Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Intercultural Pragmatics

Editor-in-Chief: Kecskes, Istvan


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.188
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.543

CiteScore 2018: 1.67

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.668
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.292

Online
ISSN
1613-365X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 3

Issues

On weak communication

José María Gil
Published Online: 2015-09-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0019

Abstract

Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson suggest that much of linguistic communication is weak because the hearer usually must take a great responsibility in the interpretation of the speaker’s utterance. Sometimes, the (very) “weak implicatures” supplied by the hearer are very different from (and even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Relevance Theory helps us to understand crucial aspects of weak communication. However, I aim at showing that pragmatic theory should reconsider the importance of intention in order to explain that, often, the hearer interprets certain meanings that are independent from (or even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Some types of inferences proposed by Mira Ariel, as well as unintended puns studied by Sydney Lamb and other stratificational linguists, help us to begin to show that it may be necessary to go beyond the concept of intention if we want to understand why and how human communication is weak.

Keywords: communication; cognition; weak implicatures; truth compatible inferences; relational networks

References

  • Ariel, Mira. 2002a. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8). 1003–1044.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2002b. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34(4). 361–402.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2004. Most. Language 80(4). 658–706.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Atlas, Jay D. 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. 2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Betty Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Blutner, Reinhardt & Henk Zeevat. 2003. Optimality theory and pragmatics. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. 2004. Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. La pragmática y las intenciones comunicativas. In Marcelo Dascal (ed.), Filosofía del Lenguaje II: Pragmática, 21–51. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar

  • Dell, Gary. 1979. Slips of the mind, LACUS Forum 4. 69–74.

  • Dell, Gary & Peter Reich. 1977. A model of slips of the tongue. LACUS Forum 3. 448–455.Google Scholar

  • Dell, Gary & Peter Reich. 1980a. Slips of the tongue: The facts and the stratificational order. In James E. Copeland & Philip W. Davis (eds.), Papers in cognitive-stratificational linguistics, 19–34. Houston: Rice University.Google Scholar

  • Dell, Gary & Reich, Peter. 1980b. Toward a unified model of slips of the tongue. In Victoria Fromkin (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 273–286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. 377–388.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1968. Utterer’s meaning, sentence meaning and word meaning. Foundations of Language 4. 225–242.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 183–198. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1982. Meaning revisited. In V. Neylson, N. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, 223–243. Academic Press: London.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Horn, Laurence R. 2005. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In Klaus Turner & Ken von Heusinger (eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics, 21–48. Elsevier: Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 158–183. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence & Gregory, Ward. 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition and focus. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lamb, Sydney M. 2004. Language and reality. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Lamb, Sydney M. 2005. Language and brain: When experiments are unfeasible, you have to think harder, Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1. 151–178.Google Scholar

  • Lamb, Sydney M. 2013. Systemic networks, relational networks, and choice. In: Lise Fontaine & Tom Bartlett y Gerard O‘Grady (eds.), Choice: Critical considerations in systemic functional linguistics, 137–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006a. Cognition at the heart of human interaction, Discourse Studies 8. 85–93.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006b. On the human ‘interaction engine’. In Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

  • Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Recanati, François. 2004a. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Recanati, François. 2004b. Semantics and pragmatics. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics, 442–462. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Reich, Peter. 1985. Unintended puns, LACUS Forum 11. 314–322.Google Scholar

  • Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2005. Pragmatics, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 353–388.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. 583–632.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 2002 [1967]. Logic and conversation. In Daniel J. Levitin (ed.), Foundations of cognitive psychology: Core readings, 719–732. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

José María Gil

José María Gil received his PhD from the University of La Plata (Argentina). He teaches Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of Mar del Plata, and he is an Adjunct Researcher to the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET), in his country. Thanks to various international fellowships, he has studied or worked in Mexico, England, Italy, the USA, and China.


Published Online: 2015-09-03

Published in Print: 2015-09-01


Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics, Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 387–404, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0019.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
C. Wilkin
The European Physical Journal A, 2017, Volume 53, Number 6

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in