Logical structure and relevance (original) (raw)
Related papers
The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory
The semantics/pragmatics interface from different …, 1999
The assumption that sentence types encode proposition types was shaken by Donnellan's observation that a sentence with a definite description subject could express either a general or a singular proposition. In other words, a single sentence type could have different truth conditions on different occasions of use. Relevance Theory holds a strong version of this "semantic underdeterminacy" thesis, according to which natural language sentences standardly fall far short of encoding propositions or proposition types. The relevance-driven pragmatic inferential mechanism is part of our "theory of mind" capacity and functions independently of any code; it follows that linguistically encoded utterance meaning need be only schematic.
Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics
The goal of lexical pragmatics is to explain how linguistically specified ('literal') word meanings are modified in use. While lexical-pragmatic processes such as narrowing, broadening and metaphorical extension are generally studied in isolation from each other, relevance theorists (Carston 2002, Wilson & Sperber 2002) have been arguing for a unified approach. I will continue this work by underlining some of the problems with more standard treatments, and show how a variety of lexical- pragmatic processes may be analysed as special cases of a general pragmatic adjustment process which applies spontaneously, automatically and unconsciously to fine-tune the interpretation of virtually every word.
Lexical Pragmatics : Relevance Theory and Generalized Conversational
2007
Communication is traditionally defined as the transfer of information from a sender to a receiver by means of a (linguistic) code. This classical definition belongs to what Sperber & Wilson (1986) call the code model. Specifically, this model presupposes that the hearer’s retrieval of a codified meaning ‘packed up’ in a linguistic string is such that the speaker and the hearer will share exactly the same thought once the process of decoding is completed. The aim of pragmatics since the 1960s is to show that at the discourse level—and recently at the lexical level—there is no one-to-one mapping between linguistic meaning and utterance meaning. In other words, there is a gap between semantically-underspecified meaning and speaker meaning that can only be bridged by pragmatic inference. Consider:
Bridging Rhetoric And Pragmatics With Relevance Theory
Relevance and Irrelevance, 2018
In this chapter, I bridge rhetoric and pragmatics, both of which concern themselves with language-in-use and meaning-making beyond formal syntax and semantics. Previous efforts to link these fields have failed, but Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (RT), an approach to experimental pragmatics grounded in cognitive science, offers the bridge. I begin by reviewing Gricean pragmatics and its incompatibility with rhetoric and cognitive science. I then sketch RT, but importantly, I identify revisions to RT that make it a powerful tool for rhetorical analysis, a cognitive pragmatic rhetorical (CPR) theory. CPR theory strengthens RT by clarifying what it means to be relevant-and irrelevant-in relevance-theoretic terms. Meanwhile, it provides rhetoric a set of principles for its functioning grounded in cognitive science. I conclude with sample CPRtheoretic analyses. 1 Introduction1 Rhetoric and pragmatics were born together in the Athens of the fifth century BCE. In their history of early pragmatics, Nerlich and Clarke (1996) found its roots in Protagoras' identification of the moods or modes of speech ("statement, question and imperative") and in Aristotle's Rhetoric (2007). Protagoras was one of the sophists, philosophers credited with innovation in the teaching of rhetoric in Athens at the time. Contemporary pragmatics focuses on ascribing meaning to utterances, using context to enrich literal or decoded meaning. Rhetoricians are deeply interested in the work that words do, particularly the work of persuasion, regardless of what their literal meaning might be. Pragmatics "has to do with all context-dependent aspects of meaning 'systematically abstracted away from in the pure semantics of logical form'" (Nerlich/ Clarke 1996, quoting Horn 1992). To the extent that pragmatic theories extend 1 I would like to thank Dr. Alan Gross and Christopher Cocchiarella for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
The present text is oriented towards a reflection constructed from the following set of questions: 41 (i) If Relevance Theory is founded on a modular mental architecture with autonomous levels of logical-formal syntactic representations, a propositionalcompositional semantics and a pragmatics of an inferential-computational nature; (ii) If the Principle of Relevance, as a property of cost-benefit economy, operates cognitively and communicatively bound to a model according to (i); (iii) If embodied Cognitive Linguistics, represented by the Neural Theory of Language, operates in the sense of dealing with cognitive structures in terms of a connectionist, parallel-distributed mind/brain architecture, with syntactic, semantic-pragmatic categories in a continuum; (iv) If Cognitive Linguistics, by means of the Neural Theory, still admits a computational level operationally and circumstantially; and (v) If Cognitive Linguistics, and Neural Theory in particular, operates with some kind of compositionality; (vi) Would it be possible to build an interface theory that, utilizing the Principle of Relevance, could contribute to the implementation of a compositionalcomputational level for inferences in a connectionist-based architecture? The answer that is sought is directed towards: (a) Finding in the (methodological) Partial Autonomy Hypothesis by Harder (1999) elements for strengthening the descriptive adequacy of embodied Cognitive Linguistics, avoiding certain problems caused by the syntax-semanticspragmatics continuism; 41 This discussion is part of the research program in Logic and Natural Language of the Graduate Program in Letters at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul – PUCRS. The text presented here is a summarized version of a more detailed argumentation that is under construction. Cristina Lopes Perna 163 (b) Raising the hypothesis of a Relevance Theory rebuilt as an interface theory based on the Principle of Relevance – a principle capable of surviving at a computational level without committing to a modular architecture. Based on these inquiries, the aim is to provoke a discussion that surpasses the level of the theories in themselves, towards a broader metatheoretical reflection. The set of problems regarding epistemological ruptures and the incommensurability of the theories is found almost dramatically in this discussion.
Relevance Theory through Pragmatic Theories of Meaning
A century ago, Peirce developed a pragmatic theory of meaning. The theory appeals to the Pragmatic Maxim. It says that the meaning of a concept is the sum total of its implications for possible observations and actions. The Relevance Theory of Sperber & Wilson is classi ed according to that criteria to the category of pragmatic theories of meaning. It is argued that relevance is an instance of the application of the Pragmatic Maxim.
Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics
Mind & Language, 2002
Within the philosophy of language, pragmatics has tended to be seen as an adjunct to, and a means of solving problems in, semantics. A cognitive-scientific conception of pragmatics as a mental processing system responsible for interpreting ostensive communicative stimuli (specifically, verbal utterances) has effected a transformation in the pragmatic issues pursued and the kinds of explanation offered. Taking this latter perspective, I compare two distinct proposals on the kinds of processes, and the architecture of the system(s), responsible for the recovery of speaker meaning (both explicitly and implicitly communicated meaning).