ÿþQual Study Sessions: Pragmatics 02/06/2008 Ryan foresees a pragmatics exam that has one or two large open-ended questions. Natural vs. non-natural meaning if the meaning of "x means p" means x entails p then the meaning is natural "If it's glowing it means it's hot." --> this is natural meaning "A white flag means surrender." --> this is non-natural meaning (also known as conventional meaning) communicative intent vs. no communicative intent "If it's glowing it means it's hot." --> no communicative intent --> natural meaning "A white flag means surrender." --> communicative intent --> non-natural meaning "Three strikes means you're out." --> no communicative intent --> non-natural meaning non-natural meaning - someone means p by doing or uttering x natural meaning - no communicative intent, governed by laws of natural world, non agreed-upon by people "A shrug means indifference." --> non-natural meaning "Screaming means you're in pain, or intense pleasure." --> natural meaning "A yawn means you're tired." --> natural meaning "A yawn means you're bored." --> non-natural meaning Grice's meaning_NN is non-natural meaning, is speaker meaning Meaning_NN: S means p by uttering x = S intends the utterance of x to produce some effect in H (the hearer) by means of H recognizing the intention Speaker meaning vs. Sentence meaning sentence meaning is truth conditional, governed by semantics truth conditions are irrelevant to speaker meaning utterance vs. sentence sentence --> theoretical object the linguistic object, the syntactic tree (and its LF (logical form) and PF (phonetic form) content?) utterance --> act has a specific time, place, context, a specific instance of a production of a sentence Cooperative Principle (CP): Make your contribution to the discourse such as is required at the point at which it occurs to reach the goal of the discourse. Neo-Gricean picture of meaning: What is said: sentence meaning, truth conditions, etc. What is implicated: inferences based on what is said plus reasoning involving the CP Ambiguity --> a sentence is ambiguous if it can be associated with distinct sets of truth conditions He saw her duck. He saw her animal which was a duck. He saw her perform the action of ducking. Vaguness --> unspecified, captures multiple conditions with one meaning He's related to me. 02/13/2008 "and" and "or" --> it's better to have a pragmatic account that allows for disambiguation via the CP than to have a semantic account that posits separate lexical entries for each ambiguous meaning "and because of that" "I punched Ryan and he cried." "and" "Alice is snarky and Christina is nice." "and then" "I went to the store and stole some apples." PRAGMATIC DISAMBIGUATION: the correlation between temporal ordering and linear organization inform the Maxim of Manner, this disambiguates "and then" causes happen before effects, this also informs the Maxim of Manner disambiguates "and because of that" Speech Acts Presuppositions Implicatures Entailments Austin's Constantives - declarative statements - have truth conditions - "Today it is raining." Performatives - not reports of actions - evaluated with respect to felicity conditions - "I hereby christen this ship The Battlestar Galactica. Felicity Conditions: I. a. conventional procedure with conventional effects b. appropriate circumstances and participants - you can't marry a turtle to a 2 year old II. a. correct and complete execution - acknowledge accepting a bet III. a. participants must have requisite thoughts, beliefs, intentions b. must follow through afterwards - must have consummate marriage misfires: when you violate I or II abuses: when you violate III Two tests for performatives: "hereby" insertion - I hereby christen this ship. - #The cat is hereby about to jump out the window. person and tense: 1p present, 2p or 3p passive voice - I accept the bet. - #You accept the bet. - #I accepted the bet. - You are fired. - Dwight is hereby shunned. _ #Dwight was shunned. - #Dwight fired Michael. Three levels of acceptability: ungrammatical: (morphosyntax, phonology) "*the rapidly arriving from the east train" anomolous: (semantics) "?colorless green ideas" infelicitous: (pragmatics) (insincere apology) "#I apologize. HA HA!" Locutionary Act - the physical act of speaking - "Talaq. Talaq. Talaq." ("I divorce you" in Arabic.) Illocutionary Act - the action intended (or performed?) by utterance - you are now divorced. Perlocutionary Act - all the other stuff, psychological consequences - your wife's feelings are hurt Austin says that if you make an explicit paraphrase that doesn't change the intended effect then this paraphrase is also a performative. - #I hereby like chocolate. - I hereby declare that I like chocolate. The Performative Hypothesis: All utterances are performatives. 02/20/2008 Utterance meaning a la Searle: 1. 55th St is flooded under the tracks. P (propositional content) = 55th St is flooded under the tracks. F (illocutionary force) = could be WARN, ASSERT, QUERY, EXCLAIM Searle 1965: "What is a Speech Act?" Speaker meaning: Grice - intention + recognition Searle - intention + recognition + rules (convention) How do we get from P to F? (How do we compute F(P)?) - part from structure of sentence - part from rules that may map propositions to illocutionary force - What is the division of labor? Option 1: Structure underdetermining F(P) (Searle) utterance meaning not fully compositional part is coming from outside the structure Option 2: S fully determines F(P) (Sadock) Performative Hypothesis requires abstract syntax in cases without explicit performatives Option 3: Searle was wrong about F(P) always being conventionally determined (other scholars) you can do reasoning but it doesn't have to be based on convention Mapping Actions: 1. Searle's conditions - preparatory - H is able to A - sincerity - S wants H to do A - propositional content - S predicates a future act of A - essential: counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A 2. Syntax: Performative Hypothesis 3. Speech Act pragmatics Classes of Illocutionary Acts: Three dimensions of variation: 1. illocutionary point: aim of illocutionary act, what is the act supposed to do ie. ORDER, DESCRIPTION, PROMISE 2. direction of fit: how does the propositional content relate to the world words -> world (down arrow): make words match world e.g. assertion world -> words (up arrow): make the world fit the words e.g. christening, ordering 3. expressed psychological state assert, claim, hypothesize: BELIEF promise, vow, agree to: INTENTION order, command, request: DESIRE (from 10/18/2007) The Big Question: How do we compute speech act content/utterance meaning? - compute -> rule governed Performative Hypothesis (formal): Every clause has a higher (matrix), performative V sometimes non-overt PRO: - Compositionality of speech act meaning - "Frankly, I don't give a damn." --> "(I tell you) frankly, I don't give a damn." CON: - if "It's raining" really means "I assert that it's raining" then the statement would be "true" even if it weren't raining - German V2 word order - if there was an other higher VP then what looks like the main verb but is actually an embedded verb should show up at the end - Ich liebe dich. I love you - *(Ich stelle hierbei fest dass) ich dich liebe. I assert hereby P that I you love 02/27/2008 (from 10/25/2007) Indirect Speech Acts a la Searle Class 1: There's an assertion about something. Reasoning through CP, literal meaning is still available. - It's cold in here. Class 2: Secondary speech act targets felicity conditions for primary (indirect) speech act. - Could you shut the door? Performative Hypothesis makes different claims about these classes of indirect speech acts Performative Hypothesis makes same claims about Class 1. Doesn't work for Class 2. - wh-imperatives? Class 1 is Speech Act semantics - reasoning via the CP to arrive at meaning - S --> F(p) --> Speaker meaning Class 2 is Speech Act syntax Presuppositions The starting point of presuppositions is the Common Ground: shared background knowledge. Common ground: set of propositions shared knowledge, assumptions of participants in the discourse Presuppositions survive negation and question formation. Entailments do not. Brooks regrets that he voted for Bush in 2000. - this presupposes that Brooks voted for Bush in 2000. - this entails that he regrets it. Brooks doesn't regret that he voted for Bush in 2000. - this still presupposes that Brooks voted for Bush in 2000. - this entails that he doesn't regret it. Does Brooks regret having voted for Bush in 2000? - this still presupposes that Brooks voted for Bush in 2000. - no entailment When did you stop selling heroin? - presupposes that you sold it at some point Semantic presupposition v. Pragmatic presupposition - semantic presup. has to do with sentences p >>_sem q iff q must be in the CG in order for p to have a truth value - pragmatic presup. has to do with what the speaker utters p >>_prag q iff q must be in the CG in order for p to be felicitously uttered Presupposition Triggers: factive verbs: regret, think, forget, reject, resent implicative verbs: manage to, happen to - don't directly presuppose complement, presuppose something else - "Mary managed to play the sonata." - entail that she played it, presupposes that the playing is hard for her genitive 's, possessors: my, 's "my sister", "my sister's cow" definite determiner "my very own The Cheat!" 03/30/2008 CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES: conventional implicatures are detachable because they depend on the particular linguistic form used detachable: the implicature can be detached from the truth conditions of the linguistic form CHRISTIAN'S Notes 1. Entailment  a relation between sentences where the truth of one necessarily implies the truth of the other. Pàð Q, but not necessarily the other way. If Q is false, then P is false.  The archbishop was assassinated entails  he is dead. If not dead, means not assassinated. 2. Conventional implicature  dependant on the form of the utterance. They are detachible, non-cancelable, and not calculable. and  Sue is a liberatarian, and she supports the war. but  Sue is a liberatarian, but she supports the war. (same truth conditions as  and but conventional implicature that there is contrast) therefore  Sue is a liberatarian, therefore she supports the war. (same truth conditions as and, but conventional implicature that there is a connection between the first part of the utterance and the second). still  even  picks out a lower scalar element on a likelihood scale. manage  Kim managed to finish the homework (that it was unexpected and hard for her) fail  3. Conversational implicature  a conversational implicature is cancelable and non-detachible and reinforceable and calculable. My soup is warm, it s not hot. (also a scalar implicature). My soup is warm, in fact it s hot (cancelable). My soup is 100 degrees ( Mary tried to climb the mountain (implicates that she didn t succeed). Mary attempted to climb the mountain (all carry the same implication, ergo detachible). Most people are happy with pragmatics, in fact all are (cancealable). Most people are happy with pragmatics (reinforceable). Generalized   It s possible that Dumbledore is gay (it s not certain that he s gay). Particularized   It s cold in here. (can mean a lot of things   turn heat on ,  open window ) 4. Presupposition   John didn t cheat again. Presupposes that he cheated before. We can suspend this presupposition   John didn t cheat again, if in fact he ever cheated at all. survive negation, questions, and conditionals, e.g.   Did Henry cheat on his wife again?  Henry didn t cheat on his wife again  If Henry cheated on his wife again, I m going to kill him 5. Entailment vs. Presupposition John ate the banana.  presupposed that there is a banana. A banana was eaten by John  entailed by  John ate the banana . 6. Violated sincerity condition   Happy birthday, asshole! 7. Indirect speech act  paper towels clog toilets, i.e.  don t throw paper towels in the toilet. 8. Metalinguistic negation   The dog shit on the rug ,  no, he didn t shit on the rug, he defecated on it . 9.