meaning two first half - university college · pdf file• john’rogers’searle:...

Meaning in Language!

Pragma-cs!

•  Seman-cs is the study of meaning ... Pragma-cs is the study of meaning in context!

•  Meaning in context: When we were dealing with seman-cs we were dealing with words and sentences and their meaning with no regard to the context they were u=ered in. This is because a context can alter the meaning of a word or sentence.

•  The response “Brilliant!” or “You’re a genius!” can mean quite the opposite in a context where the speaker is being sarcas-c.

•  The intended meaning of these two u=erances depends then on knowledge of the context they are u=ered in. So pragma-cs deals with ‘u=erances’ rather than sentences or words as abstract en--es. It is only when they are nailed down to a -me or context that they can be analyzed pragma-cally.!

Pragma-c competence!

•  This refers to ‘real-‐world’ knowledge, that is, our beliefs about the world. These beliefs can override our linguis-c competence. For instance the in sentences

•  ‘the poli-cians wouldn’t meet the protesters because they feared violence’ and

•  ‘the poli-cians wouldn’t meet the protesters because they advocated violence’

•  the fact that both sentences are equally indeterminate is ignored and one’s beliefs about the world lead one to interpret the ‘they’ in the first sentence as referring to the poli-cians but to the protesters in the second sentences.!

Alligators and shoes !

•  In interpre-ng expressions such as Alligator Shoes and Horse Shoes, it is our real world knowledge that allows us to interpret one as as referring to shoes made of alligator skin but the other as referring to shoes made for a horse.!

Contexts!

•  PHYSICAL,

•  EPISTEMIC,

•  LINGUISTIC,

•  SOCIAL!

Contexts!•  Physical: where the conversa-on takes place: "What would you like?" in a

restaurant is not looking for the same informa-on as those words u=ered in a clothes shop. A shout of “get out” is different if we are in the bedroom of the person shou-ng it rather than some other room of the house of some other building.!

Contexts!•  Physical: where the conversa-on takes place: What would you like? in a

restaurant is not looking for the same info as that u=erance in a clothes shop. A shout of “get out” is different if we are in the bedroom of the person shou-ng it rather than some other room of the house of some other building.

•  Epistemic: Background knowledge shared by the language users; ‘there is a woman downstairs’ when the hearer fears a man and there is also a man downstairs is seen as bad. ‘there is a man downstairs’ u=ered in the same situa-on is good even though it is s-ll only half true. But it takes into account my knowledge about the hearer and their belief.!

Contexts!•  Physical: where the conversa-on takes place: What would you like? in a

restaurant is not looking for the same info as that u=erance in a clothes shop. A shout of “get out” is different if we are in the bedroom of the person shou-ng it rather than some other room of the house of some other building.

•  Epistemic: Background knowledge shared by the language users; ‘there is a woman downstairs’ when the hearer fears a man and there is also a man downstairs is seen as bad. ‘there is a man downstairs’ u=ered in the same situa-on is fine even though it is s-ll only half true. But it takes into account my knowledge about the hearer and their belief.

•  Linguis3c: U=erances previous to the u=erance under considera-on can have an effect on meaning. ‘I went to the bank’ will be interpreted differently when we have been talking about ge]ng money and when we have been talking about naviga-ng canals.!

Contexts!•  Social: Social rela-onship and se]ngs of speakers and hearers. The

u=erance ‘write an essay for me on pragma-cs for next week’ is different if I say it or the person si]ng beside you says it, or if I say it to you later tonight in the pub.

•  T/V, honorifics!

Speech Acts!

Aus-n: Speech Act theory!

•  John Langshawn Aus-n (Oxford) •  1955 lectures at Harvard University published posthumously as:

•  How to do things with words (1975)!


•  John Langshawn Aus-n (Oxford) •  1955 lectures at Harvard University published posthumously as:

•  How to do things with words (1975) •  Reac-on to old assump-ons:

–  the basic sentence type in language is declara-ve (ie a statement or asser-on)

–  the principal use of language is to describe states of affairs (by using statements)

–  the meaning of u=erances can be described in terms of their truth or falsity!


•  Not all u=erances are statements: ques-ons, commands, wishes etc.

•  Many u=erances are equivalent to ac-ons: they immediately convey a new psychological reality – “I promise to take a taxi home”. – “I do”. – “I declare this mee-ng open / closed”.!

Consta-ves vs. Performa-ves!

•  Consta3ves: statements that convey informa-on. – Can be said to be true / false: “I cooked this cake”

•  Performa3ves: u=erances that do something. – Cannot be said to be true / false, but rather successful or unsuccessful

•  ‘Hereby’ test –  “?I hereby cook this cake”!

Felicity/Sincerity condi-ons!

•  Enabling condi-ons for a performance •  Gradient: – Highly ins-tu-onalised contexts e.g. wedding –  Less formal acts e.g. thanking

•  Sincerity condi-ons: requisite thoughts, feelings and inten-ons •  Not felicitous -‐> ‘misfire’ •  Insincere -‐> ‘abuse’

Seen everywhere in society, beyond language!

Explicit and implicit performa-ves!

•  Explicit performa-ve: – performa-ve verb –  simple present – 1st person singular (or 2nd person singular passive) –  ‘Hereby’ –  "I warn you that there is a dangerous animal there." –  "You are hereby warned that there is....

•  Implicit performa-ve –  “There is a dangerous animal there”!

From performa-ves to speech acts!

•  Consta-ves are just another type of speech act (sta-ng)

•  All u=erances cons-tute speech acts of one kind of another

•  Speech acts are communica-ve acts performed through the oral or wri=en use of language

Locu-onary, illocu-onary, perlocu-onary!

•  Aus-n: three components of a speech act •  Locu3onary act: the act of saying something that makes sense in a language, subdivided into

– Phone-c act: act of producing sounds – Pha-c act: follows the rules of grammar

– Rhe-c act: using words with a certain sense and reference!


•  Illocu3onary act: the ac-on intended by the speaker

•  Perlocu3onary act: the effect caused on the listeners or par-cipants – “Shoot her!” –  Illocu-onary act: order, urge, advice – Perlocu-onary act: persuading, forcing, frightening – Perlocu-onary act might not be heeded!


•  There’s a bull in the field

•  Context?

•  Illocu-onary act? •  Perlocu-onary act?!



•  Context: On a walk in the countryside

•  Illocu-onary act: Warning •  Perlocu-onary act: Frightening!



•  Context: Farmer and accountant si]ng doing accounts

•  Illocu-onary act: Informing •  Perlocu-onary act: Enlightening!

Classifica-on of Speech Acts!

1. Assert, inform, claim, declare, state, ... 2. Predict, forecast,... 3. Describe, assess, classify, ... 4. Acknowledge, admit, agree, concede, concur,

confess, agree, accept, ... 5. Deny, recant, disclaim, dispute, disagree, reject,

insult, complain, ... 6. Answer, respond, reply, retort,... 7.  Suggest, guess, speculate, …!

classifica-on of speech acts!

8. Request, ask, beg, insist, invite, plead, command, tell, demand, 9. Ques-on, ask, inquire, interrogate, quiz, 10. Forbid, prohibit, restrict, 11. Suggest, advise, cau-on, warn, urge, propose 12. Promise, swear, vow, 13. Offer, propose, compliment, 14. Apologize, condole, congratulate, greet, thank, !

Searle: classifica-on of speech acts (1)!

•  John Rogers Searle: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1969)

•  Contribu-on: – classifica-on of speech acts – development of rules (felicity condi-ons)!

•  Searle developed and extended the speech act theory that Aus-n introduced. Searle focused on the illocu-onary acts performed by the speaker

•  There are any number of acts performed that you might focus on, and these fall under only one aspect of the u=erance. Among the acts are muscle movements, proposi-onal acts (e.g. acts of reference and predica-on), illocu-onary acts, and perlocu-onary acts.

•  He focused on illocu-onary acts.!

•  Searle developed and extended the speech act theory that Aus-n introduced. Searle focused on the illocu-onary acts performed by the speaker

•  There are any number of acts performed that you might focus on, and these fall under only one aspect of the u=erance. Among the acts are muscle movements, proposi-onal acts (e.g. acts of reference and predica-on), illocu-onary acts, and perlocu-onary acts.

•  He focused on illocu-onary acts. •  He believed that it is fundamental to language study to begin with speech acts, since they are essen-al to communica-on.

•  In fact, he took the illocu-onary act, and not the word or sentence to be the fundamental unit of linguis-c communica-on, and he has an argument for this: to see a linguis-c expression as significant in general, we need to see that sentence as produced by an agent with certain inten-ons.!

Searle: classifica-on of speech acts (2)!

•  Representa)ve or asser?ve. Speaker becomes commi=ed to the truth of the proposi-onal content: "It's raining."

•  Direc)ve. Speaker gets the hearer to fulfil what is represented by the proposi-onal content: "Close the door!"

•  Commissive. Speaker becomes commi=ed to act in the way represented by the proposi-onal content: "I'll finish the job by tomorrow."

•  Expressive. Speaker expresses the sincerity condi-on of the illocu-onary act: "I'm glad it's raining!"

•  Declara)ve. The speaker performs an ac-on just represen-ng him/herself as performing that ac-on: "I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth." !

Rules: Searle argued that language is a rule-governed activity; in arguing for this, he distinguished between regulative and constitutive rules.!

Regulative Rules: these regulate a pre-existing activity whose existence is independent; these rules can be stated typically as imperatives. !

Constitutive Rules: these constitute an activity the existence of which is logically dependent on the rules; these can be expressed as imperatives in certain cases, but they can also be expressed as non-imperative, but not exclusively.! - chess rules, rules of football (offside rule as constitutive vs. no racist salutes rule as regulative).!

Searle argues that the semantics of language can be seen as a "series of systems of constitutive rules and that illocutionary acts are performed in accordance with these rules." These are the rules he sought to identify.!

meaning two first half - university college · pdf file• john’rogers’searle:...

Documents