Honey's presentaion


Published on

Published in: Education, Spiritual, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The utterance is the token, the historical event with causes and consequences; the sentence is the type, the type of utterances of a sentence; an abstract entity. Meaning (character) would be a property of types; content, a property of tokens.
  • Ordered EntailmentsTHE FOREGROUND ENTAILMENTIt-cleft construction/cleft sentences
  • Theory was of language use
  • Scalar: use of ‘some’ ‘all’
  • Honey's presentaion

    1. 1. Pragmatics: Presented by: Hina Javaid Roll # 100884006 Mapping: Explicit vs implicit meaning Presupposition and entailment Grice‟s theory Cooperative principles Grice‟s Maxims Implicature
    2. 2. 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
    3. 3. 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.
    4. 4. 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.
    5. 5. • Semantic context dependence • Presupposition / Conventional implicature • Conversational Implicature • Speech Acts • Textual cohesion and coherence • Conversational structure (dialogue) according to Levinson: Pragmatics. CUP Pragmatics: Subareas
    6. 6. Linguistic communication is an Intentional-inferential process linguistic communication=interpersonal context Intension of utterance = speaker utters Attributes of utterance = listener hears Interpretation of utterance We Infer possibilities of intensions; warnings, requests Utter (larger clues)-----hear ( attributes) Select relevant aspects Will you take a side?
    7. 7. Presuppositions and entailments Two 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 >> .
    8. 8. 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. Ali‟s brother bought two houses.
    9. 9. 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).
    10. 10. 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.
    11. 11. Pragmatics: Inferred meaning The use of language has a social function Grice: • 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 based That spot on skin Oh! So poor. Exclamation of pain, haeee, ouch, ow! ???
    12. 12. (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
    13. 13. 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
    14. 14. 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.
    15. 15. 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.
    16. 16. 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)
    17. 17. 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
    18. 18. 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.
    19. 19. Example: • Mary: „Did you manage to fix that leak? • Jim: „I tried to.‟ Jim‟s utterance may implicate that Jim didn‟t fix it
    20. 20. 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.
    21. 21. Shumaila KiranNext presenter