Pragmatic Inference and Default Interpretations in Current Theories of Discourse Meaning Kasia Jaszczolt University of C

1. Summer Institute of the Chinese Cognitive Linguistics Association and the Mouton journal Intercultural Pragmatics‘Culture, Communication, Cognition’Shanghai, 15-19 June 2008 Pragmatic Inference and Default Interpretations in Current Theories of Discourse Meaning Kasia Jaszczolt University of Cambridge, U.K. http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kmj21

2. Utterance meaning (1) A: Are you coming to the meeting in London on Monday? B: I will be in Shanghai. Primary meaning: (1a) B is not coming to the meeting. = implicature (2) Everybody is applying for this job. Primary meaning: (2a) Every eligible linguist the speaker knows is applying for this job. = enrichment, modulation of what is said

3. ? • Speaker’ s meaning or Addressee’s meaning? • Is the recovery of primary meaning in (1) and (2) governed by the same pragmatic processes? • Do we need the distinction between implicature (new thought) (1) and modulation (thought conveyed by the uttered sentence) (2)?

4. Lecture 1: Grice and post-Griceans on pragmatic inference: Introduction Lecture 2: Contextualism vs. semantic minimalism Lecture 3: Salient meanings: the characteristics of default interpretations Lecture 4: Principles of Default Semantics

5. Lecture 1 Grice and post-Griceans on pragmatic inference: Introduction

6. A meantNN something by x: ‘A uttered x with the intention of inducing a belief by means of the recognition of this intention’ Grice (1957 in 1989: 219)

7. “ ‘U meant something by uttering x’ is true iff, for some audience A, U uttered x intending: • A to produce a particular response r • A to think (recognize) that U intends (1) • A to fulfil (1) on the basis of his fulfilment of (2).” Grice (1969 in 1989: 92)

8. Implicature: • Speaker is intentionally conveying more than the utterance’s content. • Addressee is drawing inferences from the speaker’s utterance, regarding them as intended by the speaker. Content = implicatum

9. Properties of conversational implicatures: • cancellability • non-detachability • calculability • non-conventionality

10. “Suppose that Alice and Sarah are in a crowded train; Alice, who is obviously able-bodied, is sprawled across two seats, and Sarah is standing. Sarah says to Alice, ‘I’m curious as to whether it would be physically possible for you to make room for someone else to sit down.’ The implicature is that Alice should make room. It is extraordinarily unlikely that Sarah really is curious about whether Alice is physically capable of moving, since it is mutually obvious that she is capable. Accordingly, Sarah has flouted Grice’s first maxim of Quality (1989: 27), ‘Do not say what you believe to be false’; she obviously knows that what she says is false. This flouting indicates that her utterance is not to be taken literally. This is a

11. paradigmatic implicature, in which an utterance conveys something beyond what is literally said because the speaker is flouting a conversational maxim. Suppose now that Sarah adds, ‘Not that you should make room; I’m just curious.’ This has the form of an explicit cancellation of the implicature. Nevertheless, the implicature is not cancelled. Sarah is still suggesting, even more rudely, that Alice should make room.” Weiner (2006: 128), see also reply by Blome-Tillmann 2008

12. ? Are all implicatures qualitatively different from what is said? Are they different when they act as main, primary, salient meanings?

13. The standard post-Gricean view on what is said vs. what is implicated: Questions: • What principles govern utterance interpretation? • How does pragmatic content interact with the semantic content?

14. Modified Occam’s Razor ‘Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.’ Grice (1978 in 1989: 47) (3) Some British people like cricket. (3a) Some but not all British people like cricket. (4) Tom dropped a camera and it broke. (4a) Tom dropped a camera and as a result it broke.

15. Question A: • Neo-Griceans Horn (1984, 1988, 2004) The Q Principle: Make your contribution sufficient; say as much as you can (given R). = maximization of information content The R Principle: Make your contribution necessary; say no more than you must (given Q). =minimization of form

16. Levinson (1987, 1995, 2000): Q-principle: ‘Don’t provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing a stronger statement would contravene the I-principle.’ • I often take sugar in my coffee +> not always • I believe that John is away +> not know

17. I-principle: ‘Say as little as necessary’, i. e. produce the minimal linguistic clues sufficient to achieve your communicational ends, bearing Q in mind. • John turned the key and the engine started. +>and then • Harry and Sue bought a piano. +> together

18. M-principle: ‘Do not use a prolix, obscure or marked expression without reason.’ Relative power of the principles: Q>M>I (9) John caused the car to stop. M>I

19. Sperber and Wilson (1986/95) The principle of Relevance: Interlocutors preserve the balance between the effort and the effect in conversation by minimising the expenditure, the processing effort, and at the same time maximising the information gained, the cognitive effect.

20. ‘In Relevance, we make two fundamental claims, one about cognition, the other about communication: • Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance. • Every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its optimal relevance.’ Sperber & Wilson (1995: 260)

21. Question B: What is the content of what is said (the explicit content)vis-à-vis implicatures? Grice (1978): pragmatic processes of disambiguation (syntactic, lexical) and reference assignment to indexical expressions (e.g. pronouns, demonstrative phrases) may have to be taken into consideration before the sentence’s truth conditions can be assessed.

22. Kempson (1975, 1979, 1986) and Atlas (1977, 1979, 1989, 2005) Negation in English should not be regarded as ambiguous between narrow-scope and wide-scope but as semantically underdetermined. • The king of France is not bald.

23. Kempson (1975, 1979, 1986) and Atlas (1977, 1979, 1989, 2005) Negation in English should not be regarded as ambiguous between narrow-scope and wide-scope but as semantically underdetermined. • The king of France is not bald. x (KoF (x)  y (KoF (y)  y = x)   Bald (x))

24. Kempson (1975, 1979, 1986) and Atlas (1977, 1979, 1989, 2005) Negation in English should not be regarded as ambiguous between narrow-scope and wide-scope but as semantically underdetermined. • The king of France is not bald. x (KoF (x)  y (KoF (y)  y = x)   Bald (x))  (KoF (x)  y (KoF (y)  y = x)  Bald (x))

25. radical pragmatics sense-generality contextualism

26. Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way towards the recovery of utterance meaning. Pragmatic enrichment completes the process. Enrichment: and +> and then, and as a result some +> some but not all everybody +> everybody in the room, every acquaintance of the speaker, etc.

27. Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005): The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.

28. Explicature (Carston, Sperber, Wilson) • What is said (Recanati) • Primary meaning (Jaszczolt)

29. Explicature (Carston, Sperber, Wilson) • What is said (Recanati) • Primary meaning (Jaszczolt) ? Question: How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?

30. Logical form can be developed beyond the output of syntactic processing. Development stops as soon as optimal relevance is reached. Implicatures are functionally independent of such an enriched semantic representation (‘explicature’). Functional Independence Principle (Carston).

31. Logical form can be developed beyond the output of syntactic processing. Development stops as soon as optimal relevance is reached. Implicatures are functionally independent of such an enriched semantic representation (‘explicature’). Functional Independence Principle (Carston). • Aspects of meaning are added to the truth-conditional content (‘what is said’) when they conform to our pre-theoretic intuitions. Availability Principle (Recanati).

32. Such additions to the logical form (expansions, completions) constitute a separate, middle level, implicit in what is said (‘impliciture’). Semantic minimalism (Bach, Horn).

33. Such additions to the logical form (expansions, completions) constitute a separate, middle level, implicit in what is said (‘impliciture’). Semantic minimalism (Bach, Horn). • The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended meaning demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are primary meanings and their representations are merger representations. Default Semantics (Jaszczolt). There is no syntactic constraint on merger representations.

34. (11) You are not going to die, Peter. (11a) There is no future time at which you will die, Peter. (11b) You are not going to die from this cut, Peter. (11c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter.

35. (11) You are not going to die, Peter. (11a) There is no future time at which you will die, Peter. (11b) You are not going to die from this cut, Peter. (11c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter. Truth-conditional content modelled in semantics: Bach, Horn: (11a) – minimal proposition Carston, Recanati: (11b) – extended proposition Jaszczolt, Sysoeva: (11c) – substituted proposition (primary meaning)

36. Particularized vs. generalized pragmatic additions: (11) You are not going to die, Peter. (11b) You are not going to die from this cut, Peter. (11c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter. (3) Some British people like cricket. (3a) Some but not all British people like cricket. (4) Tom dropped a camera and it broke. (4a) Tom dropped a camera and as a result it broke.

37. ? • Where is the what is said/what is implicated boundary?

38. ? • Where is the what is said/what is implicated boundary? • Where is the semantics/pragmatics boundary? (Lecture 2)

39. ? • Where is the what is said/what is implicated boundary? • Where is the semantics/pragmatics boundary? (Lecture 2) • Is the recovery of the speaker’s intended meaning the result of pragmatic inference or is it automatic, default? (Lectures 3, 4)

40. Summary so far • The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined. • The underspecified logical form is further modified as a result of pragmatic processes (inference or automatic modifications). • According to post-Gricean contextualists, this pragmatically modified representation is an object of truth-conditional analysis.

41. End of Lecture 1 Thank you!

42. References • Atlas, Jay D. 1977. Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 321-36. • Atlas, Jay D. 1979. How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In: D. Dinneen & C. K. Oh (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 265-81. • Atlas, Jay D. 1989. Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press. • Atlas, Jay D. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Bach, Kent 2004. Minding the gap. In: C. Bianchi (ed.). The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 27-43. • Bach, Kent 2006. The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Unpublished paper. • Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2008. Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis 68: 156-160.

43. Carston, Robyn 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In: R. M. Kempson (ed.) Mental Representations: The Interface Between Languageand Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155-181. • Carston, Robyn 1998. Postscript (1995) to Carston 1988. In: A. Kasher (ed.). Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Vol. 4. London: Routledge, 464-479. • Carston, Robyn 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. • Cole, Peter (ed.). 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. • Davis, Wayne A. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Grice, H. Paul 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 213-223. • Grice, H. Paul 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review 78. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 86-116. • Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22-40.

44. Grice, H. Paul 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9, New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 41-57. • Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984. Ed. by D. Schffrin. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 11-42. • Horn, Laurence R. 1988. Pragmatic theory. In: F. J. Newmeyer (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113-145. • Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In: L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3-28. • Horn, Laurence R. 2006. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In: K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (eds.). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, 21-48. • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science. • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics:Meaning in Language and Discourse. London: Longman.

45. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. forthcoming. Semantics and pragmatics: The boundary issue. In: K. von Heusinger, P. Portner & C. Maienborn (eds). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. • Kempson, Ruth M. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Kempson, Ruth M. 1979. Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity. In: C.-K. Oh & D.A. Dinneen (eds). 1979. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press, 283-297. • Kempson, Ruth M. 1986. Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In: C. Travis (ed.). 1986. Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 77-103. • Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In: J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds). The Pragmatic Perspective. Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J.Benjamins, 61-129.

46. Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In: F. R. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 90-115. • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Recanati, François 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. Reprinted in: S. Davis (ed.). 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97-120. • Recanati, François 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Recanati, François. 2005. Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In: G. Preyer & G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 171-196. • Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. What is said and psychological reality; Grice’s project and relevance Theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347-372. • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition in 1995. • Weiner, Matthew. 2006. Are all conversational implicatures cancellable? Analysis 66: 127-130.