Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 30, 2018

The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference

Chi-Hé Elder and Michael Haugh
From the journal Intercultural Pragmatics

Abstract

Dominant accounts of “speaker meaning” in post-Gricean contextualist pragmatics tend to focus on single utterances, making the theoretical assumption that the object of pragmatic analysis is restricted to cases where speakers and hearers agree on utterance meanings, leaving instances of misunderstandings out of their scope. However, we know that divergences in understandings between interlocutors do often arise, and that when they do, speakers can engage in a local process of meaning negotiation. In this paper, we take insights from interactional pragmatics to offer an empirically informed view on speaker meaning that incorporates both speakers’ and hearers’ perspectives, alongside a formalization of how to model speaker meanings in such a way that we can account for both understandings – the canonical cases – and misunderstandings, but critically, also the process of interactionally negotiating meanings between interlocutors. We highlight that utterance-level theories of meaning provide only a partial representation of speaker meaning as it is understood in interaction, and show that inferences about a given utterance at any given time are formally connected to prior and future inferences of participants. Our proposed model thus provides a more fine-grained account of how speakers converge on speaker meanings in real time, showing how such meanings are often subject to a joint endeavor of complex inferential work.

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was supported in part by the Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship scheme.

References

Ariel, Mira. 2002. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8). 1003–1044.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3 Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1). 119–154.10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5. 231–260. Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2078–2105.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2013. Conceptualizing “interaction” in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 12–26.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009 Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. Forthcoming. Communicating and relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. & David Good. 2002. Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In Anita Fetzer & Christine Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 121–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Search in Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Bach, Kent. 1994. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Savas L. Tsochatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 267–291. London/New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Bach, Kent. 2006. The top ten misconceptions about implicature. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honour of Laurence R. Horn, 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Bilmes, Jack. 1986. Discourse and behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. Search in Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics 5. 198–212. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Chiang, Shiao-Yun. 2009. Mutual understanding as a procedural achievement in intercultural interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3). 367–394. Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23(3). 567–598.10.1080/01638539709545003 Search in Google Scholar

Clift, Rebecca. 2012. Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10). 1303–1312.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.005 Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan & Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Wayne A. 1998. Implicature. Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Elder, Chi-Hé. Forthcoming. Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophical insights into pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline & Amy Snyder Ohta. 2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26(3). 402–430.10.1093/applin/ami014 Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Search in Google Scholar

Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matt Purver, Gregory James Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfred Meyer-Viol & Patrick G.T. Healey. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1). 199–233.10.5087/dad.2011.109 Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3). 377–388. Reprinted 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 213–223. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 9, 41–58. Reprinted 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 41–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1987. Retrospective epilogue. Published 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 339–385. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1). 84–110.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004 Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2008a. Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the uncovered meat sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2). 201–229. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2008b. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 45–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2012. On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgewood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2). 161–194. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2013. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 41–56.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2017a. Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Piotr Cap & Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 281–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2017b. Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society 8(2). 183–207. Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Kasia M. Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Search in Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. R. 2004. Implicature. In Laurence. R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Scott & Sally Jackson. 1983. Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50(4). 285–304.10.1080/03637758309390171 Search in Google Scholar

Jary, Mark. 2013. Two types of implicature: Material and behavioural. Mind and Language 28(5). 638–660.10.1111/mila.12037 Search in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia, M. Eleni Savva & Michael Haugh. 2016. The individual and the social path of interpretation: The case of incomplete disjunctive questions. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, 251–283. Dordrecht: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 79–96. New York: Irvington Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385–406.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication - socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1. 50–73.10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue 2(2). 283–297. Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speakers utterance. In María de Ponte & Kepa Korta (eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan, Robert E. Sanders & Anita Pomerantz. 2018. The basic interactional competence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics 124. 88–105.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.019 Search in Google Scholar

Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1). 71–84. Search in Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1970. On generating data in communication research. The Journal of Communication 20. 241–269.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1970.tb00883.x Search in Google Scholar

Long, Michael H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4. 126–141.10.1093/applin/4.2.126 Search in Google Scholar

Ogiermann, Eva. 2015. Direct off-record requests - Hinting in family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 31–35.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006 Search in Google Scholar

Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning 44. 493–527.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, Francois. 2010. Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Robles, Jessica S. 2017. Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction. Pragmatics 27(1). 57–86.10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010 Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert E. 1987. Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 112–122.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020 Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert E. 2015. A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society 6(4). 475–501.10.1075/ps.6.4.01san Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert E. 2017. Overcoming differences and achieving common ground: Why speaker and hearer make the effort and how they go about it. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally, 31–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Elinor Ochs & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Introduction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327. Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond speakers meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(44). 117–149. Search in Google Scholar

Varonis, Evangeline Marlos & Susan M. Gass. 1985. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society 14. 327–343.10.1017/S0047404500011295 Search in Google Scholar

Weizman, Elda. 1985. Towards an analysis of opaque utterances: Hints as a request strategy. Theoretical Linguistics 12(s1). 153–164. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-11-30
Published in Print: 2018-11-27

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston