Constraint ( in pragmatics) - University of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: Constraint (in pragmatic theory) Ru
Page 5 and 6: Key words: constraint pragmatic the

Constraint ( in pragmatics) - University of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?