Study Questions for Jenny Thomas' Meaning in interaction "
Lennart Hellspong
First What is pragmatics?
First How has the concept of pragmatics defined in linguistics at different
times?
According to Jenny Thomas was the earliest definitions of "meaning in use",
while those who come later rather have been "speaking role" or "freedom of
interpretation." Collectively, all the definitions that they show how pragmatic
are different from the usual linguistics (= linguistics) with the grammar as a
prime example. For pragmatic do not look at language as an abstract
object. Instead, the interest in how language is used in human
intercourse. Thus, similar to the rhetoric. For although the place is always the
language of a situation. Thus the rhetoric emphasizes how language is part of
people's social lives.
One can say that the latter two definitions stronger than the first one
emphasizes that importance is not something that an opinion has, in itself,
even in a given situation. Instead it is created by people through a speaker's
intentions with what she says or how an audience relates to it. The intentional,
interpretative and psychological is also important for rhetoric, which is
constantly emphasizes language, speech, the people's aims, aspirations,
world views and so on. We can thus say that the pragmatic has moved
towards a greater proximity to the rhetorical approach.
Yet we might ask whether pragmatic really has taken the consequences of his
self-description. And if it is prepared to go so close to a specific oral or written
context as rhetoric does. It is after all a science that seeks generalizable
results. We see this clearly from the examples and the philosophy of
Thomas's book.
To the characteristics of pragmatic here, moreover, that it sees language as
action. Also it is in tune with the rhetoric. Yet there is perhaps an accent - or
the perspective difference between rhetoric and pragmatic. Possibly this may
be expressed as follows: pragmatic sees language as action, while the
rhetoric sees language as action. Pragmatic look at the language of action
side while the rhetoric looks at hand the country's linguistic side.
Is it so, it may be that the rhetoric in its origin is a productive theory, an act of
science, while pragmatic in origin and essence is a descriptive theory, a
description of science. Rhetoric is a doctrine both on and in speeches, while
pragmatic merely a doctrine of the century. It must have consequences for the
concepts developed within the two study fields and how these concepts are
perceived and treated. This has pragmatic no equivalent to the Rhetorica
parties (ie stages in the process of preparing a speech: intellectio, Inventio
and so on). The course has to do with it is not a productive theory.
Another difference is enough on this planet. When all is said and done is a
pragmatic one nomotetic (= "lagframställande", from the Greek nomos = law
and ti-the-mi = put, put) science. It wants to find general principles for the use
of language. The rhetoric is much more focused on understanding and
analyzing
2
3
specific, concrete situations. And it wants to solve the problems that these
houses. This means that the rhetoric has developed a completely different
concepts. It is more open, softer, less suitable for the formulation of laws and
regularities, but more suited for the situation assessment and creative ideas.
And then of course not a pragmatic integration of logos, ethos and pathos that
we face in rhetoric. Therefore it takes into account only one of the
communication aspects.
Moreover, it has hardly an integration of words and body language, even if the
synthesis should be within reach of a broader pragmatics. Because I see no
reason to princiella pragmatic can not take on too non-verbal communication.
Second What is the difference between abstract meaning and contextual
meaning?
The branch of science concerned with linguistic meanings is semantics (from
the Greek 'sema' sign). Its subordination hand, we see already in the
dictionary information about the words meaning. But the meanings which are
abstract (and it is for the most part with semantic analysis). The words are of
course detached from their context. But we all know that the meaning of
words are colored by where they occur. Yes, you could go further and argue
that an isolated words do not really have any particular significance. At most,
a "significant potential" (with the Norwegian language the man Ragnar
Rommetveits term), that is a general prerequisite to produce meaningful, that
is realized only when it enters into a specific context.
What science is it that will study how the meaning of words interact with the
context? Yes, it could be part of the semantics: a contextual semantics. But as
soon context comes in usually pragmatic updated for a linguist. Precisely this
was long a key task for pragmatic - to supplement the abstract semantics into
more detail on what the words might mean in different types of utterances
made at different times. And above all, perhaps to give meaning to the
expression that hardly means anything at all outside of a room, one time, a
situation in which "we" and "they" and "here" and "now" (designation or deictic
expressions). Why did some pragmatic as a subject with no real core, yes
almost as a "dustbin" of linguistics, for all manner of debris that creeps into it
but can not be treated systematically in any of linguistics established
fields. But then, the pragmatic work has grown considerably and its position in
linguistics has become fully respectable. Yes, more than that, pragmatic
linguistics has become the most expansive field.
For the rhetoric of course always the focus on linguistic meanings as
contextual phenomena. That is why one can not analyze a speech just as an
abstract text. You have to set it in context. First, there may be words his
opinion of the speaker and listeners. But even this is probably the rhetoric a
little different perspective than pragmatic. At the heart of pragmatic closest to
the listener, who seek to understand (by analyzing what the speaker does). At
the heart of the rhetoric is however the speaker, seeking to reach different
goals with their opinions (by creative inventory of language productive
resources).
3
4
Third In what way is ambiguity in the interest of pragmatic?
The ambiguity raises the course of meaning depends on context.The first line
of the context, we can determine what an ambiguous word or expression
"really" stand for in a recent case. The ambiguity is interesting also because it
points to the intention, purpose, significance. It is the speaker's view, her
mind, choosing between the options in a given combination of words in the
manufacture significant potential. To pinpoint when it comes to meaning,
among all that were possible is not the language itself to. There must be no
more. Although it shows the necessity of a pragmatics to handle significant
production in a comprehensive manner as part of a linguistic analysis model.
We see pragmatic as a contextual semantics (which seems too narrow), it
raises a crucial ambiguity in the language, namely its openness. The
language, the words, convey themselves never "own" meaning. The meaning
is created rather by what Jacob Mey calls "pragmatic acts," which occurs
when both words and context occupied by the contracting agency to convey a
meaning.Here we see a touch of rhetoric doctrine of actio. It is in the running
as the language gets its power and meaning, and the driving is a whole in
which words play only a limited and sometimes a minimal role.
The pragmatic argument, it may seem as if the ambiguity is a major and
difficult problem, as it is important to remove the contextual clues to a specific
meaning which the speaker intends.Otherwise, communication is not
working. This view hardly shared by the rhetoric. Sometimes ambiguity even
be seen as a rhetorical figure (equivocatio), as a conscious grasp. Think of a
speaker's relationship with his audience. Oftar makes the words best effect on
any listener within certain limits can interpret them in their own way, according
to their conditions.
In addition, there are situations where it would be fatal for a speaker to commit
to an option to interpret what she says. It would deprive her of a possible
output of an emergency. Then she had to keep the door open by being
ambiguous. Think of all those politicians who blivir experts to be heard vague
so as not to bind themselves. (I am not a politician contempt, I have some
understanding of it.)
Yes, even beyond a slyly calculating elocution, this floating part of the nature
of words, as soon as they leave the dictionary herbarium. If you put the
language in relation to an audience, so it is always ambiguous. The starting
point is the ambiguity in fact, a basic requirement for all human
communication. For, in contrast to the data between machines requires
linguistic opinions interpreting their effect. And just about what we say is
ambiguous it is possible to interpret, thus acquiring a personal form that does
justice to the listener not the speaker but to another person, yes, we even
change when we shift from the talk to hear what we say.
4
5
4th What is the difference between 'importance' (sense) and "force" (force) of
an opinion? What is the relationship between the speaking role, expression
meaning and effect?
As I see it is the truly weighty contribution to pragmatic linguistics that
pragmatic note that words that occur in opinions, words said by one to another
in a given situation, not only has a meaning but also a force. It is a social
significance that goes beyond the purely semantic sense. Not least is the
force that determines how words work interactionally, that is in the interplay
between the actions of individuals.
"You give me the knife" is a series of words with certain meanings, which
brings together the syntax of the sentence semantic whole. But that opinion, in
a particular situation, it is said here have different forces (marked by the tone
of voice, gestures and so on). So it may be a claim (as we might first think of)
or call (which may be necessary). Can you hear his voice and see the grim
facial expressions along with the threatening situation signals the second
power?
The concept of power (in Greek dynamos) is of course crucial to the rhetoric
perspective. For what it views' s language that force charged
speech. However, by the way they develop the concept of power in the
analysis of the kind that philosophers Austin and Searle and others have
performed, providing pragmatic a nuanced description of something that
rhetoric like to understand more globally, as an indivisible whole. For an
external force, the rhetoric really just a single concept, persuasio, while the
pragmatic analysis provides an opportunity to clarify, perhaps not persuasio,
but the social convention institutionalized forces that lie between the meaning
of words and their ability to influence people, touching, grasping and arouse
an audience, in concrete speech situations.
Second Speech Acts
First What is meant by Austin and his kind, representing a "philosophy of
ordinary language"?
In contrast to the logical-positivist philosophers of an older generation thought
Austin and his colleagues also to the ordinary language was an adequate
medium for reflection and communication. And therefore well worth studying
and not only correct for a philosopher. Thanks to this attitude was the
everyday language philosophers to break ground for the research and thinking
about the actual use of language. For them it was an interesting and full of
study.
This positive and accepting attitude toward the "common" language, with all
its vagueness and ambiguity, with its images, emotion and floating
expression, is of course rhetoric. Therefore, it is not the same problematic
relationship to pragmatic as to formal logic - and especially when the latter
believes in a precise scientific language, which alone can capture the
truth. While formallogikens concepts are uncomfortable for the rhetoric and
hardly useful for rhetorical analysis, they are pragmatic notions far more
5
6
promising. In the following we will consider how they might complement
traditional rhetorical concepts.
Second What did Austin with "performative" How can they be linked to the
collective and not just individuals? How do they vary inter-culturally? How can
they be both explicit and implicit?
Austin was not content with merely looking at the kind of use of the language,
like his predecessors in the logical-analytic philosophy had taken an interest
in. The fact was completely fixated on statements like "It's 35 degrees
Celsius," "The earth is shaped like a sphere," "There are craters on the
moon's far side" (which no one had observed at the time). How did they get
their meaning? What gave them a relation to reality? What are the "truth
conditions"? It was the questions we tried to clarify, among other things, by
reconstructing the statement's "real", logical structure. But Austin noticed
(what can a philosopher do not discover from his study!) To the language
given did not cover everything that is important in everyday language. There,
we also say often such as "I promise to come tomorrow," "Close the window!",
"I baptize you to Svante" or "I sentence you to three years in prison." And the
rates and observations of this nature, it is not meaningful to ask if they are
true or false. For them, the other requirements.
Let us look at the final two sets. They are particularly clear examples. By
uttering "I baptize you to Svante" or "I sentence you to three years in prison,"
so I do not speak a truth. Instead I create a social relationship (a
fact). Henceforth, by dopakten that my opinion is included in (imagine that I
am a priest!), Carries a person named Svante. Or by the operative part of my
opinion confirms (imagine that I am a judge!), A person to serve a longer
prison sentence. Austin wanted to emphasize that these rates perform
slightly. Therefore, he called them performative. He placed them in contrast to
statements such as "There are craters on the moon's far side," as he called
for konstativer.
It is easy to see that the performative as these may not be valid, just by
speaking. It also requires that certain external conditions must be fulfilled. In
particular, those to do with the speaker's own position, with his or her
legitimate position. Anyone can not express such judgments become final.
Right soon realized that the difference between Austin konstativer and
performative is really artificial. All observations have a performative
aspect. They accomplish anything by being precipitated. They are
documents. Also to note something is an act. And you carry it always with
impunity. Think of what a wrong answer on an exam question might mean. Or
what it might mean to express a controversial theory in science. The use of
language is to do something, not just to describe something. And to describe
is to do something, a form of performance art.
That brings us on to the act aspect of language that is so important to the
rhetoric. When for example, we analyze a number, we are interested not only
in what the speaker says, the description of the world as she does (although it
is also interesting). In particular we are concerned with what she does by
century - its
6
7
performative aspect. To succeed, a rhetorical analysis rise from the konstativa
dimension of his analysis, object to the performative. And in this perspective
becomes the object to a document. This is true even for something as tangible
as a painting for example. For a rhetorician is a document, an interaction
between an artist, a social institution and an audience.
To return to Austin's (simplistic) dichotomy: What about the rhetoric
talgenrer? Is it konstativa or performative? Say that I argue for a specific
proposal? What do I do? Maybe I describe certain situations, which I cited as
arguments for the proposal.Are my observations konstativa? Or they have a
performative aspect? I create a social fact, by my action (on the basis that it
could lead to a decision which of course has social consequences)? Perhaps
it helps to create a doxa, a idégemenskap. Also it could anyway be seen as
an institutionalized, as well as a name or a conviction.
Through the concept of performative Austin discovers that words can be
speech acts. The concept has the classic rhetoric no direct equivalent, what I
can see. Actio is probably the closest you will. Its aim is not (just) on the body
without the century performance, that is at the very concrete opinion in a
specific context. Sometimes we talk about both actio and pronuntiatio, and
then appears to be considerable doubt as soon as body language and
pronunciation. But that phase of the work of a number is actio something more
and beyond.
But a speech act is something more specific. Especially in Searle's design
gives us talhandlingsteorin a system of general categories of observations (a
typology). And while the rhetoric is a typology of whole numbers (that may
well be linked to talhandlingsläran), so it has no such for opinions. Therefore,
one might say that the "speech act" brings the rhetoric of a new
concept. (Now is not really true. The classic retoriekn distinguished and called
a number of speech acts, as to express a threat or a ARNING. And it also
gave some types of speech acts defined locations in the composition of a
speech - we can think of probatio, refutatio , partitio etcetera. But no
systematic treatment of speech acts, it has never given.)
Then the question is how well the term "speech act" fits with the concept,
already in the rhetoric. Hear it at home somewhere, so it is perhaps in
elocutio, as part of the figure doctrine. In addition to grammatical and
semantic figures, we would then also have pragmatic figures (and various
hybrid forms). Then there is another question whether these figures would not
only include what linguists refer to as the "marked" cases (the deviant, the
striking, ordo artificialis) but also the plain (ordo natural crystals).The latter
would be required for the full integration of talhandlingsteorin.
Third What did Austin with concepts lokution, illokution, perlokution?
According to Austin is a speech act of a lokution, a illokution and a
perlokution. An example would be "Close the door!" As lokution, this is a
linguistic-semantic actions, to use certain words in certain meanings. As
illokution it is a pragmatic-cultural phenomenon, namely to use a social
7
8
recognized category of communicative acts, namely a call. And as
perlokution, this is a targeted effort to reach a certain effect, that someone
closes the door.
Perlokutionen have been counted as the most rhetorical aspect of a speech
act. Then you have seen the rhetoric as the study of speech as a means of
influence, to achieve effects. But is it lokuta and illokuta dimension not of
interest to the rhetoric?
Do we see the rhetoric as a means to construct reality pictures, then even the
lokuta dimension is important. And here are still honored and figure doctrine.
The illokuta dimension is actually a sort of "genre learn" of speech acts. And
that should interest rhetoric. The rhetoric is all very concerning when and how
it is appropriate to perform linguistic acts: inform, threaten, command, and
more. Which speech acts can be carried out has a lot of decorum to do. And
when rhetoric gives instructions on what to do in different parts of a speech,
so speech acts should be included in the image.Therefore, I believe "speech
act" is an interesting and important category of rhetoric, which helps it to see
more clearly what it does.
4th What did Austin with "felicitetsvillkor" of speech acts?
English a little strange word "felicity" comes from the Latin word "felix," which
means "happy". In Swedish usually felicitetsvillkor (which by all means is a
swedification, albeit right unintelligible) translated as "condition of (a
statement, an opinion) to be's successful." Pragmatic aim is then to such as
that in itself is perfectly well-formed and intelligible opinion that "I declare the
session open" is not pragmatic if it's successful as uttered by one of
Parliament's caretaker. That person have no power to open the Swedish
Parliament other than that building.
The felicitetsvillkor that Austin is to formulate
1) there should be a conventional procedure that has a conventional power in Sweden is, by Christianity, and certainly before, one ceremonies of baptism
by which a child gets his name
2) the circumstances and persons must be right - these are on a church
baptism, the vote in a particular situation, preferably at the baptismal font, and
the one who baptizes should be a priest
3) the procedure must be carried out accurately and completely - normally
dopbarnet yourself in, its head should pour water, some words should be
uttered, and it does not fit that the priest is full (although it probably allowed a
lot of deviation from the norm without baptism loses its validity, but how
carelessly whatsoever is unacceptable).
These felicitetsvillkoren will then develop considerably (and also to become
more rigid, more complicated, square) by the American John Searle, as we
shall see. Here we have something typical of the pragmatic - its interest in the
rules and conventions (though Thomas would like to develop a pragmatics
that look different). And this interest is something that distinguishes linguistics
at all. The oldest and most basic form of linguistics is grammar and
8
9
it does of course very much with the rules, for ordböjning, word order, and
more. This rule, interest has since been transferred to the pragmatic.
Here we have a difference with the rhetoric. Interest in the rules that apply to
language and language is hardly the dominant of the (even if it's there as part
of the rhetorical interest in decorum, it is suitable). Rather than focusing on the
rhetoric of individual linguistic act and its prerequisites. Perhaps one can say
that pragmatic through its strong emphasis on the rules that govern our use of
words to underestimate the creativity of language. On the other hand, tend
rhetoric perhaps to over-emphasize the individual speaker's response and
underestimate the social institutions force. And that is creative, the better to
describe and identify by first distinguishing those rules, social conventions, as
the creative use of the Act, pushes on, violate. We shall see this more clearly,
when we talk about Grice maxims. Just the possibility of violations is an
important point with them.
Third Conversational implicature
First What did Grice with implikatur? What is the difference between
conventional and conversational implikatur?
To "imply" something is not to say it out but let the recipient himself come to it,
as a conclusion. The normal noun to verb "imply" is "implication". It can refer
to both the conclusion and the logical process that leads to the conclusion. I
wrote the "logical" and the implication is a logical term. But implikatur Grice
uses to refer to the conclusions of another species, the conclusions resulting
from more or less clear pragmatic rules.
To take a trivial example. If I say "Goodbye!" Drag (probably) the conclusion
that I'm about to go. There is no logical conclusion. But "goodbye" is a word
that appears at the farewell, it's a pragmatic rule of use. There is also an
example of what Grice calls for a conventional implikatur. There is a fixed
convention for what the opinion represents the pragmatic.
We see also that the Convention adds something to the word purely literal
sense. Here is "goodbye" maybe as good as an example, for one may wonder
what the "goodbye" stands for today in addition to taking leave. Its original
meaning is "à Dieu," which might be translated as "God be with you". There is
thus a congratulation of the kind that have always been normal, when you are
separated from each other and may not know when ya next time. Therefore,
one might distinguish between the semantic and the pragmatic sense, and
argue that the latter is a product of a conventional implikatur. The question is,
moreover, unless the opinion has an even richer meaning. Has it not now a
more special social significance? Then it signals that the person who says
"goodbye" - if she does not speak jokingly or ironically - perceive the situation
as quite formal, and perhaps also because she sees the person or persons as
she appeals to the socially superior to her own. It is debatable how it is with
it. But if you dig into the conventional implikaturen you can often find more
than it first seems.
9
10
Thus we see that pragmatic implikatur have a kind of semiotic function
(semiotics, the general importance of the doctrine). It may be that by creating
a significant contribution, that is to say something beyond the words that
semantically stand for. For rhetoric, this is extremely important. A good
speaker is above all a specialist in creating meaning, meaning. And this
sentence appears often as much of her way to use words as the words
themselves - thus the interaction between words, the person and
situation. What the speaker does is to allow for conclusions, as listeners to get
the benefit of language. Therefore, pragmatic implikatur be an important
concept for the rhetorical analysis
Let's look at a slightly different type of implikatur than the conventional. We
can take exactly the same opinion: "Goodbye!" But now it is folded in the
middle of a conversation, in a situation where it is quite clear that the speaker
did not intend to leave.How do we make it? Speaker joking with us? Has she
become crazy? Or is there a special meaning? Normally we search for such
meaning. Because we assume that the speaker is "rational". It is a principle
for interpreting the observations, which we will address later. And we assume
that she is cooperating with us. Therefore it should be possible to understand
what she says. Although the principle of cooperation, we will enter.Perhaps I
conclude that the speaker probably mean, that I lost touch with the topic of
conversation with other party ("we might as well go in different
directions"). That's what her opinions signaling.
That I at all begin to reflect on the conclusions of this kind has to do with a
seemingly standard violations. The opinion may seem completely irrelevant to
the conversation situation. It does not fit into it. I interpret the words in the light
of the current call and try to make sense of it. Though this is of course a
logical reconstruction of the process. In reality, you may be fully automated
and without a doubt. The pragmatic description does not purport to make a
call and a psychological interpretation procedural justice. The conclusion that
this will call for a samtalsimplikatur Grice ("conversational
implicature"). Perhaps we should call it the opposite type of "regelimplikatur"
instead of "conventional implikatur". Then we get a linguistic attractive
opposites.
This latter type of implikatur gives me most of those interested in the
language's creative side. For it allows the "games" with the language through
various pragmatic norm violations. Yet they remain in a community of
interpretation, which allows the listener to keep up. This is done by she is
creative in their language perception. This use of language is very exciting for
rhetoric.The've taken an interest in a lot of other types of linguistic
violations. We can take the example of creating metaphors.There are
abandoning a speaker of a word "normal" meaning, causing it to express
something else. Yet it is there in a way that an audience can understand. It
might be interesting to examine the concept samtalsimplikatur to explain the
mechanism that helps us to interpret metaphors.
Second What is the difference between implikatur and inference?
10
11
An inference is not necessarily intended, it is produced by the listener
(Thomas). And it can connect to anything, such as the speaker's behavior as
well as his words. Of the gestures that are called adapters (such as when a
nervous speaker pulls his beard or ear) makes listeners easy inferences,
though it is really not what the speaker wants. When rhetoric warning of
certain behaviors, so it is usually just because they invite the (inappropriate)
inferences.
Omt people do not vote that politician x says on the contrary arrested by the
distrust of him, then, it has rather to do with inferences than implikaturer. To
predict people's inferences is very important for a speaker. This makes it
definitely becomes a useful concept in the rhetoric. If rhetoric is just talking
about the interesting message and if it goes forward or not, so do you make a
too simple description of what is happening. For inferences, that the speaker
never intended to provoke and maybe not even suspect that listeners do, can
also be very important. Not least for the speaker's ethos.
Though inferences can be understood to be intended as well.Suppose that a
speaker has suffered no injustice, as the audience knows and that is relevant
to what she is talking about, but she did not mention it in one word. This may
be a striking, a marked silence. He may, of course, have a rhetorical purpose
in silence (even if it does not have to be so).