What is pragmatics?

Definition
Pragmatics is the study of the aspects of meaning and language use that are
dependent on the speaker, the addressee and other features of the context of
utterance, such as the following:
• The effect that the following have on the speaker’s choice of
expression and the addressee’s interpretation of an utterance:
o Context of utterance
o Generally observed principles of communication
o The goals of the speaker
• Programmatic concerns, such as
o the treatment of given versus new information, including
presupposition
o deixis
o speech acts, especially illocutionary acts
o implicature, and

o the relations of meaning or function between portions of

discourse (see interpropositional relation) or turns of conversation
(see conversation analysis).

What is meaning and pragmatic

function?

Definition
Meaning and pragmatic function is a general heading under which terminology
relating to the various areas of study of language use and interpretation is collected.
These areas are variously categorized as either semantic or pragmatic.
Discussion
This inclusive grouping of meaning and pragmatic function is made because of the
difficulty that theorists have in making in practice a sharp distinction between
semantics and pragmatics. The topics that have been investigated and are presented
under this topic are weighted heavily toward the pragmatic.
An expanded edition of the glossary projected for the future will likely include
much additional terminology relating to the various areas of concern in semantics,
 especially case frames (that is, types of predications or propositions) and more
semantic roles.
Kinds
Here are some kinds of meaning and pragmatic function:
• What is conversation analysis?
• What is a discourse?
• What is given versus new information?
• What is an implicature?
• What is an interpropositional relation?
• What is pragmatics?
• What is reference?
• What is a semantic role?
• What is a speech act?

• What is a trope?

What is a semantic role?

Definition
A semantic role is the underlying relationship that a participant has with the main
verb in a clause.
Also known Semantic case, thematic role, theta role (generative grammar), and
as: deep case (case grammar)
Discussion
Semantic role is the actual role a participant plays in some real or imagined
situation, apart from the linguistic encoding of those situations.
Example: If, in some real or imagined situation, someone named John purposely
hits someone named Bill, then John is the agent and Bill is the patient
of the hitting event. Therefore, the semantic role of Bill is the same
(patient) in both of the following sentences:

• John hit Bill.

• Bill was hit by John.

In both of the above sentences, John has the semantic role of agent.

Source: Payne, T. 1997a 47

 What is a trope?

Definition
A trope is the figurative use of an expression.
Kinds
Here are some kinds of tropes:
• What is anthimeria?
• What is a euphemism?
• What is hyperbole?
• What is irony?
• What is litotes?
• What is meiosis?
• What is a metaphor?
• What is metonymy?
• What is onomatopoeia?
• What is an oxymoron?
• What is a paradox?
• What is a pun?

• What is a simile?
Generic
A trope is a kind of
• What is meaning and pragmatic function?
Sources
Corbett 1971 461
Mish 1991 1265
 What is a presupposition?

Definition
A presupposition is background belief, relating to an utterance, that
• must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee
for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context
• generally will remain a necessary assumption whether the utterance
is placed in the form of an assertion, denial, or question, and

• can generally be associated with a specific lexical item or

grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance.
Examples (English)
 The utterance John regrets that he stopped doing linguistics before he
left Cambridge has the following presuppositions:

• There is someone uniquely identifiable to speaker and

addressee as John.
• John stopped doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
• John was doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
• John left Cambridge.
• John had been at Cambridge.

Source: Levinson 1983 179–180

Kinds
Here are some kinds of presuppositions:
• What is an actual presupposition?

• What is a potential presupposition?

What is an actual presupposition?

Definition
An actual presupposition is any potential presupposition that is not canceled by its
context.
Example (English)
 The utterance John says that the king of France is bald has two
potential presuppositions:

• There is someone identified as John.

• There is a king of France.

Of these two, only the presupposition that there is someone identified as

John is an actual presupposition, because the second presupposition is
reported.

What is a potential presupposition?

Definition
A potential presupposition is a presupposition that is triggered by some part of an
utterance (such as a subordinate clause) taken in isolation, but that may or may not
be a presupposition of the whole utterance.
Example (English)
 The utterance John says that the king of France is bald has two
potential presuppositions:

1. There is someone identified as John.

2. There is a king of France.

 What is a deictic expression?

Definition
A deictic expression is an expression that has a deictic usage as its basic usage,
though it may also have nondeictic usages.
Sources
Hartmann and Stork 1972 60
Levinson 1983 64

What is a speech act?

Definition
A speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance, including
the following:
• A general act (illocutionary act) that a speaker performs, analyzable
as including
o the uttering of words (utterance acts)
o making reference and predicating (propositional acts), and
o a particular intention in making the utterance (illocutionary
force)
• An act involved in the illocutionary act, including utterance acts and
propositional acts

• The production of a particular effect in the addressee

(perlocutionary act)
Kinds
Here are some kinds of speech acts:
• What is an illocutionary act?
• What is a perlocutionary act?
• What is a propositional act?

• What is an utterance act?

Generic
 A speech act is a kind of
• What is meaning and pragmatic function?

What is an illocutionary act?

Definition
An illocutionary act is a complete speech act, made in a typical utterance, that
consists of
• the delivery of the propositional content of the utterance (including
references and a predicate), and
• a particular illocutionary force, whereby the speaker
o asserts
o suggests
o demands
o promises, or

o vows.
Kinds
Here are some kinds of illocutionary acts:
• What is a command?
• What is a complex illocutionary act?
• What is a defective illocutionary act?
• What is a direct illocution?
• What is an elementary illocutionary act?
• What is an exclamation?
• What is indirect illocution?
• What is a nondefective illocutionary act?
• What is a question?

• What is a statement?
Generic
An illocutionary act is a kind of
• What is a speech act?
•
 What is an implicature?

Definition
An implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a
condition for the truth of the utterance.
Example (English)
 The expression Some of the boys were at the party implicates in most
contexts Not all of the boys were at the party.

Source: Gazdar 1979 49

Kinds
Here are some kinds of implicatures:
• What is an actual implicature?

• What is a potential implicature?

Generic
An implicature is a kind of
• What is meaning and pragmatic function?

What is an interpropositional relation?

Definition
An interpropositional relation is an explicit or inferred coherence relation between
propositions or groups of propositions that are typically expressed by clauses or
larger portions of text.
Interpropositional relations can account for the coherence between portions of text.
Discussion
The term interpropositional relation has been chosen here as a rubric for relations
that various authors have proposed, using a variety of terminology, in accounting
for text structure or coherence.
Not every author would agree that this term is the best one for these relations, nor
would all agree that every relation cited here belongs in a list of interpropositional
relations. The controversy occurs either because of a disputation over the validity
of a relation itself, or some restriction on the usage of the term interpropositional
relation.
Example (English)
 The following construction is an example of an inferred solutionhood
relation, a particular kind of interpropositional relation:

 I’m hungry; let’s go to the Fuji Gardens.

Source: Mann and Thompson 1985 1

Kinds
Here are some kinds of interpropositional relations as found in Mann and
Thompson 1985.:
• What is an external relation?
• What is an internal relation?
• What is an additive relation?
• What is an alternative relation?
• What is a background relation?
• What is a causal relation?
• What is a contraction relation?
• What is a contrast relation?
• What is a dismissive relation?
• What is an elaboration relation?
• What is an enablement relation?
• What is an evaluation relation?
• What is an interpretation relation?
• What is a justification relation?
• What is a motivation relation?
• What is a parenthesis relation?
• What is a restatement relation?
• What is a similarity relation?
• What is a solutionhood relation?

• What is a temporal relation?

 What is conversation analysis?

Definition
Conversation analysis is an approach to the study of natural conversation,
especially with a view to determining the following:
• Participants’ methods of
o turn-taking
o constructing sequences of utterances across turns
o identifying and repairing problems, and
o employing gaze and movement

• How conversation works in different conventional settings

Examples (English)
Here are some examples of conventional settings in which conversation analysis
could take place:
• Interviews
• Court hearings
• Telephone conversations

• Card games
Generic
A conversation analysis is a kind of
• What is meaning and pragmatic function?

Levinson 1983
Reference
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983.Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University.

Crystal 1985
Reference
Crystal, David. 1985.A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 2nd edition. New
York: Basil Blackwell.
 Leech 1983
Reference
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983.Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Semantics vs. Pragmatics

Semantics can be defined as "the study of the meaning of morphemes, words, phrases
and sentences."
You will sometimes see definitions for semantics like "the analysis of meaning," To see
why this is too broad, consider the following. Kim, returning home after a long day,
discovers that the new puppy has crapped on the rug, and says "Oh, lovely."

We don't normally take this to mean that Kim believes that dog feces has pleasing or
attractive qualities, or is delightful. Someone who doesn't know English will search the
dictionary in vain for what Kim means by saying "lovely":

(ADJECTIVE): [love-li-er, love-li-est].

1. Full of love; loving.

2. Inspiring love or affection.

3. Having pleasing or attractive qualities.

4. Enjoyable; delightful.

Obviously this is because Kim is being ironic, in the sense of "using words to convey the
opposite of their literal meaning". Kim might have said "great," or "wonderful," or
"beautiful", or "how exquisite", and none of the dictionary entries for these words will
help us understand that Kim means to express disgust and annoyance. That's because a
word's meaning is one thing, and Kim's meaning -- what Kim means by using the word --
is something else.

There are lots of other ways besides irony to use words to mean something different from
what you get by putting their dictionary entries together. Yogi Berra was famous for this:
"if you can't imitate him, don't copy him;" and "you can observe a lot just by watching"
and dozens of others.

In fact, even when we mean what we literally say, we often -- maybe always -- mean
something more as well. The study of "speaker meaning" -- the meaning of language in
its context of use -- is called pragmatics, and will be the subject of the next lecture.

Philosophers have argued about "the meaning of meaning," and especially about whether
this distinction between what words mean and what people mean is fundamentally sound,
or is just a convenient way of talking. Most linguists find the distinction useful, and we
will follow general practice in maintaining it. However, as we will see, it is not always
easy to draw the line.

Word meaning and processes for extending it

Word meanings are somewhat like game trails. Some can easily be mapped because they
are used enough that a clear path has been worn. Unused trails may become overgrown
and disappear. And one is always free to strike out across virgin territory; if enough other
animals follow, a new trail is gradually created.
Since word meanings are not useful unless they are shared, how does this creation of new
meanings work? There are a variety of common processes by which existing
conventional word meanings are creatively extended or modified. When one of processes
is applied commonly enough in a particular case, a new convention is created; a new
"path" is worn.

Metaphor

Consider the difference in meaning between "He's a leech" and. "he's a louse." Both leech
and louse are parasites that suck blood through the skin of their host, and we -- being
among their hosts -- dislike them for it. Both words have developed extended meanings
in application to humans who are portrayed as like a leech or like a louse -- but the
extensions are quite different.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a leech is "one who preys on or clings to
another", whereas a louse is "a mean or despicable person." These extended meanings
have an element of arbitrariness. Most of us regard leeches as "despicable," and lice
certainly "prey on" and "cling to" their hosts. Nevertheless, a human "leech" must be
needy or exploitative, whereas a human "louse" is just an object of distaste.

Therefore it's appropriate for the dictionary to include these extended meanings as part of
the meaning of the word. All the same, we can see that these words originally acquired
their extended meanings by the completely general process of metaphor. A metaphor is
"a figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates
to an object it may designate only by implicit comparison or analogy." For instance, if we
speak of "the evening of her life", we're making an analogy between the time span of a
day and the time span of a life, and naming part of life by reference to a part of the day.

In calling someone a leech, we're making an implicit analogy between interpersonal

relationships and a particular kind of parasite/host relationship.

This kind of naming -- and thinking -- by analogy is ubiquitous. Sometimes the

metaphoric relationship is a completely new one, and then the process is arguably part of

Pragmatics -- the way speakers use language to express themselves.

However, these metaphors often become fossilized or frozen, and new word senses are
created. Consider what it means to call someone a chicken, or a goose, or a cow, or a
dog, or a cat, or a crab, or a bitch. For many common animal names, English usage a
conventionalized metaphor for application to humans. Some more exotic animals also
have conventional use as epithets ("you baboon!" "what a hyena!") No such
commonplace metaphors exist for some common or barnyard animals ("what a duck she
is"?), or for most rarer or more exotic animals, such as wildebeest or emus. Therefore,
these are available for more creative use. The infamous 'water buffalo incident' of a few
years ago was apparently a case where what was began as a fossilized metaphor coming
from a language other than English was interpreted as a much more offensive novel
usage.

Sometimes the metaphoric sense is retained and the original meaning disappears, as in the
case of muscle, which comes from Latin musculus "small mouse".

Metonymy and synecdoche

Metonymy is "a figure of speech in which an attribute or commonly associated feature is

used to name or designate something." A short definition is "part for whole."

Synecdoche is "a figure of speech by which a more inclusive term is used for a less
inclusive one, or vice versa."

Like metaphors, many examples of metonymy and synecdoche become fossilized:

gumshoe, hand (as in "all hands on deck"),. "the law" referring to a policeman. However,
the processes can be applied in a creative way: "the amputation in room 23".

It often requires some creativity to figure out what level of specificity, or what associated
object or attribute, is designated by a particular expression. "I bought the Inquirer" (a
copy); "Knight-Ridder bought the Inquirer" (the company). "Lee is parked on 33rd St."
(i.e. Lee's car).

Connotation/denotation

The word "sea" denotes a large body of water, but its connotative meaning includes the
sense of overwhelming space, danger, instability; whereas "earth" connotes safety,
fertility and stability. Of many potential connotations, the particular ones evoked depend
upon the context in which words are used. Specific kinds of language (such as archaisms)
also have special connotations, carrying a sense of the context in which those words are
usually found.

Over time, connotation can become denotation. Thus trivial subjects were originally the
subjects in the trivium, consisting of grammar, rhetoric and logic. These were the first
subjects taught to younger students; therefore the connotation arises that the trivium is
relatively easy, since it is taught to mere kiddies; therefore something easy is trivial.
Other terminology in lexical semantics

In discussing semantics, linguists sometimes use the term lexeme (as opposed to word),
so that word can be retained for the inflected variants. Thus one can say that the words
walk, walks, walked, and walking are different forms of the same lexeme.

There are several kinds of sense relations among lexemes. First is the opposition between
syntagmatic relations (the way lexemes are related in sentences) and paradigmatic
relations (the way words can substitute for each other in the same sentence context).

Important paradigmatic relations include:

1. synonymy - "sameness of meaning" (pavement is a synonym of sidewalk)

2. hyponymy - "inclusion of meaning" (cat is a hyponym of animal)
3. antonymy - "oppositeness of meaning" (big is an antonym of small)
4. incompatibility - "mutual exclusiveness within the same superordinate
category" (e.g. red and green)

We also need to distinguish homonymy from polysemy: two words are homonyms if
they are (accidentally) pronounced the same (e.g. "too" and "two"); a single word is
polysemous if it has several meanings (e.g. "louse" the bug and "louse" the despicable
person).

Lexical Semantics vs. Compositional Semantics

In the syntax lectures, we used the example of a desk calculator, where the semantics of
complex expressions can be calculated recursively from the semantics of simpler ones. In
the world of the desk calculator, all meanings are numbers, and the process of recursive
combination is defined in terms of the operations on numbers such as addition,
multiplication, etc.

The same problem of compositional semantics arises in the case of natural language
meaning. How do we determine the meaning of complex phrases from the meaning of
simpler one?

There have been many systematic efforts to address this problem, going back to the work
of Frege and Russell before the turn of the 20th century. Many aspects of the problem
have been solved. Here is a simple sketch of one approach. Suppose we take the meaning
of "red" to be associated with the set of red things, and the meaning of "cow" to be
associated with the set of things that are cows. Then the meaning of "red cow" is the
intersection of the first set (the set of red things) with the second set (the set of things that
are cows). Proceeding along these lines, we can reconstruct in terms of set theory an
account of the meaning of predicates ("eat"), quantifiers ("all"), and so forth, and
eventually give a set-theoretic account of "all cows eat grass" analogous to the account
we might give for "((3 + 4) * 6)".
This sort of analysis -- which can become very complex and sophisticated -- does not tell
us anything about the meanings of the words involved, but only about how to calculate
the denotation of complex expressions from the denotation of simple ones. The
denotation of the primitive elements -- the lexemes -- is simply stipulated (as in "the set
of all red things").

Since this account of meaning expressed denotations in terms of sets of things in the
word -- known as "extensions" -- it is called "extensional".

Sense and Reference

One trouble with this line of inquiry was raised more than 100 years ago by Frege. There
is a difference between the reference (or extension) of a concept -- what it corresponds
to in the world -- and the sense (or intension) of a concept -- what we know about its
meaning, whether or not we know anything about its extension, and indeed whether or
not it has an extension.

We know something about the meaning of the word "dog" that is not captured by making
a big pile of all the dogs in the world. There were other dogs in the past, there will be
other dogs in the future, there are dogs in fiction, etc. One technique that has been used to
generalize "extensional" accounts of meaning is known as possible worlds semantics. In
this approach, we imagine that there are indefinitely many possible worlds in addition to
the actual one, and now a concept -- such as dog -- is no longer just a set, but rather is a
function from worlds to sets. This function says, "Give me a possible world, and I'll give
you the set of dogs in that world."

Like many mathematical constructs, this is not a very practical arrangement, but it
permits interesting and general mathematics to continue to be used in modeling natural
language meaning in a wider variety of cases, including counterfactual sentences ("If you
had paid me yesterday, I would not be broke today").