Pragmatics in Language Analysis

Pragmatics in language analysis involves studying utterance meaning beyond semantics, focusing on context-dependence, complete context-dependence, and pragmatic knowledge. Basic concepts include semantics, discourse, Grice's Relevance Theory, Speech Acts, Metaphor Theory, and more. Truth-conditional semantics explores how propositions correspond to states of affairs, while inference involves passing from one proposition to another based on belief. Explore the complexities of language and meaning through the lens of pragmatics.

• Pragmatics
• Language Analysis
• Semantics
• Context-Dependence
• Inference

winkelman_h Follow

Uploaded on Sep 23, 2024 | 2 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Pragmatics Autumn 2018, CogSciMSc

2. What is pragmatics? The analysis of utterance meaning that does not directly follow from the semantics of the utterance (????)

3. The context-dependence of language The chain was rusty and the tyres flat. 1. There was an old bicycle lying on the ground. 2. You could hardly call it a swing.

4. Complete context-dependence I ll be working all week. = No = Yes 1.Shall we go surfing tomorrow? 2. Will you have the money to pay for the ticket?

5. Pragmatic knowledge is not inborn 1. Father: How many times have I told you not to do this! Child (crying): I don t know, I haven t counted. 2. Mother: Please wipe your feet on the doormat. Child takes off his shoes and wipes his feet.

6. Topics Basic concepts: semantics Basic concepts: discourse and pragmatics Grice Relevance Theory Speech Acts Metaphor Theory Linguistic Relativity Clinical pragmatics (Theory of Mind) (Humour, Politeness and indirect speech)

7. The limits of semantics

8. Truth-conditional semantics The world can be described as a set of state of affairs. Alfred Tarski (Polish-American mathematician, 20th c.): a proposition is true if it corresponds to a certain state-of-affairs. Snow is white is true if and only if snow is white. The meaning of a sentence: the complete set of state-of-affairs for which a sentence may be true.

9. Inference Utterance: a sentence or fragment uttered by a particular speaker at a particular time and place. Proposition: an internal statement, representation of state-of-affairs, the core meaning of an utterance Inference: the act of passing from one proposition to another which is believed to follow from the first. What time is it? Three. ==> It s three o clock in the afternoon.

10. Information used for making inferences: word meaning The wall is white. ==> The wall is not red. sentence structure He s eaten the cake. ==> The cake is gone. tone of voice, intonation (speaker emotions, threat, request, etc.) context socio-cultural norms world knowledge semantics pragmatics

11. Inference is an automatic process violations produce very odd sentences A coroner s duty is to decide whether a person died a fatal death. The robbery was committed by a pair of identical twins, both are said to be about age 20. Send in your competition answers with your name, age and how old you are. So you are a housewife and a mother. Do you have any children? We do not have censorship. What we have is a limitation on what newspapers can report. The brain of a woman is almost as heavy as a human brain.

12. Entailment Inferences that logically follow from utterance meaning or from the interrelations between words in a language (sense relations). Keith strangled Sam. ==> Sam is dead. ==> Keith did something. Kate and Tom walked along the beach. ==> Kate walked along the beach. ==> Tom walked somewhere. ==> A female and a male animate being walked along the beach.

13. Resolving sorts Inferences that follow when we try to resolve some lexical conflict (anomaly) using lexical and world knowledge. The prack looked at his watch. ==> the prack must be a human being. Kate s brother is pregnant. The toothbrush danced with the soap. Sam swallowed the idea. (metaphor) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

14. Presupposition A type of inference that s impossible to define... A proposition which must be true for the utterance to make any sense: The present king of France is bald. True or False? Where did Mike look for his keys? ==> Mike looked for his keys. Jake s sitting on Sam s sofa. ==> Sam has a sofa. I m sorry Felix doesn t want to go out. ==> Felix doesn t want to go out. Ismerj k el, hogy katolikusok vagyunk. (We should admit that we are catholics) ==> Katolikusok vagyunk. (We are catholics) The car in front is a Toyota. ==> There is a car in front of you.

15. Prosecutor: Did you pay the bribe money into your own bank account? Accused: ???

16. Presupposition versus entailment Jake s sitting on Sam s sofa. ==> Jake s sitting on something. ==> Sam has a sofa. Jake s not sitting on Sam s sofa. ==> Jake s sitting on something or not ==> Sam has a sofa

17. The limits of inferences people are not always logical we do not always have all the necessary information to draw logical conclusions but that does not make communication impossible

18. Material implication What animal is this If it barks, it s a dog. ==> barks => dog doesn t bark => dog or not dog What are we doing tomorrow? If it snows, we ll go skiing. ==> snows => skiing doesn t snow => NO skiing

19. Disjunction (inclusive versus exclusive interpretation) We are looking for an actress with long or blond hair. blond long hair blond and long hair I put the key in the green or the round box. green round green and round

20. Conjunction Tom is a doctor and Mary is an engineer. ==> Mary is an engineer and Tom is a doctor. Sam fell and broke her leg. ==> ??Sam broke her leg and fell.

21. Quantification Are you hungry? I ve had some biscuits. => The whole packet or just some of it There s a packet of biscuits on the table. I ve had some (biscuits) => not the whole packet Have you done your homework? Not all of it. => I ve done some of it (PERHAPS).

22. Deixis and ellipsis: indeterminacy of reference Inference may require knowledge of context. She ll talk about that there and then. I know. Sentence vs. utterance situational context: place, time, event participants linguistic context: what has been said before background knowledge context, schemas

23. Hard-to-define rules: Deictic verbs Come round as soon as you can. => speaker s location I ll come round as soon as I ve put the phone down. => hearer s location I ll get back around 5. You can come and see me then. => speaker s future location Are you coming to Sam s party? => speaker s possible future location

24. Vagueness I ve seen Only Lovers Left Alive. => sometime in the past I ve had breakfast. => sometime today This room is too big. > 50 m2 This screw is too big. > 5 cm I ve finished the book. a student a writer a book binder

25. You wander around, looking high and low, and fill up a metallic container. Some people know in advance what to put in; others just make things up as they go along. Two important tips. Make sure that you know what today s date is, as it can prove helpful. And don t put hard things on soft. Take the container and unload it on to a rubber surface. The contents travel a short distance. Each of the objects, round and square, big and small, has to be put on to a piece of glass. Sometimes weight will be an issue, and money will certainly have to change hands. (based on Bransford and Johnson 1973)

26. (Conversational) implicatures Inferences made using various kinds of information Not necessarily logical, may vary from person to person. The end result may not correspond to the speaker s intended meaning. Pragmatics: describes and explains this process (Conventional implicature the and vs. but problem follows from conventional meaning but does not affect truth conditions)

27. Conversational implicatures Grice s theory of pragmatics

28. The problem The semantic interpretation of an utterance does not necessarily correspond to its meaning.

29. Paul Grice (1913-1988) British-American linguist and philosopher Natural vs. non-natural meaning this rash: chicken pox. this bell: the beginning of class Non-natural meaning is context dependent. It is interpreted with reference to the communicative intentions of the signer similarly to conversational implicatures.

30. The co-operative principle How do we know what the speaker s communicative intentions are? Social contract We abide by certain conventions, conversational rules: we assume that our conversational partner won t say anything that does not correspond to the given state of affairs. We use common knowledge. Eve: Do you like my new hat? Rose: It s pink! Rose s favourite colour is Pink and Eve knows that.

31. The co-operative principle Make you conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

32. The maxims of co-operation Relevance: Be relevant. Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Quantity: Make you contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Manner: Be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly.

33. Which maxim explains the usual interpretation? 1. - What are we doing tomorrow? - If it rains, we ll stay in. if it doesn t rain, we ll go out 2. - I ve put the key in the green or the round box. the box is probably not green AND round 3. Felix fell and broke his leg. ordering, cause and effect 4. I ve had some biscuits. I haven t eaten them all. 5. I ve had breakfast. sometime today

34. Conversational implicatures context-dependent cancellable (can be denied) non-specific

35. Scalar implicatures and the maxim of quantity some < most < all sometimes < often < always possibly < probably < certainly may < should < must

36. Implicature vs. presupposition 1. I ve lost some of the tickets; in fact I ve lost them all. 2. - Would you like some Coke? - I m not thirsty; but I d like some anyway. 3. Steve s dog wrecked the garden; in fact, Steven doesn t even have a dog. 4. I ve stopped smoking; although I ve never actually smoked.

37. Hedges We may show awareness of the cooperative principle: I don t mean to change the subject but I probably don t need to say this but I have no evidence for this but I know this may seem irrelevant but if you understand what I mean.

38. Flouting the maxims The cooperative principle may be exploited in conversation. If the speaker apparently disregards a maxim, the hearer will assume that he is still cooperating and find an appropriate interpretation conforming to the maxims. Lies are non-transparent violations of the maxims.

39. Which maxims are flouted by the second speaker? What s his communicative intention? 1. - Kate makes excellent pea soup. - Pea soup is pea soup. 2. - Come and see a film with us tomorrow. - I ve got an exam. 3. - What s Tres Leches? - It s that thing, so you can eat it, comes from Latin America, I m not much of a cook, made of flour, sweet, there s milk in it 4. - Sam won the lottery. - Oh yeah, and I m the president of the United States.

40. Flouting the maxim of quality irony: - I love getting up at six o clock in the morning. sarcasm: - You re only two hours late! What an achievement! politeness: Handing back a gadget after looking at it in a shop. - Thank you, I ll think about it. To a friend who lives in a dump: - What a lovely little room you have here!

41. Unintentional infringement of the maxims George W Bush: Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. You never know what your history is going to be until long after you re gone.

42. Generalised vs. particularised conversational implicatures Generalised: That do not need shared background knowledge: John is meeting a woman. indefinite NP: someone unknown BUT: Sam broke a finger.

43. Generalised vs. particularised conversational implicatures Particularised: - that you cannot understand without shared knowledge 1. - Are you coming to the party? - My parents are in town. 2. - Where s the salad dressing? - We ve run out of olive oil. Speaker must take into account what the hearer knows.

44. Shared knowledge, common ground communal common ground (shared countries, institutions, schools, workplace, etc) the cafeteria, the third floor personal common ground: what speaker and hearer have talked about before, and their physical environment common knowledge people interpret language relative to assumed shared knowledge:

45. Krauss & Weinheimer 1966 conversational task some participants paired with active partners, who provided feedback (uhu, really?) others talked into tape recorder people getting feedback used shorter references

46. Clark et al 1983 (both photos, one question) You know who this man is, don t you? Do you have any idea who this man is? Ronald Reagan (President 1981-89) David Stockman (Director of a Cabinet office 1981-1985)

47. Indeterminacy of cooperative principle (Keenan 1978, Prince 1982) Cultural differences lies as politeness indirectness as politeness small talk (How are you? Fine.) withholding information as power play