scholarly journals A probabilistic pragmatics for English singular some

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Lewis Esposito ◽  
Christopher Potts

When English some combines with a singular NP, the resulting phrases reliably convey affective meanings not shared by variants with a(n) or plural NPs. Prior research has traced these effects to semantic properties of some that entail that the speaker cannot identify a unique referent for the phrase. In this paper, we present attested examples that conflict with this generalization. In addition, we argue that semantic accounts miss an important generalization: some is reliably affective only if a is available as an alternative. These facts suggest a pragmatic source for the relevant meanings. To capture them, we argue that a given context can make different modes of identification for entities relevant and that singular some signals a lack of engagement with these modes. We analyze the pragmatics of this signaling using the "lexical uncertainty" version of the Rational Speech Acts model and show how it can be used to characterize the observed affective meanings.

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 57-82
Author(s):  
Werner Frey ◽  
Federica Masiero

In the paper, German disintegrated verb-final 'obwohl' (‘although’) and 'weil' (‘because’) clauses are compared with constructions in which 'obwohl' and 'weil' precedes clauses with main clause word order. The former constructions constitute independent, yet subsidiary speech acts. Thus, the subordinating connectors and the positioning of the verb do not indicate syntactic but textual dependency. The latter constructions are of a very different kind. Here, 'obwohl' and 'weil' do not form a constituent with the following clause. Instead, they appear as syntactically independent discourse markers connecting two discourse units. As discourse markers, 'obwohl' and 'weil' obtain their special syntactic and semantic properties as elements of the derived, but independent module of Thetic Grammar.  


Author(s):  
Mitchell Green

Speech acts are acts that can, but need not, be carried out by saying and meaning that one is doing so. Many view speech acts as the central units of communication, with phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of an utterance serving as ways of identifying whether the speaker is making a promise, a prediction, a statement, or a threat. Some speech acts are momentous, since an appropriate authority can, for instance, declare war or sentence a defendant to prison, by saying that he or she is doing so. Speech acts are typically analyzed into two distinct components: a content dimension (corresponding to what is being said), and a force dimension (corresponding to how what is being said is being expressed). The grammatical mood of the sentence used in a speech act signals, but does not uniquely determine, the force of the speech act being performed. A special type of speech act is the performative, which makes explicit the force of the utterance. Although it has been famously claimed that performatives such as “I promise to be there on time” are neither true nor false, current scholarly consensus rejects this view. The study of so-called infelicities concerns the ways in which speech acts might either be defective (say by being insincere) or fail completely. Recent theorizing about speech acts tends to fall either into conventionalist or intentionalist traditions: the former sees speech acts as analogous to moves in a game, with such acts being governed by rules of the form “doing A counts as doing B”; the latter eschews game-like rules and instead sees speech acts as governed by communicative intentions only. Debate also arises over the extent to which speakers can perform one speech act indirectly by performing another. Skeptics about the frequency of such events contend that many alleged indirect speech acts should be seen instead as expressions of attitudes. New developments in speech act theory also situate them in larger conversational frameworks, such as inquiries, debates, or deliberations made in the course of planning. In addition, recent scholarship has identified a type of oppression against under-represented groups as occurring through “silencing”: a speaker attempts to use a speech act to protect her autonomy, but the putative act fails due to her unjust milieu.


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyn Frazier ◽  
Brian Dillon ◽  
Charles Clifton

Potts unified the account of appositives, parentheticals, expressives, and honorifics as 'Not- At-Issue’ (NAI) content, treating them as a natural class semantically in behaving like root (unembedded) structures, typically expressing speaker commitments, and being interpreted independently of At-Issue content. We propose that NAI content expresses a complete speech act distinct from the speech act of the containing utterance. The speech act hypothesis leads us to expect the semantic properties Potts established. We present experimental confirmation of two intuitive observations made by Potts: first that speech act adverbs should be acceptable as NAI content, supporting the speech act hypothesis; and second, that when two speech acts are expressed as successive sentences, the comprehender assumes they are related by some discourse coherence relation, whereas an NAI speech act need not bear a restrictive discourse coherence relation to its containing utterance, though overall sentences containing relevant content are rated more acceptable than those that do not. The speech act hypothesis accounts for these effects, and further accounts for why judgments of syntactic complexity or evaluations of whether or not a statement is true interact with the at-issue status of the material being judged or evaluated.


JURNAL SPHOTA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ayu Vina Widiadnya Putri ◽  
I Dewa Ayu Devi Maharani Santika ◽  
Komang Dian Puspita Candra

This study aims to describe the meaning of the directive illocutionary speech acts used by Native Speakers and Non-Native Speakers in teaching English at the Denpasar Children Center School. The data sources of this study are the utterance of native speaker and non-native speaker. Data obtained by using observation method with uninvolved conversation observation technique and record techniques. Data containing illocutionary speech acts then analyzed descriptively qualitatively based on theories of speech act proposed by Searle (1969) and Leech (1974) about meaning. The results showed that the directive speech acts used by native speakers and non-native speakers were requirements, requestives, questions, prohibitive, permissives and advisories. The meanings of directive speech acts spoken by native speakers and non-native speakers are analyzed from the context of the conversation. The meaning of speech acts for the native speaker tends to be connotative and sometimes contains affective meaning. Whereas the meaning of speech acts of non-native speaker tend to use a combination of connotative, denotative, and affective meanings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Akhmad Saifudin

This article explains the theory of speech acts proposed by John L. Austin and his student John R. Searle. Speech act theory is a sub-field of pragmatics. This field of study deals with the ways in which words can be used not only to present information but also to carry out actions. This theory considers three levels or components of speech: locutionary acts (the making of a meaningful statement, saying something that a hearer understands), illocutionary acts (saying something with a purpose, such as to inform), and perlocutionary acts (saying something that causes someone to act). Many view speech acts as the central units of communication, with phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of an utterance serving as ways of identifying the meaning of speaker’s utterance or illocutionary force. There are five types of Illocutionary point according to Searle: declarations, assertives, expressives, directives, and commissives (1979:viii). A speech act, in order to be successful, needs to be performed along certain types of conditions. These conditions were categorized by the linguist John Searle, who introduced the term felicity conditions: propositional content condition, preparatory condition, sincerity condition, and essential condition.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen E. Link ◽  
Roger J. Kreuz ◽  
Jackie Soto
Keyword(s):  

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley B. Klein ◽  
Leda Cosmides ◽  
Kristi A. Costabile ◽  
Lisa Mei
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document