Bullshit, trust, and evidence

It has become almost a cliché to say that we live in a post-truth world; that people of all trades speak with an indifference to truth. Speaking with an indifference to how things really are is famously regarded by Harry Frankfurt as the essence of bullshit. This paper aims to contribute to the philosophical and theoretical pragmatics discussion of bullshit. The aim of the paper is to offer a new theoretical analysis of what bullshit is, one that is more encompassing than Frankfurt’s original characterization. I part ways with Frankfurt in two points. Firstly, I propose that we should not analyze bullshit in intentional terms (i.e. as indifference). Secondly, I propose that we should not analyze it in relation to truth. Roughly put, I propose that bullshit is best characterized as speaking with carelessness toward the evidence for one’s conversational contribution. I bring forward, in the third section, a battery of examples that motivate this characterization. Furthermore, I argue that we can analyze speaking with carelessness toward the evidence in Gricean terms as a violation of the second Quality maxim. I argue that the Quality supermaxim, together with its subordinate maxims, demand that the speaker is truthful (contributes only what she believes to be true) and reliable (has adequate evidence for her contribution). The bullshitter’s main fault lies in being an unreliable interlocutor. I further argue that we should interpret what counts as adequate evidence, as stipulated by the second Quality Maxim, in contextualist terms: the subject matter and implicit epistemic standards determine how much evidence one needs in order to have adequate evidence. I contrast this proposed reading with a subjectivist interpretation of what counts as having adequate evidence and show that they give different predictions. Finally, working with a classic distinction, I argue that we should not understand bullshit as a form of deception but rather as a form of misleading speech.

The discursive construction of accountability for communicative action to citizens: A contrastive analysis across Israeli and British media discourse

This paper sets up to show how accountability for communicative action is constructed in online journalism as an object of talk, comparing British English and Israeli Hebrew discourse communities. The analysis utilizes a discourse-pragmatic frame of reference supplemented by cognitive semantics and corpus-assisted tools. The discussion draws on data collected from the websites of The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, Ha’aretz and Ynet. Focusing on self- and other-positioning of commenters and columnists as citizens, we explore how the accountability of the elite for communicative action and the accountability of their actions to citizens are discursively constructed by ordinary persons (in their role as commenters) and by non-ordinary persons (in their role as columnists, including journalists, experts and authors). The analysis indicates conceptual similarities coupled with discursive differences between the discourse communities under study.

Lebanese conversational style and cultural values

This paper investigates the Lebanese conversational style in relation to Lebanese cultural values. The study adopts a discourse analysis approach based on interactional sociolinguistic methodology for the analysis of audio-recordings and semi-structured interviews involving Lebanese nationals (multi-active culture) and members of linear-active cultures, in addition to participant observation. Four distinctive linguistic features characterizing the Lebanese conversational style are identified: topic (focus on personal topics and abrupt topic shift), pacing (overlap and fast pace), expressive phonology and intonation, and formulaic language. The findings of this study reveal that the Lebanese have a high-involvement conversational style as a result of their cultural values which reflect those of high-context, multi-active and collectivist cultures. Furthermore, a connection is made between cultural and communicative differences which can account for instances of stereotyping and misunderstandings between members of the two cultural groups.

The frame system as an interlingual representation for parallel texts

One of the key problems in comparative studies based on frame semantics is the question whether frames can become an interlingua. This paper argues that not only single frames, but their systems or frame semantic domain representations consisting of frames and their relations are also useful in comparative studies. Such a system of frames helps one explain why seemingly unrelated expressions in different languages find a common denominator in higher-order frames, thus becoming semantic-pragmatic equivalents. To support this argument, an analysis of Polish, English and German lease agreements as parallel texts is conducted and the benefits of this approach to comparative studies are presented. The study is in line with the recent FrameNet initiatives, such as the Global FrameNet and automatic translation studies. However, it differs in some methodological aspects. Instead of using FrameNet as the given lexical resource, domain specific frames are defined starting from common general concepts of the analyzed semantic domain. A text-based approach rather than a comparison of bi-sentences or phrases is adapted. The work thus introduces a new approach to comparative studies based on frame semantics and frame semantic research. It also follows the recent research trend of adding a pragmatic dimension to frame semantic analysis by analyzing frames in context.

Deployment of the formulaic utterance “how about∼” in task-based second language classroom discussions

Formulaic speech has long been of interest in studies of second language learning and pragmatic use as production and comprehension of formulaic utterances requires less processing and production effort and, therefore, allows for greater fluency. This study scrutinizes the sequential positions and actions of one formulaic utterance “how about∼” from the participants’ perspective. This conversation analytic study offers a fine-grained microanalysis of student interaction during classroom peer discussion activities. The data consist of over 54 h of video-recorded classroom interaction. Analysis revealed several positions and actions of “how about∼” as it occurs during peer discussions by Japanese learners of English. Emerging from analysis was a focus on how learners deploy this formulaic utterance to achieve various actions within sequences of interaction. Analysis revealed that participants used “how about∼” for (a) explicitly selecting next speaker, (b) shifting topics, (c) proposing a solution, and (d) suggesting alternative procedures. Although the formula was deployed to perform these four different actions, consistent throughout all instances was the disclosure of learner orientation to the progressivity of the task interaction. The findings show how language learners deploy this formulaic utterance in discussion tasks designed for language learning and highlights the pragmatic functions of this phrase.

The Sino–US trade war in political cartoons: A synthesis of semiotic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives

Economic globalization has resulted in more frequent trading frictions, some of which have escalated into trade wars such as the one between China and the US. Drawing on the same corpus built by Zhang and Forceville (Zhang, Cun & Charles Forceville. 2020. Metaphor and metonymy in Chinese and American political cartoons (2018–2019) about the Sino–US trade conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition 27(2). 476–501), and complementing insights of that paper, this paper investigates how the Sino–US trade war is metaphorically and metonymically constructed in 129 Chinese and American political cartoons respectively from a synthesized perspective. Based on comparative analyses, cross-cultural similarity and uniqueness in the semiotic, cognitive, and cultural aspects can be concluded as follows: (a) at the expression level, the shared dominant mode configuration pattern of metaphor and metonymy requires extra-textual knowledge to identify the target domain/concept while the source domain/vehicle concept is pinpointed through pictorial resources; (b) at the cognition level, “us” and “them” are distinctively evaluated by using the metonymy BODILY REACTION FOR EMOTION, cultural symbols, and the Great Chain metaphor. The Chinese cartoons converge on disapproving of “them” while the American cartoons converge on disapproving of “us” and diverge on conceptualizing “them”; (c) a variety of cross-cultural default scenarios are employed in the Chinese cartoons whereas the American cartoons utilize non-default scenarios influenced by only American cultures. Both aim for persuasiveness by employing emotionally charged source domains/vehicle concepts, but to different audiences.

The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon

This paper investigates how L2 speakers of English process conventional metaphorical expressions. While much of the literature on L2 processing of figurative expressions focuses on idioms only, the aim of this paper is to investigate how L2 speakers process conventional metaphorical expressions. The results of a cross-modal semantic priming task show that conventional metaphors have a special status in comparison to literal language in the L2 lexicon. The differences in reaction times show that L2 speakers are aware of the connections between literal primes and targets, resulting in slower reaction times, while this effect is not found in the metaphorical condition. This demonstrates that even when metaphorical language is very conventional, it can cause difficulties for L2 speakers. Furthermore, these results show that conventional metaphorical expressions can pose a semantic and pragmatic challenge for language learners, thus creating a need for explicit teaching of metaphorical meanings of polysemous words.