honey's presentaion
TRANSCRIPT
Pragmatics:
Presented by: Hina Javaid
Roll # 100884006
Mapping:
Explicit vs implicit meaning
Presupposition and entailment
Grice’s theory
Cooperative principles
Grice’s Maxims Implicature
Proposed distinctions
• Meaning vs. Use• Content vs. Force• Type vs. Token• Sentence/proposition vs. Utterance• Saying vs. Implicating• Competence vs. Performance• Linguistic meaning vs. Speaker’s meaning• Literal vs. Non-literal meaning• Compositionality vs. Non-compositionality• Intention independence vs. intention dependence• Conventional vs. Non-conventional meaning• Context-independent vs. Context-dependent meaning• Truth-conditional vs. Non-truth-conditional meaning• Linguistically encoded vs. Non-linguistically encoded meaning
meaning Truth-condition pragmatics
• When a diplomat says yes, he means ‘perhaps’;
• When he says perhaps, he means ‘no’;
• When he says no, he is not a diplomat.
• When a lady says no, she means ‘perhaps’;
• When she says perhaps, she means ‘yes’;
• When she says yes, she is not a lady.
Voltaire (Quoted, in Spanish, in Escandell 1993.)
sentence conventional meaning
disambiguation
reference fixing, i.e., what is said
Explicit meaning (semantic meaning)
Implicit vs. explicit meaning
• Gricean view• Explicit meaning:
– sentence's conventional meaning– the meaning obtained by the combination of
• Implicit meaning:– The remaining of utterance meaning, presuppositions and implicatures.
Pragmatics
• Pragmatics is the study of deixis, implicature, presupposition,
speech acts, and aspects
of discourse structure.
(Levinson, 1983)
Pragmatics is the study of how we don’t say what we mean.
• Semantic context dependence• Presupposition / Conventional implicature• Conversational Implicature• Speech Acts• Textual cohesion and coherence• Conversational structure (dialogue)
according to Levinson: Pragmatics. CUP
Pragmatics: Subareas
Linguistic communication is an Intentional-inferential process
linguistic communication=interpersonal context
Intension of utterance = speaker utters
Attributes of utterance = listener hears
Interpretation of utteranceWe Infer possibilities of
intensions; warnings, requests
Cooperative
principle & Maxims
Utter (larger clues)-----hear ( attributes)
Speech Act Theory
Politeness Theory
Deixis
Presupposition and
entailment
Implicatures
Select relevant aspectsRelevance Theory
Will you take a side?
Presuppositions and entailmentsTwo aspects of what is communicated but not said
• Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) noted presupposition in his book.• Presupposition is what a speaker or writer assumes that the
receiver of the message already knows.
• In saying X, we presuppose Y.• E.g. John doesn’t write poetry anymore → John once wrote poetry.
• Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions,
• symbolized as >> .
Entailment (not a pragmatic concept)
• what logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance, symbolized by II-.
• Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.• The entailments are communicated without being said • not dependent on the speaker’s intention.
• 1. Ali exist• 2. He has a brother.presupposition
• Ali’s brother bought something • Now he has two houses.Entailment
Ali’s brother bought two houses.
Need for presupposition & Entailment
• Presupposition: – help comprehend utterances contextually and deeply
• Entailment:– Entailment we can find a relationship between two propositions
Works in presupposition analysis
G. Frege (1952), E. Keenan (1971),
R. Jackendoff (1972), R. M. Kempson (1977),
P. Grundy (1995).
Grice’s Pragmatic Theory & Intentional-inferential approach
• Grice’s pragmatic theory (Grice 1989), shows how
semantic theories can be greatly simplified where
judgements about meaning can be accounted for via the
mechanism of conversational implicature rather than
derived by entailment from conventional meaning.
Pragmatics: Inferred meaning
The use of language has a social functionGrice: • said (= truth-condition)• implicated (= non-truth-condition)
• Implicature is calculated on the basis of what is said;what is said provides input to what is
implicated.
• N-meaning NN-meaning natural type non-natural type
no speaker intension involved speaker basedThat spot on skin Oh! So poor.
Exclamation of pain, haeee, ouch, ow!
???
(H.P.Grice 1975) Theory of conversation
Theory made distinction between .
what someone says what someone ‘implicates’
by uttering a sentence
Cooperative principal
Four maxims of conversation Guidelines
There is a set of guidelines for effective and rational use of language
i) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
iii) Do not say what you believe to be
false.
iv) iv) Do not say that for which you lack
evidence
vi) Avoid obscurity of
expression
vii) Avoid ambiguity
viii) Be brief
ix) Be orderly
v) Be relevant
Henry Paul Grice (1975): The co-operative
principle
Gricean maxims and cooperative principle
• 2 Way cooperation:1. speakers observe the cooperative principle
2. listeners assume that speakers are observing it
• The Cooperative Principle and the Grecian Maxims are not specific to conversation but to interaction as a whole.
Gricean maxims and cooperative principle
• Flouting the maxims:– Manipulated positively and negatively– produce a negative pragmatic effect, as with sarcasm or irony.
This allows for the possibility of implicatures, which are meanings
that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but that can
nonetheless be inferred.
IMPLICATURE {Paul Grice (1975)}implicature was coined by Patrick McBride
• Some of the boys are playing in the ground?• Do you have room in your car for us?• Can you pass the salt?
inferred meaning above and beyond the semantic meaning (Non-Truth-Conditional)
Explicature: what is explicitly said (direct)(The truth value of a sentence is determined using its explicature)
Implicature: The information that the speaker conveys implicitly (indirect)
Linguistic decoding pragmatics
Explicature
(what is stated)
Linguistic explicature pragmatics
Implicature
(what is implied)
Types of implicatures
• Scalar Implicature ( +> not all)
– Express one value from a scale of values
– All, most, most, some, few, sometimes, often, always
• Conventional implicature– But , even, yet, and
• Conversational implicature
Conversational Implicature (Grice 1967)
• By implicature we mean what is implied
• By conversational implicature, we mean a meaning or message that is
implicated in a conversation.
conversation
We over say (or say more of) or under say (say less of) something in conversation
certain extra meaning or meanings beyond the literal meanings
extra meaning is conversationally dependent
conversation implicature.
Example:
• Mary: ‘Did you manage to fix that leak?• Jim: ‘I tried to.’
Jim’s utterance may implicate that Jim didn’t fix it
Two kinds of conversation implicatures
• Generalized or conventional conversation implicature– an implicature whose meaning or meanings are inferable without
anchoring it in specific contexts.
“John went into a house and found a tortoise in front of a door”
• Particularized conversation implicature:– an implicature which is deductible only in specific contexts.
A: Where is the fish?
B: The cat looks very happy.
Shumaila KiranNext presenter