SEMANTICS–PRAGMATICS INTERACTION
It seems unlikely that there will ever be consensus about the extent to which we can reliably distinguish semantic phenomena from pragmatic phenomena. But there is now broad agreement that a sentence's meaning can be given in full only when it is studied in its natural habitat: as part of an utterance by an agent who intends it to communicate a message. Here, we document some of the interactions that such study has uncovered. In every case, to achieve even a basic description, it is necessary to pool semantic information, contextual information, speaker intentions, and general pragmatic pressures.
Space limitations preclude discussion of PRESUPPOSITIONS and SPEECH-ACTS, two important classes of phenomena for which semantics and pragmatics are so thoroughly intertwined that analyses of them invariably draw information from both domains.
In a broad range of cases, pragmatic information is required just to obtain complete and accurate meanings for the words and phrases involved. Indexical expressions (see INDEXICALS) are clear examples (Kaplan 1971). In order to determine what proposition is expressed by an utterance of (1), we must look to the context to fix the speaker.
(1) I am here.
We must also appeal to the context to obtain the intended meaning of here (in this room, in this city, ...). Which meaning we select will be shaped by considerations of informativity and relevance (see PRAGMATICS). (For example, (1) is likely to be trivially true if here is construed as picking out planet earth, and speakers will therefore avoid that interpretation until interplanetary travel becomes routine.)
Similar factors influence anaphora resolution. If a speaker utters (2), his addressees will ...
... middle of paper ...
...rttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In James D. McCawley, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6):607–653.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers of Barbara H. Partee, Volume 1 of Explorations in Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Russell, Benjamin. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23(4):361–382.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1978. On testing for conversational implicature. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, 281–297. New York: Academic Press.
It turns out that one of the most helpful areas for studying linguistic relativity is that of th...
This property is highly regarded as a positive aspect to the English language because it increases its vocabulary, which consequently opens infinite doors to precise and expressive communication. However, a
Curzan, Anne and Adams, Michael. How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006
Wodak, R. (2006). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis in Verschueren, J. and Östman, J. (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Some kinds of utterances which have an indicative grammatical form seem, for different reasons, to be unable to say something true of the world. Logical contradictions are only the prime example of something the author baptizes impossible descriptions. So-called performative contradictions (e.g., "I do not exist") make up another kind, but there are at least two more such kinds: negating affirmations and performatives which cannot be explained within the philosophy of language. Only philosophical anthropology can explain their feature of "impossibleness," and a distinction between unreflective and reflective consciousness is central to the explanation. Particularly important here is G. H. Mead's distinction between two aspects of the self: the "I" and the "me." Each of the four kinds of impossible descriptions distinguished has its own contrary opposite. These are, in turn, logical tautologies, performative tautologies, affirming negations, and omissive performatives. The last three types as types have not received the philosophical recognition that they deserve. All four fit a general characterization which is given as a definition of the concept of superfluous description.
The problem of substitutivity has always been a thorn in the side of the study of semantic logic. Why does it sometimes appear that terms that refer to identical objects cannot be replaced with each other in propositions without altering the truth value or meaning of said proposition? Leibniz's Law would seem to ensure that we could perform such an action without anything significant having changed, but this is clearly not so. I intend to look at the history, not only of this problem, but of the theories that have created an atmosphere in which these questions can be contemplated. Finally, I will offer some of my own insights and perceived problems.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Essex: Longman Ltd.
Deixis is the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves. Deixis concerns on the interpretation of utterances depends on the analysis of that context of utterance.
In some ways these differences can be both funny and strange.Today if an American went to England, they pronoun/antecent agreement might be confused if an English person referred to the hood of their pronoun/antecent a...
He argues that one may be able to note the intentionality but he/she may not be able to know the intention, and this makes it important to differentiate between text and discourse. Discourse is responsible for finding the intention of the text by relating its content to the extralinguistic reality. The process of relating the text to the extralinguistic reality, which is the discourse, results in the text. Widdowson thus defines discourse as “the pragmatic process of meaning negotiation” and the text as “its product” (p.8). Other scholars who distinguish between text and discourse in terms of product and process are Brown and Yule (1983). They state that “the discourse analyst treats his data as the record (text) of a dynamic process in which language was used as an instrument of communication in a context by a speaker/ writer to express meanings and achieve intentions (discourse)’ (Brown and Yule, 1983:26). It can be noted that Brown and Yule’s description of text and discourse is similar to that of
Language is a means of human communication whether verbally or nonverbally. In everyday life we use language to express our thoughts, feelings ,attitudes,etc.A great amount of social interactions takes place every day over the telephone ,by online chats, face –to face interaction or at workplaces .We use language of different forms for different functions as in to inform, question , and sometimes to strengthen social relationships or just to keep the social wheels turning smoothly. Moreover, understanding one's own language and even other cultures’ language is important to arrive at a successful and effective communication with others . The study of language can be undertaken in various ways .Semantics and pragmatics are two branches of linguistics which are concerned with the study of meaning.
In her analysis, Mona Baker investigates all text equivalences: apart the object of this paper, she studies the grammatical equivalence, the textual equivalence and the pragmatic equivalence. However this paper will be centered only on the micro level.
The last two types are idiomaticity institutionalized understatement and idiomaticity institutionalizes in hyperbole. The former’s construction decrease the influence of genuine proposition. In combination of the idea of understatement, preclearing of a situation, thing or an event is sometimes understood with other deeper meaning behind. The latter is usually fixed and delineates the case in a false way i.e. far-fetched
North, S. (2012), 'English a Linguistic Toolkit' (U214, Worlds of English), Milton Keynes, The Open University.
This paper will explain the process we, as humans usually follow to understand a certain text or utterance. This explanation would be achieved through the analysis of two journal articles from semantics and pragmatics perspective, taking into account a range of techniques associated with each of the two concepts including: