honey's presentaion

23
Pragmatics: Presented by: Hina Javaid Roll # 100884006 Mapping: Explicit vs implicit meaning Presupposition and entailment Grice’s theory Cooperative principles Grice’s Maxims Implicature

Upload: hina-honey

Post on 11-May-2015

2.799 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Honey's presentaion

Pragmatics:

Presented by: Hina Javaid

Roll # 100884006

Mapping:

Explicit vs implicit meaning

Presupposition and entailment

Grice’s theory

Cooperative principles

Grice’s Maxims Implicature

Page 2: Honey's presentaion

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

Page 3: Honey's presentaion

• 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.)

Page 4: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 5: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 6: Honey's presentaion

• Semantic context dependence• Presupposition / Conventional implicature• Conversational Implicature• Speech Acts• Textual cohesion and coherence• Conversational structure (dialogue)

according to Levinson: Pragmatics. CUP

Pragmatics: Subareas

Page 7: Honey's presentaion

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?

Page 8: Honey's presentaion

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 >> .

Page 9: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 10: Honey's presentaion

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).

Page 11: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 12: Honey's presentaion

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!

???

Page 13: Honey's presentaion

(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

Page 14: Honey's presentaion

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

Page 15: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 16: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 17: Honey's presentaion

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)

Page 18: Honey's presentaion

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

Page 19: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 20: Honey's presentaion

Example:

• Mary: ‘Did you manage to fix that leak?• Jim: ‘I tried to.’

Jim’s utterance may implicate that Jim didn’t fix it

Page 21: Honey's presentaion

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.

Page 22: Honey's presentaion
Page 23: Honey's presentaion

Shumaila KiranNext presenter