Constraint ( in pragmatics) - University of Cambridge

Constraint (in pragmatic theory)
Rules, processes, and representations in pragmatic theory can come with conditions,
or restrictions. Such restrictions, or constraints, pertain to the scope of application of a
rule, the spread of the process, or the well-formedness of a representation. They can
be seen as external restrictions delimiting e.g. an application of a theory, or as an
integral part of the theory (see also Pragmatics, Metapragmatics).
In optimality-theory pragmatics (e.g. Blutner 2000; Blutner and Zeevat, eds,
2003), constraints constitute an integral part of the theory. Since linguistic meaning
underdetermines the proposition expressed, a pragmatic mechanism of completion of
this meaning is proposed. It is conceived of as an optimization procedure, founded on
the idea of the interaction of violable and ranked constraints. The selected, optimal
proposition is the one that best satisfies the constraints. This selection is performed by
the pragmatic system whose role is to interpret the semantic representation of a
sentence in a given setting. This system is founded on the principles of rational
communication worked out by Grice and subsequently by Horn (1984) and Levinson
(1987, 2000) in the form of the Q- and I/R-principles (see also Implicature, Inference,
Grice, Neo-Gricean pragmatics, Pragmatics and Semantics). The I/R-principle
compares different interpretations of an expression, while the Q-principle assesses
the produced structure as compared with other unrealised possibilities: it blocks
interpretations that would be more economically connected with alternative forms.
Examples of interpretation constraints are STRENGTH (preference for
informationally stronger readings), CONSISTENCY (preference for interpretations
that do not conflict with the context), FAITH- INT (faithful interpretation,
interpreting all that the speaker said). FAITH-INT precedes CONSISTENCY which
precedes STRENGTH in the ranking (see Zeevat 2000, see also Optimality Theory).
1

Another example of constraints that are constitutive of the theory is
Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (e.g. Asher and Lascarides 2003, see
also Discourse Representation Theory). In SDRT, rhetorical relations spell out
constraints on discourse interpretation. The interpretation of discourse is founded on
constraints on discourse coherence. For example, a relation between two propositions
can be Narration, Explanation, or Elaboration.
Theory-external constraints can be exemplified by particular lexical items that
provide certain restrictions on interpretation. For example, it has been observed by
Grice that there are certain words that do not contribute to the truth-conditional
content of an expression. Among such words are ‘but’, ‘moreover’, and ‘therefore’.
While Grice classified them as conventional implicatures, it was subsequently
suggested (Blakemore 1987) that they do not have conceptual content but instead are
indicators of pragmatic inferences to be performed by the addressee. ‘After all’, ‘you
see’, ‘also’ and other such indicators also belong to this category:
A: ‘Oscar and Lucinda is worth reading. After all, one of the best novelists wrote it.’
‘After all’ functions here as an indicator that the second sentence is to be taken as
evidence for the claim made in the first. On Blakemore’s account, such indicators
contain procedural (rather than conceptual) meaning and they act as constraints on
inference in communication (see also Conceptual and Procedural Meaning). This
approach to constraints on inference has been developed and plays a major role in
relevance theory. Blakemore (1987) calls such indicators constraints on the relevance
of a proposition. Moreover, it has been since observed (Wilson and Sperber 1993) that
there are also procedural items that constrain the proposition expressed, such as
2

pronouns, as well as markers such as ‘please’ and ‘let’s’ that constrain the process of
inferring the propositional attitude of the speaker or the speech act. The scope of the
category of such constraints, as well as the binary conceptual-procedural distinction,
still remain a contentious matter (see e.g. Blakemore 2002; Lee 2002).
Bibliography
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relavance. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2000). ‘Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but’. Journal of
Linguistics 36, 463-86.
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and
pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blutner, R. (2000). ‘Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation’.
Journal of Semantics 17, 189-216.
Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. (eds) (2003). Optimality theory and pragmatics. London:
Palgrave.
Horn, L. R. (1984). ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and
R-based implicature.’ In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press. 11-42.
Lee, H.-K. (2002). ‘Towards a new typology of connnectives with special reference to
conjunction in English and Korean’. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 851-866.
3

Levinson, S. C. (1987). ‘Minimization and conversational inference.’ In Verschueren,
J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds) The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers
from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins. 61-129.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized
conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993). ‘Linguistic form and relevance’. Lingua 90, 1-25.
Zeevat, H. (2000). ‘The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics’.
K.M. Jaszczolt
Journal of Semantics 17, 243-262.
Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages
University of Cambridge
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge CB3 9DA
kmj21@cam.ac.uk
4

Key words:
constraint
pragmatic theory
optimality theory
Grice
Segmented Discourse Representation Theory
rhetotical relations
procedural meaning
5

Biography
K.M. Jaszczolt is senior lecturer in semantics and pragmatics at the University of
Cambridge and fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge. She also taught linguistics
at the universities of Oxford, Sussex and Brighton. She is managing editor of the book
series Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface (CRiSPI), member of
the Editorial Board of Journal of Pragmatics and the book series Studies in
Pragmatics, all published by Elsevier Science. In 1992 she completed her DPhil
dissertation Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Propositional Attitudes at the
University of Oxford. Her recent research concerns developing the theory of utterance
interpretation called Default Semantics (book in progress, forthcoming from OUP).
Her recent publications include books Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions: Semantic
Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription, 1999, Elsevier Science, Semantics
and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse, 2002, Longman, and edited
books The Pragmatics of Propositional Attitude Reports, 2000, Elsevier Science, and
Meaning Through Language Contrast (2 vols, co-edited), 2003, J. Benjamins. She
also published a number of articles on the semantics and pragmatics of referring
expressions, propositional attitudes, and presupposition, among others in Journal of
Pragmatics, Theoretical Linguistics, Journal of Literary Semantics, and in edited
collections.
6