1887
Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In relevance-theoretic pragmatics the or is a propositional form resulting from a series of inferential developments of the logical form. It amounts to the message the speaker communicates explicitly. The or is a description of the speech act that the speaker performs, her affective attitude towards what she says or her epistemic stance to the communicated information. Information about the speaker’s affective attitude or epistemic stance need not solely be represented in the latter, though. It could be included as beliefs in the mental files of pragmatically adjusted conceptual representations featuring in lower-level explicatures. Those beliefs would originate as lexical pragmatic processes operate and their representation would be triggered by elements like evaluative morphemes, expressive expletives, insulting terms and evidential participles. Although they may be true or false in their own right, such beliefs would not affect the truth-conditional content of the expressed proposition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20002.pad
2023-02-02
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, Keith
    2015 When is a slur not a slur? The use of nigger in “Pulp fiction”. Language Sciences521. 187–199. 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Archer, Dawn
    2015 Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves. Language Sciences521. 82–97. 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Badarneh, Muhammad A.
    2010 The pragmatics of diminutives in colloquial Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics42(1). 153–167. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2011 On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics43(14). 3537–3550. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 Slurs and expletives: A case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences521. 22–35. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.018 [Google Scholar]
  9. Börjars, Kersti & Kate Burridge
    2001Introducing English grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bosque, Ignacio
    2009Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burton-Roberts, Noel
    2005 Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics and ‘encoding’. Journal of Linguistics41(2). 389–407. 10.1017/S0022226705003300
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003300 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carston, Robyn
    2000 Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics121. 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatic of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2009 The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics1(1). 35–62. 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013a Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. InMaite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The semantics-pragmatics boundary in philosophy, 261–283. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013b Word meaning, what is said and explicature. InCarlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua175–1761. 154–166. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carston, Robyn & Alison Hall
    2017 Contextual effects on explicature: Optional pragmatics or optional syntax?International Review of Pragmatics9(1). 51–81. 10.1163/18773109‑00901002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark, Billy
    2016 Relevance theory and language change. Lingua175/1761. 139–153. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Collins, Peter & Carmella Hollo
    2000English grammar: An introduction. London: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Croom, Adam M.
    2014 The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure expressivism. Language Sciences411. 227–242. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Crystal, David
    1991A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. De Marco, Anna
    1998 The acquisition of diminutives in Italian. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics951. 199–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dendale, Patrick & Liliane Tasmowski
    2001 Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 339–348. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00005-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi
    2001 Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives: On the priority of pragmatics over semantics. InIstván Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.90.07dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.07dre [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk
    1993A student’s grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron
    1999English grammar: A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, Alison
    2017 Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. InIlse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 85–100. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Huddleston, Rodney
    1988English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ifantidou, Elly
    1992 Sentential adverbs and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics41. 193–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1993 Parentheticals and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics51. 193–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2001Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jary, Mark
    2016 Rethinking explicit utterance content. Journal of Pragmatics1021. 24–37. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mascaro, Olivier & Dan Sperber
    2009 The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition112(3). 367–380. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Matthews, Peter H.
    2007Oxford concise dictionary of linguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mendoza, Martha
    2005 Polite diminutives in Spanish. A matter of size?InRobin T. Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizons of linguistic politeness, 163–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.139.15men
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.15men [Google Scholar]
  38. Moeschler, Jacques
    2007 The role of explicature in communication and in intercultural communication. InLaurence Horn & Istvan Kecskes (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 73–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 How speaker meaning, explicature and implicature work together. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 215–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110546095‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-012 [Google Scholar]
  40. Nuyts, Jan
    2006 Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. InWilliam Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197570.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197570.1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2009 Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics1(1). 182–206. 10.1163/187731009X455884
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455884 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2013 Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching51(1). 23–54. 10.1515/iral‑2013‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2013-0002 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 Interlocutors-related and hearer-specific causes of misunderstanding: Processing strategy, confirmation bias and weak vigilance. Research in Language15(1). 11–36. 10.1515/rela‑2017‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2018 Expressive APs and expletive NPs revisited: Refining the extant relevance-theoretic procedural account. Lingua2051. 54–70. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2019 Qualifying insults, offensive epithets, slurs and expressive expletives: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict7(2). 156–181. 10.1075/jlac.00023.cru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00023.cru [Google Scholar]
  46. 2020 Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance. InAgnieszka Piskorska (ed.), Relevance, figuration and continuity in pragmatics, 69–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.03crz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.03crz [Google Scholar]
  47. Piskorska, Agnieszka
    2016 Perlocutionary effects and relevance theory. InManuel Padilla Cruz (ed.), Relevance theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions, 287–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.11pis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.11pis [Google Scholar]
  48. Potts, Christopher
    2007a The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics33(2). 165–197. 10.1515/TL.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2007b The centrality of expressive indices. Theoretical Linguistics33(2). 255–268. 10.1515/TL.2007.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.019 [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, Kate
    2019Referring expressions, pragmatics, and style: Reference and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316822845
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822845 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sifianou, Maria
    1992 The use of diminutive in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics17(2). 155–173. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90038‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90038-D [Google Scholar]
  52. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language25(4). 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1995Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 1998 The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. InPeter Carruthers & Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy15(44). 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Volek, Bronislava
    1987Emotive signs in language and semantic functioning of derived nouns in Russian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/llsee.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.24 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wharton, Tim
    2009Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2016 That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua175–1761. 20–35. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1991Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wilson, Deirdre
    1999 Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics111. 127–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2011 The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. InVictoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–31. London: Brill. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2012 Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. InEwa Wałaszewska & Agnieszka Piskorska (eds.), Relevance theory: More than understanding, 23–43. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2016 Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua175–1761. 5–19. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2017 Relevance theory. InYan Huang (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2006 Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language21(3). 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  67. 2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. InNoel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90(1). 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2000 Truthfulness and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics121. 215–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2002 Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics141. 249–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2004 Relevance theory. InLarry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Wilson, Deirdre & Tim Wharton
    2006 Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics38(10). 1559–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  73. Würstle, Regine
    1992Überangebot und Defizit in der Wortbildung: Eine kontrastive Studie zur Diminutivbildung im Deutschen, Französischen und Englischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Yus Ramos, Francisco
    1999 Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics9(4). 487–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Zakowski, Samuel
    2014 Inference and metarepresentations: Ancient Greek ἦ που as a constraint on higher-level explicatures. Journal of Pragmatics741. 109–128. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20002.pad
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error