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 16, Issue 3

Issues

First things first: The pragmatics of “natural order”

Laurence Horn
Published Online: 2019-05-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0013

Abstract

Classical rhetoricians dating back to Aristotle sought to define the principles of natural order that determine priority in sequences, especially in linguistic representations. Among the principles with the widest predictive power for the ancients and their modern heirs are those stating that A can be prior to B “with respect to temporal order”, that A can be prior to B with respect to what is “known or less informative” than what comes later, and that A can be prior to B with respect to what is “better” or “more worthy”. But when and how do these ordering principles influence the form of linguistic sequences, and how are conflicts between the principles resolved? What determines the priority between the principles of priority? What makes “natural order” natural? Drawing on over two millennia of scholarship, we explore the pragmatic motivation for the primary ordering principles, and in particular for those affecting the order of logically symmetric but rhetorically asymmetric conjunctions.

Keywords: conjunction buttressing; Me First principle; linearization problem; narration; natural order; principle of temporal sequence

References

  • Abraham, Richard. 1950. Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. Modern Language Journal 34. 276–287.Google Scholar

  • Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar

  • Aristotle. 1957. Prior and posterior analytics, ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

  • Aristotle. 1963. Categories and de interpretatione, ed. and trans. J. L. Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 327–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barker, Stephen. 2003. Truth and conventional implicature. Mind 112. 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Behagel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. vol. 4. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

  • Benor, Sarah Bunin & Roger Levy. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82. 233–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergen, Benjamin & Madelaine Plauché. 2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics 16. 1–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Biberauer, Theresa & Michelle Sheehan (eds.). 2014. Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Benjamin. 2014. “But me no buts”: The theological debate between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim in light of the discourse-markers theory. Numen 61. 525–551.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. 1993. Conjunction, explanation, and relevance. Lingua 90. 27–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Eve. 1970. How young children describe events in time. In G. Flores d’Arcais & W. Levelt (eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics, 275–284. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Language, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, William & John Robert Ross. 1975. World order. In R. E. Grossman et al. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism, 63–111. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • de Jonge, Casper. 2008. Between grammar and rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on language, linguistics and literature. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • de Nebrija, Antonio 1492. Gramática de la lengua castellana. http://www.antoniodenebrija.org/libro4.html.

  • Denison, David. 2009. Argument structure. In G. Rohdenburg & J. Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 149–165. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 1910. On literary composition. W. Rhys Roberts, ed. & trans. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar

  • Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 1937. The Roman antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, vol. I, E. Cary, trans. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar

  • Dunlop, Casey 2015. Processed meat and cancer—What you need to know. Cancer research UK blog, October 26, 2015. (http://tinyurl.com/nssjnpn).

  • Dummett, Michael. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of language. Oxford: Duckworth.Google Scholar

  • Ernst, Thomas. 1994. Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3. 241–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fenk-Oczlon, Gertrud. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27. 517–556.Google Scholar

  • Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1892. On sense and reference 1952. In P. Geach & M. Black (eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of gottlob frege, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Geoffrey of Vinsauf. 1967 [original c. 1200]. Poetria Nova. Translated by Margaret Nims. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar

  • Gómez Txurruka, Isabel. 2003. The natural language conjunction ‘and’. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 255–285.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1985. Symmetry. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 73–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence 1972. On the semantics of logical operators in English. UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reissue edition, Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2001.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 1991. Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 313–336.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 2000. Pick a theory (not just any theory): Indiscriminatives and the free-choice indefinite. In L. Horn & Y. Kato (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 147–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 2011. Almost forever. In E. Yuasa, T. Bagchi & K. Beals (eds.), Pragmatics and autolexical grammar in honor of Jerry Sadock, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 2013. I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In D. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, 151–198. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 2016. Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (eds.), Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence. 2019. Accept new substitutes: An analysis of reanalysis. In C. Condoravdi & T. H. King (eds.), Tokens of meaning: Papers in honor of Lauri Karttunen. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Huber, T. E. 1974. Law and order for binomials. Ôbun Ronsô 5. 61–74.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1965. Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes 51. 21–37.Google Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew. 2001. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • King, Jeffrey & Jason Stanley. 2005. Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics, 111–164. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Law, Ann. 2001. A-not-A questions in Cantonese. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 295–318.Google Scholar

  • Lepore, Ernie & Matthew Stone. 2015. Imagination and convention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levelt, Willem J. M. 1981. The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B 295. 305–315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Lohmann, Arne. 2014. English coordinate constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8. 113–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Masini, Francesca. 2006. Binominal constructions: Inheritance, specification, and subregularities. Lingue e Linguaggio 5. 207–232.Google Scholar

  • McDonald, Janet, Kathryn Bock & Michael Kelly. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25. 188–230.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Merin, Arthur. 1999. Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking. In L. Moss, et al. (ed.), Logic, language and computation, vol. 2, 179–221. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Casey & Kate Swift. 1976. Words and women. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

  • Mollin, Sandra. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16. 81–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, Jerry. 1969. On the treatment of presupposition in transformational grammar. CLS 5. 167–177.Google Scholar

  • Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Oesterle, Jean. 1962. Aristotle: On interpretation. Commentary by St Thomas and Cajetan. (ed. and trans.). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar

  • Osgood, Charles. 1980. Lectures on language performance. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, C. S. 1960. Elements of logic. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. II. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Stephen & David Birdsong. 1979. Speakers‘ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 497–508.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.Google Scholar

  • Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–326. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Quintilian = Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius. Institutio Oratoria. H.E. Butler, trans. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1920.Google Scholar

  • Ray, Debraj ⓡ Arthur Robson. 2018. Certified random: A new order for coauthorship. American Economic Review 108. 489–520.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5 (6). 1–69.Google Scholar

  • Roelofsen, Floris, Sam van Gool, et al. 2010. Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In M. Aloni (ed.), Papers from the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, 384–394. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Norman. 1984. Antonio de Nebrija: Founder of Spanish linguistics. Hispanic Linguistics 1. 19–33.Google Scholar

  • Schmerling, Susan. 1975. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 211–232. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Sobkowiak, Wlodzimierz. 1993. Unmarked-before-marked as a freezing principle. Language and Speech 36. 393–414.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presupposition. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

  • Strawson, P. F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

  • Tai, James. 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 49–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Urmson, J. O. 1959. Philosophical analysis: Its development between the two wars. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Ward, Gregory & Julia Hirschberg. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of tautological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 507–520.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weil, Henri. 1991 [1844]. De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Reprinted Paris: Didier erudition.Google Scholar

  • Wedgwood, Daniel 1999. Approaches to weight, information and word order. In E. Chisarik & I. Sitaridou (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth University of Manchester Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. Downloadable at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~dan/.

  • Wilson, Deirdre. 1975. Presupposition and non-truth-conditional semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications, 1–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Winterstein, Gregoire. 2012. What but-sentences argue for: An argumentative analysis of but. Lingua 122. 1864–1885.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wright, Saundra, Jennifer Hay & Tessa Bent. 2005. Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 43. 531–561.Google Scholar

  • Zwicky, Arnold 2012. Two remarks on reversals. Blog entry, April 28, 2012. http://arnoldzwicky.org/2012/04/28/two-remarks-on-reversals/.

About the article

Laurence Horn

Laurence Horn is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Philosophy at Yale University. He is the author of A Natural History of Negation (Chicago, 1989; CSLI, 2001) and over 100 papers and handbook entries on negation, polarity, implicature, presupposition, pragmatic theory, word meaning, grammatical variation, and lying. His PhD dissertation (UCLA, 1972) introduced scalar implicature. His six (co-)edited volumes include The Handbook of Pragmatics (Blackwell, 2004; co-edited with Gregory Ward) and Pragmatics, Truth and Underspecification (Brill, 2018; co-edited with Ken Turner). He is an elected fellow of the Linguistic Society of America and edited the Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series (Garland/Routledge).


Published Online: 2019-05-29

Published in Print: 2019-05-27


Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics, Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 257–287, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0013.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in