people.

Melanie: Are you really going to drive in this weather, John? Melanie: Are you really going to drive in this weather, John? John: Don’t worry, Melanie. I’ve driven in worse conditions. John: Don’t worry, Melanie. I’ve driven in worse conditions. Melanie: Ok. Melanie: Ok. But you should be carefulBut you should be careful. I’m very worried.. I’m very worried.

PMs: warning, request, expression of worry, statement, expression of fear to go in the car PMs: warning, request, expression of worry, statement, expression of fear to go in the car with John, expression of disapproval, order, advicewith John, expression of disapproval, order, advice

6565

Gender differences

0102030405060708090

100

perc

enta

ge

British male

British female

Russian male

Russian female

6666

ConclusionsConclusions

Syntactic constraint does not have to Syntactic constraint does not have to determine the representation of PM.determine the representation of PM.

6767


Syntactic constraint does not have to Syntactic constraint does not have to determine the representation of PM.determine the representation of PM.

Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ has to do with the most relevant has to do with the most relevant information conveyed by the utterance. It information conveyed by the utterance. It may be the content of the uttered may be the content of the uttered sentence, the enriched content or the sentence, the enriched content or the implicature.implicature.

6868


Syntactic constraint does not have to determine Syntactic constraint does not have to determine the representation of PM.the representation of PM.

Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ has Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ has to do with the most relevant information to do with the most relevant information conveyed by the utterance. It may be the content conveyed by the utterance. It may be the content of the uttered sentence, the enriched content or of the uttered sentence, the enriched content or the implicature.the implicature.

Particularised implicatures are often the most Particularised implicatures are often the most salient meanings.salient meanings.

6969

ConclusionsConclusions Syntactic constraint does not have to determine the Syntactic constraint does not have to determine the

representation of PM.representation of PM. Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ has to do with Psychologically real notion of ‘what is said’ has to do with

the most relevant information conveyed by the utterance. the most relevant information conveyed by the utterance. It may be the content of the uttered sentence, the It may be the content of the uttered sentence, the enriched content or the implicature.enriched content or the implicature.

Particularised implicatures are often the most salient Particularised implicatures are often the most salient meanings.meanings.

Merger representation in Default Semantics is a Merger representation in Default Semantics is a psychologically plausible alternative to more traditional psychologically plausible alternative to more traditional approaches in which a boundary is set between the level approaches in which a boundary is set between the level of enriched logical form and the level of implicit content of enriched logical form and the level of implicit content (Carston 2002, Recanati 2004).(Carston 2002, Recanati 2004).

7070

Other experiments on interpretation of Other experiments on interpretation of speaker’s meaningspeaker’s meaning

‘‘We suggest that, when given an instruction We suggest that, when given an instruction such as ‘select the paraphrase that best such as ‘select the paraphrase that best reflected what each sentence said’, subjects (…) reflected what each sentence said’, subjects (…) try to work out the overall communicative try to work out the overall communicative intention behind the utterance’ intention behind the utterance’

Nicolle and Clark (1999: 351)Nicolle and Clark (1999: 351)

7171

Other experiments on intepretation of Other experiments on intepretation of speaker’s meaningspeaker’s meaning

‘‘My final results (…) support Nicolle and Clark’s My final results (…) support Nicolle and Clark’s Relevance-based [hypothesis] by which the most salient Relevance-based [hypothesis] by which the most salient – relevant – utterance interpretation arrives from our – relevant – utterance interpretation arrives from our real-world assumptions.’real-world assumptions.’

‘‘In Availability terms, my results indicated that a level of In Availability terms, my results indicated that a level of implicature was more available than explicature as implicature was more available than explicature as corresponding with [common-sense, KJ] corresponding with [common-sense, KJ] what is saidwhat is said.’.’

Pitts (2005: 9-Pitts (2005: 9-10)10)

7272

Select BibliographySelect BibliographyBach, K. 1994. ‘Semantic slack: What is said and more’. In: S. L. Bach, K. 1994. ‘Semantic slack: What is said and more’. In: S. L.

Tsohatzidis (ed.). Tsohatzidis (ed.). Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectivesand Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge. 267-291.. London: Routledge. 267-291.

Bach, K. 2001. ‘You don’t say?’ Bach, K. 2001. ‘You don’t say?’ SyntheseSynthese 128. 15-44. 128. 15-44.Bach, K. 2004. ‘Minding the gap’. In: C. Bianchi (ed.). Bach, K. 2004. ‘Minding the gap’. In: C. Bianchi (ed.). The The

Semantics/Pragmatics DistinctionSemantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 27-. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 27-43.43.

Bach, K. 2005. ‘Context Bach, K. 2005. ‘Context ex Machinaex Machina’. In: Z. G. Szabó (ed.). ’. In: Z. G. Szabó (ed.). Semantics Semantics versus Pragmaticsversus Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 15-44.. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 15-44.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. The CCSARP coding Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. The CCSARP coding manual. In: S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds), manual. In: S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologiescultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 273-294.273-294.

Carston, R. 2002. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit CommunicationCommunication. Oxford: Blackwell.. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Default Semantics: Foundations of a

7373

Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationCompositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press.University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. ‘Meaning merger: Pragmatic inference, defaults, Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. ‘Meaning merger: Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality’. and compositionality’. Intercultural PragmaticsIntercultural Pragmatics 3.2. 195-212. 3.2. 195-212.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. ‘Defaults in semantics and pragmatics’. In: Zalta, Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. ‘Defaults in semantics and pragmatics’. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.), E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , http://http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htmlplato.stanford.edu/contents.html

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007 Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007 ‘The syntax-pragmatics merger: Default ‘The syntax-pragmatics merger: Default Semantics for belief reports’. Semantics for belief reports’. Pragmatics and CognitionPragmatics and Cognition 15. 41-64. 15. 41-64.

Nicolle, S. & B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: Nicolle, S. & B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. A response to Gibbs and Moise’. CognitionCognition 69. 337-354. 69. 337-354.

Noveck, I. A. & D. Sperber (eds). 2004. Noveck, I. A. & D. Sperber (eds). 2004. Experimental PragmaticsExperimental Pragmatics. . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about what is what is saidsaid’. Ms, University of Cambridge.’. Ms, University of Cambridge.

7474

Recanati, F. 2004. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Press.

Recanati, F. 2005. ‘Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties’. In: Recanati, F. 2005. ‘Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties’. In: G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds). G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and TruthKnowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-196.. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-196.

Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Relevance: Communication and CognitionCognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition.. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition.

Sysoeva, A. V. 2005. ‘The saying / implicating distinction: a study with Sysoeva, A. V. 2005. ‘The saying / implicating distinction: a study with reference to advertising in Russian and English’. reference to advertising in Russian and English’. MPhil dissertationMPhil dissertation. . Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Wierzbicka, A. 1992.Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations. Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations. Oxford: Oxford Oxford: Oxford University Press.University Press.

1 composing utterance meaning: an interface between pragmatics and psychology anna sysoeva and kasia...

Documents

primary meaning

aspects of meaning

contextualism slide

merger slide

syntactic constraint

skeleton slide

contextualism contextualism

pilot study slide