Adversative conjunction and implicature: How do ordinary people perceive the relation between the two?
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Among various means of expressing clashes between ideas, the use of the adversative connectives is the most common approach. There are many types of clashes between ideas and so are the meanings of an adversative connective. Traditionally, the meanings of an adversative connective such as the English but are classified mainly into two types: the denial of expectation use (or PA) and the contrastive use (or SN). On the other hand, the adversativity has been explored in terms of its compatibility either with pragmatic implicatures or with the information structure. This paper aims to investigate the issue from a rather different perspective, viz. from the perspectives of ordinary speakers. An experiment conducted to achieve the goal determines that people treat the scalar terms such as many and like differently from numerals, which supports the notion most researchers have had regarding the topic. Specifically, the numerals allow fewer types of the second conjunct compared to the scalar terms. The findings of the experiment also show that people relate the adversativity to a greater variety of types than linguists assume. Moreover, ordinary speakers associate the PA connection with the negation of W(orld) knowledge- implicature rather than to R(elation)-implicature, in contrast to the general assumptions held by linguists.
Abstract
Among various means of expressing clashes between ideas, the use of the adversative connectives is the most common approach. There are many types of clashes between ideas and so are the meanings of an adversative connective. Traditionally, the meanings of an adversative connective such as the English but are classified mainly into two types: the denial of expectation use (or PA) and the contrastive use (or SN). On the other hand, the adversativity has been explored in terms of its compatibility either with pragmatic implicatures or with the information structure. This paper aims to investigate the issue from a rather different perspective, viz. from the perspectives of ordinary speakers. An experiment conducted to achieve the goal determines that people treat the scalar terms such as many and like differently from numerals, which supports the notion most researchers have had regarding the topic. Specifically, the numerals allow fewer types of the second conjunct compared to the scalar terms. The findings of the experiment also show that people relate the adversativity to a greater variety of types than linguists assume. Moreover, ordinary speakers associate the PA connection with the negation of W(orld) knowledge- implicature rather than to R(elation)-implicature, in contrast to the general assumptions held by linguists.
참고문헌 (32)
- Anscombre, Jean-Clayde, "Deux mais en francais?", Lingua, 43, pp.23~40 (1977)
- Bernicot, Josie, "Speech acts in children: the example of promises. Experimental pragmatics" (2006), Palgrave
- Blakemore, Diane, "Semantic Constraints on Relevance" (1987), Blackwell
- Blakemore, Diane, "Relevance and Linguistic Meaning" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Bott, Lewis, "Some utterances are under informative: the onset and time course of scalar inferences", Journal of Memory and Language, (51), pp.437~457 (2004)
- Breheny, Richard, "Are generalized scalar implicature generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences", Cognition, (100), pp.434~463 (2006)
- Choi, Seungja, "Concessives and negation: Korean nun and Japanese wa in scalar predicate", Paper presented at the 2004 Linguistic Society of Korea International Conference (2004)
- Clark, Herbert, "Bridging. Thinking: Readings in cognitive science", pp.411~420 (1977), Cambridge University Press
- Clark, Herbert, "Inferring what was meant from what was said", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, (14), pp.56~71 (1975)
- Dascal, Marcelo, "Between semantics and pragmatics: the two types of 'but'- Hebrew 'aval' and 'ela'", Theoretical Linguistics, (4), pp.143~172 (1977)
- Gibbs, Raymond, "Context effects in understanding indirect requests", Discourse Processes, (2), pp.1~10 (1979)
- Gibbs, Raymond, "Pragmatics in understanding what is said", Cognition, (62), pp.51~74 (1997)
- Grice, Paul. H., "Logic and conversation. Speech Acts", Syntax and Semantics, (3), pp.41~58 (1975), Academic Press
- Horn, Laurence R., "Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, form and use in context", pp.11~42 (1984), Georgetown University Press
- Horn, Laurence R., "A natural history of negation" (1989), University of Chicago Press
- Iten, Corinne, "The relevance of argumentation theory", Lingua, 110(9), pp.665~701 (2000)
- Koenig, Jean-Pierre, "Meaning and context: German aber and sondern. Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap", pp.365~386 (1998), CSLI
- Lakoff, Robin, "If's, and's and but's about conjunction. Studies in linguistic semantics", pp.114~149 (1971), Holt, Rinehart
- pragmatics interface from different points of view, "Contrastive topic: A locus of the interface. The semantics", pp.1999, Lee, Chungmin
- focus and polarity in discourse. Where semantics meets pragmatics, "Contrastive topic", pp.2006, Lee, Chungmin
- Lee, Hye-Kyung, "The PA", SN distinction in Korean, 2005, pp.41(4), 807~827
- Levinson, Stephen, "Presumptive meanings" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- McCawley, James D., "Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation", Chicago Linguistic Society, (27), pp.189~206 (1991), The parasession on negation
- Nicolle, Steve, "Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response to Gibbs and Moise", Cognition, (69), pp.337~354 (1999)
- Noveck, Ira, "When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature", Cognition, (78), pp.165~188 (2001)
- Noveck, Ira, "Pragmatic inferences related to logical term. Experimental pragmatics", pp.301~321 (2006), Palgrave
- Papafragou, Anna, "Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics- pragmatics interface", Cognition, (86), pp.253~282 (2003)
- Peleg, Orna, "Contextual strength: the whens and hows of context effects. Experimental pragmatics", pp.172~186 (2006), Palgrave
- Reboul, Anne, "Conversational implicatures: nonce or generalized? Experimental pragmatics", pp.322~333 (2006), Palgrave
- Sanford, Anthony, "Exploring quantifiers: pragmatics meets the psychology of comprehension. Experimental pragmatics", pp.116~137 (2006), Palgrave
- Schwenter, Scott A., "Discourse markers and the PA", SN distinction, 2002, pp.(38), 43~69
- Sperber, Dan, "Relevance: Communication and cognition" (1986), Blackwell