Meaning and communication, swearing and silence

or pragmatics? Two case studies Meaning and communication, swearing and silence Gary Thoms 2/12/14

or pragmatics? Two case studies Outline communication and linguistic meaning semantics and pragmatics silence and meaning swearing and meaning

or pragmatics? Two case studies Communication and meaning All linguists are interested in communication. But what is communication? Successful communication involves one interlocutor conveying meaning to another interlocutor

or pragmatics? Two case studies Communication and meaning All linguists are interested in communication. But what is communication? Successful communication involves one interlocutor conveying meaning to another interlocutor

or pragmatics? Two case studies Meaning Meaning has many different meanings... unctuous means excessively or ingratiatingly flattering dogs smell means that in general, dogs omit an odour that s good for a first attempt usually means it was terrible the meaning of Malevich s black square is that modernity will not save us from the inevitable oblivion of death a red light means stop a tightening in your chest means you need to take a break

or pragmatics? Two case studies Meaning Meaning has many different meanings... unctuous means excessively or ingratiatingly flattering dogs smell means that in general, dogs omit an odour that s good for a first attempt usually means it was terrible the meaning of Malevich s black square is that modernity will not save us from the inevitable oblivion of death a red light means stop a tightening in your chest means you need to take a break we are concerned with the meaning of linguistic expressions, so we ignore the last three and concentrate on the others

or pragmatics? Two case studies Meaning Meaning has many different meanings... unctuous means excessively or ingratiatingly flattering dogs smell means that in general, dogs omit an odour that s good for a first attempt usually means it was terrible the meaning of Malevich s black square is that modernity will not save us from the inevitable oblivion of death a red light means stop a tightening in your chest means you need to take a break we are concerned with the meaning of linguistic expressions, so we ignore the last three and concentrate on the others

or pragmatics? Two case studies Linguistic meaning Even with this narrow focus, linguistic meaning is tricky. Sometimes we don t say what we mean: (1) It s quite warm in here.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Linguistic meaning Even with this narrow focus, linguistic meaning is tricky. Sometimes we don t say what we mean: (1) It s quite warm in here. Sometimes what we mean and what we say are very different. (2) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Linguistic meaning Even with this narrow focus, linguistic meaning is tricky. Sometimes we don t say what we mean: (1) It s quite warm in here. Sometimes what we mean and what we say are very different. (2) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Even if someone says what they mean, sometimes that is tricky. (3) We don t torture.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Linguistic meaning Even with this narrow focus, linguistic meaning is tricky. Sometimes we don t say what we mean: (1) It s quite warm in here. Sometimes what we mean and what we say are very different. (2) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Even if someone says what they mean, sometimes that is tricky. (3) We don t torture.

or pragmatics? Two case studies To make the problem more tractable, we distinguish components of meaning: literal meaning: that which can be derived from the linguistic expression independent of context inferred meaning: everything else which is derived from a linguistic expression on top of literal meaning

or pragmatics? Two case studies To make the problem more tractable, we distinguish components of meaning: literal meaning: that which can be derived from the linguistic expression independent of context the subject of semantics inferred meaning: everything else which is derived from a linguistic expression on top of literal meaning the subject of pragmatics

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance A common distinction: literal meaning: the meaning of the sentence the meaning of the abstract object inferred meaning: the meaning of the utterance the meaning of the communication event

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance Sometimes sentence meaning and utterance meaning are the same thing: (4) Dogs smell. Literal meaning: generally, dogs emit an odour. Utterance meaning: generally, dogs emit an odour.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance Other times they depart. Our example from earlier: (5) Say what you like about David Cameron, he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Sentence meaning: David Cameron knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Utterance meaning: David Cameron is an out-of-touch and patronising ignoramus.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance Other times they depart. Our example from earlier: (5) Say what you like about David Cameron, he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Sentence meaning: David Cameron knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Utterance meaning: David Cameron is an out-of-touch and patronising ignoramus.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance Sentence meaning precedes utterance meaning; you need to know sentence meaning to arrive at utterance meaning. We first derive sentence meaning using semantic knowledge, and then we use additional knowledge to enrich this to arrive at utterance meaning. (more on that enrichment soon)

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance Question: do we ever get utterance meaning without sentence meaning? (6) [pointing at myself] S e GARY a th orm. (7) [interrupting a boring conversation about the spec of smartphones] Well my EarPhone 7si has full facetooth connectabilations and is dronespeak ready.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance The task for linguists: to come up with a theory of how each component works. what are the rules and principles which derive sentence and utterance meaning? how do sentence and utterance meaning interact? what kinds of knowledge are involved in deriving meaning? how does syntactic and phonological information contribute to the generation of sentence and utterance meaning?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Sentence vs. utterance The task for linguists: to come up with a theory of how each component works. what are the rules and principles which derive sentence and utterance meaning? how do sentence and utterance meaning interact? what kinds of knowledge are involved in deriving meaning? how does syntactic and phonological information contribute to the generation of sentence and utterance meaning?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Linguistic semantics is the context-independent component of meaning. All speakers of the same language share (broadly) the same semantics; it is the code which is used to create meaningful expressions. Thus semantic information is encoded. If something is encoded, it is provably there in the message.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Truth conditions A widespread view: to know the meaning of a sentence is to know its truth conditions To know the truth conditions of a sentence is to know how things would need to be for the sentence to be true (8) Orcs are beautiful there would have to be things that were called orcs, and those things would have to have the property of being beautiful

or pragmatics? Two case studies Truth conditions A widespread view: to know the meaning of a sentence is to know its truth conditions To know the truth conditions of a sentence is to know how things would need to be for the sentence to be true (8) Orcs are beautiful there would have to be things that were called orcs, and those things would have to have the property of being beautiful

or pragmatics? Two case studies Committing to truth Related: if you utter a sentence and you intend to convey the sentence meaning, you are committing to its truth. So if I say (9) Orcs are beautiful.... you can say you believe it s true that orcs have the property of being beautiful! and we can disagree etc.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Entailments When it comes to talking about the meaning of sentences, it is useful to make reference to truth relations between statements like the relation of entailment Entailment: a statement A entails a statement B if wherever A is true, B must also be true (10) The door is open entails the door is not closed (11) The yogurt contains no fat entails the yogurt contains no saturated fats (12) John kicked Bill entails someone kicked Bill

or pragmatics? Two case studies Entailments When it comes to talking about the meaning of sentences, it is useful to make reference to truth relations between statements like the relation of entailment Entailment: a statement A entails a statement B if wherever A is true, B must also be true (10) The door is open entails the door is not closed (11) The yogurt contains no fat entails the yogurt contains no saturated fats (12) John kicked Bill entails someone kicked Bill

or pragmatics? Two case studies Entailments An entailment of a sentence is part of its encoded meaning. If a sentence S entails X, by uttering the sentence you are committed to the truth of X just as much as S. Entailments are typically not encoded directly; the door is not open does not contain the word closed. Entailments follow from the sentence and what we know about word meanings, i.e. open and closed are antonyms.

or pragmatics? Two case studies What kind of knowledge? What kind of knowledge is involved in generating sentence meaning? word and morpheme meaning (not straightforward!) general principles for combination of words

or pragmatics? Two case studies Compositionality A key principle: Principle of Compositionality: the meaning of a linguistic expression is determined entirely by the meaning of its subparts and the rules that combine the subparts.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Compositionality An informal example: (13) John kicked Bill. S NP VP John V kicked NP Bill

or pragmatics? Two case studies Compositionality Meaning of subparts: Rules: kicked x kicked y, or there was a kicking in the past involving two entities, x the kicker and y the kick-ed Bill a man with the name Bill John a man with the name John Rule 1 (roughly): the noun phrase after the verb goes in the y slot Rule 2 (roughly): the noun phrase before the verb goes in the x slot

or pragmatics? Two case studies Compositionality Putting it together: there was a kicking in the past that involved two entities, a man called John the kicker, a man called Bill the kick-ed

or pragmatics? Two case studies Non-compositionality in language Not all linguistic expressions are compositional, strictly speaking. Famous example: idioms. (14) My computer kicked the bucket. Means my computer died not there was a kicking in the past that involved two entities, the speaker s computer the kicker, a specific bucket in the utterance context the kick-ed. It could have been the case that all sentence meanings are built up from things like idioms. This might be the case for Nim Chimpsky, maybe for birdsongs (or maybe not).

or pragmatics? Two case studies Non-compositionality in language Not all linguistic expressions are compositional, strictly speaking. Famous example: idioms. (14) My computer kicked the bucket. Means my computer died not there was a kicking in the past that involved two entities, the speaker s computer the kicker, a specific bucket in the utterance context the kick-ed. It could have been the case that all sentence meanings are built up from things like idioms. This might be the case for Nim Chimpsky, maybe for birdsongs (or maybe not).

or pragmatics? Two case studies Summary The literal meaning of a sentence is its semantics To know the meaning of a sentence is to know its truth conditions Sentence meanings give rise to entailments, which are also part of its meaning (but not encoded directly) The meaning of sentences is compositional

or pragmatics? Two case studies is everything else If semantics is the study of how coded meaning is derived from linguistic expressions, pragmatics is how all the other aspects of meaning are derived. Key question: how do we enrich sentence meanings to produce additional meanings?

or pragmatics? Two case studies What is inferred If semantics is the study of literal meaning, pragmatics is the study of inferred meaning, the meaning of the utterance. To arrive at the inferred meaning of an utterance, the hearer needs to decode the sentence and then apply reasoning to determine what is intended by the speaker. But what is the process for doing this? And how do we do it so effectively all the time, when there is so much to think about?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Some examples (15) It s quite warm in here. If this is uttered in a very hot room, we can infer that the speaker means that it s too hot; he s not just making a casual observation about the room being a nice temperature. We can also infer that the speaker intends doesn t want to make a fuss, but that he does want someone to turn the heating down. Consider: (16) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Some examples (17) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. In the context, the speaker clearly intends the communicate the opposite. How do we arrive at these meanings?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Some examples (17) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. In the context, the speaker clearly intends the communicate the opposite. How do we arrive at these meanings?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Grice s Cooperative Principle H.P. Grice s idea: when people communicate, they do so under the assumption that they and their interlocutor will be cooperative. That is, they obey the Cooperative Principle: Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. (Grice 1989)

or pragmatics? Two case studies Grice s Cooperative Principle Grice: if someone thinks you are trying to communicate with them, they will assume you are obeying the CP. According to Grice, verbal communication is ostensive, i.e. what is communicated is communicated intentionally by the speaker, in cooperation. A speaker can pass on some information to someone unintentionally: (18) The match ticket cost me 5000 pesetas.... but that was not part of his act of communication. The Gricean theory requires a different term for unintentionally passed-on meanings.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Conversational implicatures Inferences drawn on the basis of the assumption of cooperation are called Conversational Implicatures (or just implicatures). These implicatures are not part of the encoded meaning, but are part of inferred meaning; they are derived pragmatically. Since they are not encoded, implicatures are not part of the truth-conditional meaning and so speakers can distance themselves from them. They are cancellable.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Conversational implicatures (19) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here. Implicature: I want you to close the window. (20)... but not so warm that we need to open a window. In following up this way, I am not correcting myself or admitting to having spoken untruthfully. Compare: (21) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here... #but it s cold in here. It s quite warm entails it is not cold so this is contradictory.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Conversational implicatures (19) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here. Implicature: I want you to close the window. (20)... but not so warm that we need to open a window. In following up this way, I am not correcting myself or admitting to having spoken untruthfully. Compare: (21) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here... #but it s cold in here. It s quite warm entails it is not cold so this is contradictory.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Grice s Conversational Maxims Grice proposed that in cooperating, interlocutors assume that they are all obeying a set of four Conversational Maxims: Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true Quantity: Give as much information as is required Relation: Make your contributions relevant Manner: Be perspicuous (avoid ambiguity, avoid obscurity, be brief, be orderly)

or pragmatics? Two case studies Violations and flouts Maxims are violated all the time. This is a violation of the Maxim of Relevance: (22) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here. But it is not judged to be ineffective communication. Rather, by assuming CP we assume that the speaker intended to violate the maxim, and that she had a good reason to do so. Deliberate violations of maxims are known as flouts. When we reason about this and arrive at conclusions, we derive further conversational implicatures, like B doesn t want to be pushy.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Violations and flouts Maxims are violated all the time. This is a violation of the Maxim of Relevance: (22) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: It s quite warm in here. But it is not judged to be ineffective communication. Rather, by assuming CP we assume that the speaker intended to violate the maxim, and that she had a good reason to do so. Deliberate violations of maxims are known as flouts. When we reason about this and arrive at conclusions, we derive further conversational implicatures, like B doesn t want to be pushy.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Violations and flouts (23) [interrupting a boring conversation about the spec of smartphones] Well my EarPhone 7si has full facetooth connectabilations and is dronespeak ready. Violation of the Maxims of Quality and Manner. Implicatures: you re not being very well-mannered banging on about phones for so long I don t care about phone spec...

or pragmatics? Two case studies Violations and flouts Non-flout violations are also possible: (24) A: Do you think we should open a window? B: My hovercraft is full of eels. This just involves a failure to communicate, unless the hearer can draw a reasonable inference about what is intended...

or pragmatics? Two case studies Saying the opposite (25) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. Flouts Maxim of Quality: speaker is not trying to make contribution that she considers true.

or pragmatics? Two case studies The role of context Consider again: (26) Say what you like about David Cameron, but he really knows how to connect with the Scottish people. This is not a violation of the Maxim of Quality if uttered by a parliamentary aide. The context is crucial, and it encompasses what we are both assuming we share similar assumptions. When this fails, communication fails.

or pragmatics? Two case studies One more contribution of context doesn t just involve deriving implicatures, but also narrowing the meaning of words that are vague. (27) It s quite warm in here. Has different meanings in different contexts. The meaning of warm is vague (or underspecified), and context allows us to pick out a relevant, more precise meaning.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Summary Inferred meaning comes about by reasoning on the basis of sentence meaning Interlocutors who communicate obey the Cooperative Principle Meanings inferred on basis of CP are implicatures Four Maxims describe general rules of cooperative communication Flouting a Maxim is violating it deliberately to communicate something else indirectly (by implicature) also involve narrowing vague word meanings

or pragmatics? Two case studies or pragmatics? Ellipsis Expressives When it comes to refining our theories of semantics and pragmatics, we re always most interested in the complicated cases that cause problems for our definitions. Two case studies: ellipsis and expressives.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis: missing words Ellipsis Expressives Ellipsis: when sentence meanings are derived from incomplete sentences (28) Keir won t eat the cheese, but I bet Molly will.... but I bet Molly will eat the cheese. (29) Molly is whining, but I don t know why.... but I don t know why Molly is whining. Molly will eat the cheese is the truth-conditional content of the second sentence

or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives A challenge to compositionality? Principle of Compositionality: the meaning of a linguistic expression is determined entirely by the meaning of its subparts and the rules that combine the subparts.... how do we derive the meanings of these sentences without the relevant words?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives A challenge to compositionality? Principle of Compositionality: the meaning of a linguistic expression is determined entirely by the meaning of its subparts and the rules that combine the subparts.... how do we derive the meanings of these sentences without the relevant words?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Context is crucial Ellipsis Expressives The meaning seems to come from the context of utterance. If we say these elliptical sentences without appropriate context, they are meaningless. (30) #I bet Molly will! (31) #I don t know why. The linguistic context is crucial for these sentences.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Context is crucial Ellipsis Expressives The linguistic context is crucial for these sentences (Hankamer and Sag 1976). (32) [Keir picks up and throws away the cheese] [Me to Roseannah] #I bet Molly will! (33) [Molly whines twice in succession] # I don t know why. If there isn t a (near-)identical sentence in the context we can t do ellipsis.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Context is crucial Ellipsis Expressives The linguistic context is crucial for these sentences (Hankamer and Sag 1976). (32) [Keir picks up and throws away the cheese] [Me to Roseannah] #I bet Molly will! (33) [Molly whines twice in succession] # I don t know why. If there isn t a (near-)identical sentence in the context we can t do ellipsis.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Context is crucial Ellipsis Expressives What kind of process is involved in filling in the meaning of the elided sentence? Since it s context-dependent, we might assume that it is a pragmatic process. But the requirement for a linguistic antecedent indicates that it s not a pragmatic process, but something that s tied more closely to semantic interpretation.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Context is crucial Ellipsis Expressives What kind of process is involved in filling in the meaning of the elided sentence? Since it s context-dependent, we might assume that it is a pragmatic process. But the requirement for a linguistic antecedent indicates that it s not a pragmatic process, but something that s tied more closely to semantic interpretation.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives Implicatures don t license ellipsis Implicatures don t license ellipsis. (34) Want something to eat? Here s some cheese. Implicature: you can eat the cheese. (35) Roseannah: Want something to eat? Here s some cheese. Me: No thanks. #But I m sure Molly will! Filling in ellipsis is not done solely by pragmatics!

or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives Implicatures don t license ellipsis Implicatures don t license ellipsis. (34) Want something to eat? Here s some cheese. Implicature: you can eat the cheese. (35) Roseannah: Want something to eat? Here s some cheese. Me: No thanks. #But I m sure Molly will! Filling in ellipsis is not done solely by pragmatics!

A solution Introduction or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives To explain restricted context-dependency, we invoke abstract structure in the sentence. (36) Keir won t eat the cheese, but I bet Molly will eat the cheese. the words are in the structure, but we can leave them unpronounced when the same words occur in the linguistic context.

A solution Introduction or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives We say constituents are elided under identity with a constituent with the same semantic interpretation. (37) Keir won t eat the cheese, but I bet Molly will eat the cheese. It needs to be a whole constituent with that interpretation: (38) Since we re going to eat, I ll get the cheese. #I bet Molly will eat the cheese!

A solution Introduction or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives We say constituents are elided under identity with a constituent with the same semantic interpretation. (37) Keir won t eat the cheese, but I bet Molly will eat the cheese. It needs to be a whole constituent with that interpretation: (38) Since we re going to eat, I ll get the cheese. #I bet Molly will eat the cheese!

A solution Introduction or pragmatics? Two case studies Ellipsis Expressives We say constituents are elided under identity with a constituent with the same semantic interpretation. It doesn t require identity of words. (39) Keir hasn t eaten the cheese, but I bet Molly will eat the cheese.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Outstanding questions Ellipsis Expressives There are lots of outstanding questions. For instance, in some cases ellipsis seems to be possible without a linguistic antecedent: (40) [Hankamer comes at Sag with a cleaver] Sag: Don t! So much fun!

or pragmatics? Two case studies Introducing expressives Ellipsis Expressives Some words in sentences don t seem to contribute to truth-conditional meaning. A fun example: expressives. (41) is bloody cool. (42) I need to walk the damn dog. (43) I fucking love science. (44) I m abso-fucking-lutely delighted. (45) He s a lucky fucker.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Introducing expressives Ellipsis Expressives The truth conditions of these sentences don t change when the expressives are removed. (46) is cool. (47) I need to walk the dog. (48) I love science. (49) I m absolutely delighted. (50) He s a lucky guy.

or pragmatics? Two case studies The meaning of expressives Ellipsis Expressives So if they don t contribute to truth-conditions, do they just have no meaning? Obviously not: loose lips can sink ships... Expressives tell us something about the speaker s attitude to what is mentioned: it s heightened in some way or other. Their contribution is underspecified as to in which way.

or pragmatics? Two case studies The meaning of expressives Ellipsis Expressives Their contribution is not obviously compositional: (51) Jamie said he wants me to look after his fucking dog. The attitude of contempt is the speaker s, not Jamie s, but the reported desire is Jamie s. Thus it doesn t compose with anything to do with the embedded clause.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Expressive implicatures Ellipsis Expressives A way to understand their meaning contribution: they have no semantic contribution, but they give rise to implicatures systematically. One route: systematic flouting of the Maxim of Manner (be orderly). Flout gives rise to implicature that you want to add some expressive feeling about the subject matter.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Conventional implicatures Ellipsis Expressives Systematically derived implicatures are often called conventional implicatures. Words like and are said by Grice to give rise to conventional implicatures. (52) I picked up the ball and threw it out the window.... but not in that order.

or pragmatics? Two case studies Conventional implicatures Ellipsis Expressives If the meaning of expressives is derived from implicature, we should be able to cancel those implicatures. (53) Jamie said he wants me to look after his fucking dog.... that I love so much (hi Jamie!)... maybe not?

or pragmatics? Two case studies Testing meaning components Ellipsis Expressives This is what semanticists do when they investigate the meaning of certain expressions: they construct test sentences and consider their interpretive properties. The theories of semantics and pragmatics outlined above make predictions, i.e. that implicatures are cancellable, that semantic meaning is compositional and truth-conditional. The theory of linguistic meaning is not a free-for-all, even though the meaning of meaning sometimes seems to be!

or pragmatics? Two case studies Testing meaning components Ellipsis Expressives This is what semanticists do when they investigate the meaning of certain expressions: they construct test sentences and consider their interpretive properties. The theories of semantics and pragmatics outlined above make predictions, i.e. that implicatures are cancellable, that semantic meaning is compositional and truth-conditional. The theory of linguistic meaning is not a free-for-all, even though the meaning of meaning sometimes seems to be!

or pragmatics? Two case studies Bibliography Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hankamer, Jorge and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7:391 428.