ICLC 5, K.U. Leuven, 9 July 2008 Meaning Merger: An Object of Study for Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics? Kasia M. Jaszczolt University of Cambridge,

ICLC 5, K.U. Leuven, 9 July 2008ICLC 5, K.U. Leuven, 9 July 2008

Meaning Merger:Meaning Merger:An Object of Study for Contrastive An Object of Study for Contrastive

Semantics and Pragmatics?Semantics and Pragmatics?

Kasia M. JaszczoltKasia M. JaszczoltUniversity of Cambridge, U. K.University of Cambridge, U. K.

http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kmj21http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kmj21

22

(1)(1) mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II khkh22ianian nn33iyiy33ai:ai:

MaryMary writewrite novelnovel

33

(1)(1)(a)(a) Mary wrote a novel.Mary wrote a novel.(b)(b) Mary was writing a novel.Mary was writing a novel.(c)(c) Mary started writing a novel but did not finish it.Mary started writing a novel but did not finish it.(d)(d) Mary has written a novel.Mary has written a novel.(e)(e) Mary has been writing a novel.Mary has been writing a novel.(f)(f) Mary writes novels. / Mary is a novelist.Mary writes novels. / Mary is a novelist.(g)(g) Mary is writing a novel.Mary is writing a novel.(h)(h) Mary will write a novel.Mary will write a novel.(i)(i) Mary will be writing a novel.Mary will be writing a novel.

Srioutai (2006: 45)Srioutai (2006: 45)

44

(2)(2) ff33onon tt11okok

rain rain fallfall

(a)(a) It is raining. (default meaning)It is raining. (default meaning)(b)(b) It was raining. (possible intended meaning)It was raining. (possible intended meaning)

55

Object of study of contrastive semantics and pragmaticsObject of study of contrastive semantics and pragmatics

66

Object of study of contrastive semantics and pragmaticsObject of study of contrastive semantics and pragmatics Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker and Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker and

recovered by Model Addressee (recovered by Model Addressee (primary meaningprimary meaning))

77



Unit of analysis Unit of analysis

88



Unit of analysis Unit of analysis tertium comparationis tertium comparationis for representation of discoursefor representation of discourse

99




Theory of discourse meaning which models this object of Theory of discourse meaning which models this object of studystudy

1010




Theory of discourse meaning which models this object of Theory of discourse meaning which models this object of studystudy

Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2005; forthcoming a)Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2005; forthcoming a)

1111

Post-Gricean theory of utterance/ discoursePost-Gricean theory of utterance/ discourse

meaningmeaning

radical pragmaticsradical pragmatics

sense-generalitysense-generality

contextualismcontextualism

1212

(3)(3) Some British people like cricket.Some British people like cricket.(3a)(3a) Some Some but not allbut not all British people like cricket. British people like cricket.

(4)(4) Tom dropped a camera and it broke.Tom dropped a camera and it broke.(4a)(4a) Tom dropped a camera Tom dropped a camera and as a resultand as a result it broke. it broke.

(5)(5) Everybody came to Leuven.Everybody came to Leuven.(5a)(5a) Every speaker registered for ICLC 5Every speaker registered for ICLC 5 came to came to

Leuven.Leuven.

1313

Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way towards Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way towards the recovery of utterance meaning. Pragmatic the recovery of utterance meaning. Pragmatic enrichment completes the process.enrichment completes the process.

Enrichment: Enrichment:

andand +> and then, and as a result +> and then, and as a result

somesome +> some but not all +> some but not all

everybodyeverybody +> everybody in the room, every acquaintance +> everybody in the room, every acquaintance of the speaker, etc.of the speaker, etc.

1414

Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):

The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.truth-conditional analysis.

1515

What is said (Recanati)What is said (Recanati)

Primary meaning (Jaszczolt)Primary meaning (Jaszczolt)

1616

What is said (Recanati)What is said (Recanati) Primary meaning (Jaszczolt)Primary meaning (Jaszczolt)

?? Question:Question:

How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?

1717

Aspects of meaning are added to the truth-conditional Aspects of meaning are added to the truth-conditional content (content (‘what is said’‘what is said’) when they conform to our pre-) when they conform to our pre-theoretic intuitions. theoretic intuitions. Availability Principle (Recanati)Availability Principle (Recanati)..

1818

The logical form of the sentence can not only be The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended meaning representation when the primary, intended meaning demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are primary primary meaningsmeanings and their representations are merger and their representations are merger representations in representations in Default Semantics (Jaszczolt)Default Semantics (Jaszczolt). . There There is no syntactic constraint on merger representationsis no syntactic constraint on merger representations..

1919

(6)(6) You are not going to die, Peter.You are not going to die, Peter.

(6a)(6a) There is no future time at which you will die, There is no future time at which you will die, Peter.Peter.

(6b)(6b) You are not going to die from this cut, Peter.You are not going to die from this cut, Peter.

(6c)(6c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter.There is nothing to worry about, Peter.

Default Semantics: Default Semantics: (6c)(6c) – substituted proposition – substituted proposition (primary meaning)(primary meaning)

2020

Summary so farSummary so far

The output of syntactic processing often leaves the The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.meaning underdetermined.

2121



This pragmatically modified representation is an object of This pragmatically modified representation is an object of study of a theory of meaning (contextualism: Default study of a theory of meaning (contextualism: Default Semantics). Semantics).

2222




There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study. There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.

2323




There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study. There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.

Discourse meaning is construed as meaning intended by Discourse meaning is construed as meaning intended by the Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee.the Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee.

2424

Tertium ComparationisTertium Comparationis

The main problem of Theoretical Contrastive Studies: The main problem of Theoretical Contrastive Studies: what criterion of measurement should we use to contrast what criterion of measurement should we use to contrast languages?languages?

Platform of reference/ comparison, Platform of reference/ comparison, tertium comparationistertium comparationis (Krzeszowski 1990)(Krzeszowski 1990)

2525

Pragmatic Pragmatic tertium comparationistertium comparationis: : illocutionary forceillocutionary force

(7)(7)English:English:A: A: How nice you look today.How nice you look today.B:B: Thank you. Thank you.

(8)(8)Polish:Polish:A: A: Jak Jak ładnie dzisiaj wyglądasz.ładnie dzisiaj wyglądasz.B: B: To tylko stara sukienka. (It’s only an old To tylko stara sukienka. (It’s only an old

dress.)dress.)

2626

Main problems with speech act as Main problems with speech act as tertium comparationistertium comparationis::

Cognitive reality of speech act types Cognitive reality of speech act types

Speech acts trigger different uptake in different culturesSpeech acts trigger different uptake in different cultures

Speech-act type – situation mismatchSpeech-act type – situation mismatch

Illocution – perlocution boundary problemIllocution – perlocution boundary problem

2727

Faithful translation: translating the author’s Faithful translation: translating the author’s intentionsintentions, , assumptionsassumptions, rather than structure and style (Nida 1964; , rather than structure and style (Nida 1964; Gentzler 1993; de Beaugrande 1980)Gentzler 1993; de Beaugrande 1980)

2828

Faithful translation: translating the author’s Faithful translation: translating the author’s intentionsintentions, , assumptionsassumptions, rather than structure and style (Nida 1964; , rather than structure and style (Nida 1964; Gentzler 1993; de Beaugrande 1980)Gentzler 1993; de Beaugrande 1980)

‘…‘…the the equivalenceequivalence between a text and its translation can between a text and its translation can be neither in form nor lexical meanings, but only in the be neither in form nor lexical meanings, but only in the experience of text receiversexperience of text receivers.’ .’ de Beaugrande (1980: de Beaugrande (1980: 291).291).

2929

Hypotheses in Jaszczolt (2003: 444):Hypotheses in Jaszczolt (2003: 444):

H1H1

Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is saidwhat is said..

H2H2

Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is what is implicitly communicated.implicitly communicated.

3030

H1H1

Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is saidwhat is said..

adequate, contextualist definition of adequate, contextualist definition of what is said: what is said: primary primary meaning of Default Semanticsmeaning of Default Semantics

3131

H1H1Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is saidwhat is said..

adequate, contextualist definition of adequate, contextualist definition of what is said: what is said: primary primary meaning of Default Semanticsmeaning of Default Semantics

H2H2Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is implicitly communicated. implicitly communicated.

Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of both Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of both primary and secondary meanings.primary and secondary meanings.

3232

Primary Meanings of Default SemanticsPrimary Meanings of Default Semantics

Default Semantics (DS, Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, Default Semantics (DS, Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, forthcoming a, b) is a radical contextualist theory.forthcoming a, b) is a radical contextualist theory.

Objective: to model utterance meaning as intended by Objective: to model utterance meaning as intended by the Model Speaker and recovered by the Model the Model Speaker and recovered by the Model Addressee.Addressee.

3333

Going beyond contextualism: Going beyond contextualism:

DS does not recognize the level of meaning at DS does not recognize the level of meaning at which the logical form is pragmatically which the logical form is pragmatically developed/modulated as a real, interesting, and developed/modulated as a real, interesting, and cognitively justified construct. cognitively justified construct.

To do so would be to assume that syntax plays To do so would be to assume that syntax plays a privileged role among various carriers of a privileged role among various carriers of information (contextualists’ mistake).information (contextualists’ mistake).

3434

(9)(9) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?

Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A) The child is too small to go punting.(A) The child is too small to go punting.

(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

3535

(9)(9) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A) The child is too small to go punting.(A) The child is too small to go punting.(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

(6)(6) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B2) It’s not a big deal. (B2) It’s not a big deal.

3636

(9)(9) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A)(A) The child is too small to go punting.The child is too small to go punting.(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

(6)(6) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B2) It’s not a big deal. (B2) It’s not a big deal.

3737

DS takes as its object of semantic representation the DS takes as its object of semantic representation the primary, salient, intended meanings and hence allows for primary, salient, intended meanings and hence allows for the B interpretations to be modelled. the B interpretations to be modelled.

Interlocutors frequently communicate their main intended Interlocutors frequently communicate their main intended content through a proposition which is not syntactically content through a proposition which is not syntactically restricted.restricted.

The representation of the primary meaning need not be The representation of the primary meaning need not be isomorphic with the representation of the uttered isomorphic with the representation of the uttered sentence or with a development of that syntactic form. It sentence or with a development of that syntactic form. It need not constitute an enrichment/modulation of the need not constitute an enrichment/modulation of the proposition expressed in the sentence.proposition expressed in the sentence.

3838

The syntactic constraint of post-Gricean contextualism is The syntactic constraint of post-Gricean contextualism is rejected. rejected.

The kind of meaning that is modelled in the theory of The kind of meaning that is modelled in the theory of meaning is the meaning is the primary meaningprimary meaning. The primary meaning is . The primary meaning is the main message intended by the Model Speaker and the main message intended by the Model Speaker and recovered by the Model Addressee. recovered by the Model Addressee.

3939

Experimental evidence:Experimental evidence:

Nicolle and Clark 1999Nicolle and Clark 1999

Pitts 2005Pitts 2005

Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007 & forthcoming Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007 & forthcoming

4040

Merger Representation Merger Representation

Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger merger

representationsrepresentations..

4141


Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger merger representationsrepresentations. .

The outputs of sources of information about meaning The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned. footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.

4242




Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

4343




Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

They have a compositional structure: they are They have a compositional structure: they are proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable constructs, proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable constructs, integrating information coming from various sources integrating information coming from various sources that interacts according to the principles established by that interacts according to the principles established by the intentional character of discourse. the intentional character of discourse.

4444

Sources of information for Sources of information for ::

(i)(i) world knowledge (WK);world knowledge (WK);

(ii)(ii) word meaning and sentence structure (WS);word meaning and sentence structure (WS);

(iii)(iii) situation of discourse (SD);situation of discourse (SD);

(iv)(iv) properties of the human inferential system (IS);properties of the human inferential system (IS);

(v)(v) stereotypes and presumptions about society and stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC). culture (SC).

4545

SCSC

(10)(10) A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last week.A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last week.

(10a)(10a) A painting by BotticelliA painting by Botticelli was stolen from was stolen from the Uffizi the Uffizi Gallery in FlorenceGallery in Florence last week. last week.

4646

WS – lexicon and grammarWS – lexicon and grammar

SD – context-dependent inferenceSD – context-dependent inference

4747

WKWK

(11)(11) The temperature fell below -10 The temperature fell below -10 degrees degrees Celsius and the lake froze.Celsius and the lake froze.

(11a)(11a) The temperature fell below -10 The temperature fell below -10 degrees degrees Celsius Celsius and as a resultand as a result the lake froze. the lake froze.

4848

ISIS

(12)(12) The author of The author of Cloud AtlasCloud Atlas has breathtaking has breathtaking sensitivity and imagination.sensitivity and imagination.

(12a)(12a) David MitchellDavid Mitchell has breathtaking sensitivity and has breathtaking sensitivity and imagination.imagination.

world knowledge (WK)

word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

situation of discourse (SD)

stereotypes and presumptions properties of human inferential system (IS) about society and culture (SC)

Fig. 1: Sources of information contributing to a merger representation Σ

merger representation Σ

5050

The model of sources of information can be mapped The model of sources of information can be mapped onto onto types of processestypes of processes that produce the merger that produce the merger representation representation of the primary meaning and the of the primary meaning and the additional (secondary) meanings. additional (secondary) meanings.

Primary meaning:

combination of word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

conscious pragmatic inferencepm (from situation of discourse, social and

social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and world world-knowledge defaultspm (SCWDpm) knowledge) (CPIpm) Secondary meanings:

Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaultssm (SCWDsm) conscious pragmatic inferencesm (CPIsm)

Fig. 2: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revised version of Default Semantics

merger representation Σ

5252

Mapping between sources and processesMapping between sources and processes

WK WK SCWD or CPISCWD or CPI

SC SC SCWD or CPISCWD or CPIWS WS WS WS (logical form)(logical form)SD SD CPICPIIS IS CDCD

In building merger representations DS makes use of the In building merger representations DS makes use of the processing model and it indexes the components of processing model and it indexes the components of with a subscript standing for the type of processing.with a subscript standing for the type of processing.

5353

Unresolved question:Unresolved question:

What counts as effortful processing (CPI) vis-à-vis What counts as effortful processing (CPI) vis-à-vis automatic utilization of knowledge of culture and society automatic utilization of knowledge of culture and society (SCWD)?(SCWD)?

5454

Unresolved question:Unresolved question:

What counts as effortful processing (CPI) vis-à-vis What counts as effortful processing (CPI) vis-à-vis automatic utilization of knowledge of culture and society automatic utilization of knowledge of culture and society (SCWD)?(SCWD)?

Assumption: utterance interpretation makes use of Assumption: utterance interpretation makes use of automatic, default interpretations which figure as salient automatic, default interpretations which figure as salient and strong interpretative probabilities unless the context and strong interpretative probabilities unless the context dictates otherwise.dictates otherwise.

5555

There is a need to distinguish the two kinds of There is a need to distinguish the two kinds of processes: the conscious, inferential one and the processes: the conscious, inferential one and the automatic, subdoxastic one.automatic, subdoxastic one.

Cf.: Levinson’s (2000) presumptive meanings & Cf.: Levinson’s (2000) presumptive meanings & Recanati’s (2002, 2004) truth-conditional pragmatics Recanati’s (2002, 2004) truth-conditional pragmatics retain the common intuition that the primary meaning is retain the common intuition that the primary meaning is built built bothboth out of automatic, associative, unreflective out of automatic, associative, unreflective components and conscious, inferential ones. components and conscious, inferential ones.

5656

Compositionality of Primary MeaningsCompositionality of Primary Meanings

Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality is not Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality is not a necessary property of semantics; composition of a necessary property of semantics; composition of meaning may simply reflect compositional reality. meaning may simply reflect compositional reality. Meaning supervenes on the structure of the world. Meaning supervenes on the structure of the world.

Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to enriched, Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to enriched, modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, ‘Gestaltist’ modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, ‘Gestaltist’ approach to compositionality.approach to compositionality.

DS: compositionality DS: compositionality utteranceutterance meaning rather than meaning rather than sentencesentence meaning. meaning.

5757

Merger representations are Merger representations are compositional structures.compositional structures.

5858

Compositionality is a necessary prerequisite for any Compositionality is a necessary prerequisite for any theory of meaning.theory of meaning.

Compositionality should not be seen as a methodological Compositionality should not be seen as a methodological requirement on the requirement on the syntax and semantics ofsyntax and semantics of sentences. sentences.

DS agrees with Jackendoff (2002: 293) that there is no DS agrees with Jackendoff (2002: 293) that there is no ‘strictly linguistic meaning’. ‘strictly linguistic meaning’.

5959

Default and inferential interpretations are construed in DS Default and inferential interpretations are construed in DS as operating on a unit that is adequate for the case at as operating on a unit that is adequate for the case at

hand, ranging from a morpheme to the entire discourse.hand, ranging from a morpheme to the entire discourse.

6060

Selected applications of DSSelected applications of DS

Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Parsimony of Levels Parsimony of Levels (POL) Principle(POL) Principle: Levels of senses are not to be multiplied : Levels of senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. beyond necessity.

First applications: definite descriptions, proper names, First applications: definite descriptions, proper names, and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); negation and and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); negation and discourse connectives (Lee 2002). discourse connectives (Lee 2002).

Recent applications: presupposition, sentential Recent applications: presupposition, sentential connectives, number terms, temporality, and modality connectives, number terms, temporality, and modality (Jaszczolt 2005; forthcoming a; Srioutai 2004, 2006; (Jaszczolt 2005; forthcoming a; Srioutai 2004, 2006; Jaszczolt and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); Jaszczolt and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); syntactic constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva and syntactic constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007 and forthcoming). Jaszczolt 2007 and forthcoming).

6161

Languages:Languages:

English, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, GermanEnglish, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, German

6262

Definite NPs in EnglishDefinite NPs in English

(13)(13) The architect of this church was an eccentric.The architect of this church was an eccentric.

(13a)(13a) The architect of Sagrada Família (whoever he The architect of Sagrada Família (whoever he was) was an eccentric.was) was an eccentric.

(13b)(13b) Antoni Gaudí was an eccentric.Antoni Gaudí was an eccentric.

(13c)(13c) Simon Guggenheim was an eccentric.Simon Guggenheim was an eccentric.

6363

Degrees of Intentions (DI) Principle:Degrees of Intentions (DI) Principle: Intentions and intentionality allow for degrees. Intentions and intentionality allow for degrees.

Primary Intention (PI) Principle: Primary Intention (PI) Principle: The primary role of intention in communication is to The primary role of intention in communication is to secure the referent of the speaker’s utterance. secure the referent of the speaker’s utterance.

Jaszczolt (1999: xix)Jaszczolt (1999: xix)

x

[Antoni Gaudí]CD (x) [[x]CD was an eccentric]WS

Fig. 3: Merger representation for the default referential reading of example (13)

x

[Simon Guggenheim]CPIpm (x)

[[x]CPIpm was an eccentric]WS

Fig. 4: Merger representation for the referential mistake reading of example (13)

x y

[Sagrada Família]CD (y) [the architect of y]WS, CPIpm (x)

[[x]CPIpm was an eccentric]WS

Fig. 5: Merger representation for the attributive reading of example (13)

6767

Future-time referenceFuture-time reference

(14)(14) Lidia will play in a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia will play in a concert tomorrow evening.

(15)(15) Lidia will be playing in a concert tomorrowLidia will be playing in a concert tomorrow

evening.evening.

(16)(16) Lidia is going to play in a concert tomorrow Lidia is going to play in a concert tomorrow

evening.evening.

(17)(17) Lidia is playing in a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia is playing in a concert tomorrow evening.

(18)(18) Lidia plays in a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia plays in a concert tomorrow evening.

6868

(19)(19) Lidia must be playing in a concert tomorrow evening. Lidia must be playing in a concert tomorrow evening. (20)(20) Lidia ought to/should be playing in a concert tomorrow Lidia ought to/should be playing in a concert tomorrow

evening.evening.(21)(21) Lidia may play/be playing in a concert tomorrow Lidia may play/be playing in a concert tomorrow

evening.evening.(22)(22) Lidia might play/be playing in a concert tomorrow Lidia might play/be playing in a concert tomorrow

evening.evening.

6969

ACCACCΔΔ ├ Σ ├ Σ

‘‘it is acceptable to the degree Δ that Σ is true’it is acceptable to the degree Δ that Σ is true’

Fig. 6: Σ for ‘Lidia will play in a concert tomorrow evening’ (regular future)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

rf ├ Σ']WS,CD Σ' [x play in a concert]WS

Fig. 7: Σ for ‘Lidia is playing in a concert tomorrow evening’ (futurative progressive)

x t Σ'

[Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

fp ├ Σ']WS, CPIpm Σ' [x play in a concert]WS

Fig. 8: Σ for ‘Lidia may play in a concert tomorrow evening’ (future may, default reading)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

epf may ├ Σ']WS, CD Σ' [x play in a concert]WS

7373

willwill and and cc11aa

(23)(23) Mary Mary willwill be in the opera now. be in the opera now.

(23a)(23a) mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II khkh33ongong cc11aa dd11u:u: 11opop11e:re:r33a:a:II

MaryMary maymay cc11aa seesee operaopera

yy33u:u:II tt11o’:nno’:nn33i:i:IIII

yy33u:u:II nownow

7474

(24)(24) Mary Mary willwill sometimes go to the opera in her tracksuit. sometimes go to the opera in her tracksuit.

(24a)(24a)bb11a:ngkha:ngkh33rr33angangIIII mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II cc11aa pp11ayay11 sometimessometimes MaryMary cc11aa gogo

dd11u:u: 11opop11e:re:r33a:a:II nn33ayay22 chch33udwudw33o’mo’m

see see operaopera inin tracksuittracksuit

7575

(25)(25) kk11rr33emleml33in in cc11a a cc11ap ap ngng33u:u:

GremlinGremlin cc11aa catch snakecatch snake

(25a)(25a) Gremlin will catch a snake (default meaning)Gremlin will catch a snake (default meaning)

(25b)(25b) Gremlin would have caught a snake Gremlin would have caught a snake (contextually (contextually inferred meaning)inferred meaning)

Srioutai (2006: 242-4)Srioutai (2006: 242-4)

x y t n e

[k1r3eml3in]CD (x) [ng3u:]CD (y) ' [x c1ap y]WS

[ACCrf ├ ']WS, CD

Fig. 9: for ‘Gremlin will catch a snake.’ (default reading: CD)

x y '

[k1r3eml3in]CD (x) [ng3u:]CD (y) ' [x c1ap y]WS

[ACCcf c1a ├ ']WS, CPI

Fig. 10: for ‘Gremlin would have caught a snake.’ (non-default reading, CPI)

7878

(1)(1) mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II khkh22ianian nn33iyiy33ai:ai:

MaryMary writewrite novelnovel

x y '

[m3ae:r3i:I]CD (x)

[n3iy3ai:]CD (y) ' [x kh2ian y]WS [ACC

rp ├ ']WS, CPI

Fig. 11: for ‘Mary wrote a novel’ (regular past, CPI)

8080

Present-time reference in EnglishPresent-time reference in English

(26)(26) Lidia is playing in a concert now. Lidia is playing in a concert now. (27)(27) Lidia will be playing in a concert now.Lidia will be playing in a concert now.(28)(28) Lidia must be playing in a concert now. Lidia must be playing in a concert now. (29)(29) Lidia may be playing in a concert now.Lidia may be playing in a concert now.(30)(30) Lidia might be playing in a concert now.Lidia might be playing in a concert now.

(31)(31) Lidia will always play the piano when she is Lidia will always play the piano when she is upset.upset. (dispositional necessity present)(dispositional necessity present)

8181

Past-time reference in EnglishPast-time reference in English

(32)(32) Lidia played in a concert yesterday evening.Lidia played in a concert yesterday evening.(33)(33) Lidia was playing in a concert yesterday evening.Lidia was playing in a concert yesterday evening.(34)(34) Lidia would have been playing in a concert then.Lidia would have been playing in a concert then.(35)(35) Lidia must have been playing in a concert yesterday Lidia must have been playing in a concert yesterday

evening.evening.(36)(36) Lidia may have been playing in a concert yesterday Lidia may have been playing in a concert yesterday

evening.evening.(37)(37) Lidia might have been playing in a concert Lidia might have been playing in a concert

yesterday evening.yesterday evening.

8282

Conclusion:Conclusion:

Merger representation of Default Semantics can Merger representation of Default Semantics can successfully function as a unit of analysis for a successfully function as a unit of analysis for a contrastive study of discourse meaning contrastive study of discourse meaning

= = tertium comparationistertium comparationis for contrastive semantics for contrastive semantics and pragmaticsand pragmatics

8383

Main advantages of merger representations:Main advantages of merger representations:

Accounting for cross-linguistic differences in sources of Accounting for cross-linguistic differences in sources of information (e.g. lexicon vs. pragmatic inference)information (e.g. lexicon vs. pragmatic inference)

Modelling of the main, intended meaning.Modelling of the main, intended meaning.

Psychology of utterance processing: no syntactic Psychology of utterance processing: no syntactic constraint on constraint on ..

Pragmatic compositionality: accounting for the Pragmatic compositionality: accounting for the interaction of meaning coming from different sources.interaction of meaning coming from different sources.

8484

Future prospects:Future prospects:

Algorithm for the compositional interaction of lexicon, Algorithm for the compositional interaction of lexicon, syntax, pragmatics (WS, WK, SD, SC, IS)syntax, pragmatics (WS, WK, SD, SC, IS)

The default/inference boundaryThe default/inference boundary

Application to more types of constructions and to Application to more types of constructions and to languages which substantially rely on pragmatic languages which substantially rely on pragmatic inference.inference.

8585

Thank you!

8686

ReferencesReferences

de Beaugrande, R. 1980. de Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse, and Process: Toward a Text, Discourse, and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of TextsMultidisciplinary Science of Texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Engemann, H. 2008. ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference Engemann, H. 2008. ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference to English, French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of to English, French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.Cambridge.Gentzler, E. 1993. Gentzler, E. 1993. Contemporary Translation TheoriesContemporary Translation Theories. London: . London: Routledge.Routledge.Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical ReviewPhilosophical Review 66. Reprinted in: 66. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of WordsStudies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 213-223.Harvard University Press, 213-223.Grice, H. P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Grice, H. P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Philosophical ReviewReview 78. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. 78. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of Studies in the Way of WordsWords. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 86-116.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 86-116.Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds). Morgan (eds). Syntax and SemanticsSyntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York: Academic . Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Press. Reprinted in: H. P. Grice 1989. Studies in the Way of WordsStudies in the Way of Words. . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22-40.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22-40.

8787

Jackendoff, R. 2002. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, EvolutionGrammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jaszczolt, K. M. 1992. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1992. Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Propositional AttitudesPropositional Attitudes. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford.. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford.Jaszczolt, K. M. 1997. ‘The Default Jaszczolt, K. M. 1997. ‘The Default De ReDe Re Principle for the Principle for the interpretation of belief utterances’. interpretation of belief utterances’. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 28. 315-36.28. 315-36.Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude AscriptionDefaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier . Oxford: Elsevier Science.Science.Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘On translating what is said: Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘On translating what is said: Tertium Tertium comparationiscomparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics’. In: K. M. in contrastive semantics and pragmatics’. In: K. M. Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds). Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds). Meaninig Through Language ContrastMeaninig Through Language Contrast. . Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 441-462.Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 441-462.Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationCompositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press.University Press.Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007. ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007. ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich representations of belief reports’. representations of belief reports’. Journal of PragmaticsJournal of Pragmatics 39. 934-59. 39. 934-59.

8888

Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming a. Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming a. Representing Time: An Essay on Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as ModalityTemporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming b. ‘Default Semantics’. In: Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming b. ‘Default Semantics’. In: B. Heine and B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds). H. Narrog (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis . . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. forthcoming. ‘Communicating about Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. forthcoming. ‘Communicating about the past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. the past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. Mortelmans (eds). Mortelmans (eds). Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and ModalityModality’. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.’. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation TheoryDiscourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Krzeszowski, T. P. 1990. Krzeszowski, T. P. 1990. Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive LinguisticsContrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton.. Berlin: Mouton.Lee, H.-K. 2002. Lee, H.-K. 2002. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives with Reference to English and Koreanwith Reference to English and Korean. PhD dissertation, University . PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.of Cambridge.

8989

Levinson, S. C. 2000.Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational ImplicatureGeneralized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Press.Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. CognitionCognition 69. 337-54. 69. 337-54.Nida, E. A. 1964. Nida, E. A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible TranslatingTranslating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. . Leiden: E. J. Brill. Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about what is what is saidsaid’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Linguistics and Linguistics and PhilosophyPhilosophy 25. 299-345. 25. 299-345.Recanati, F. 2004. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.University Press.Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In: G. Preyer & G. Peter (eds). In: G. Preyer & G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and TruthKnowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-196.196.

9090

Schiffer, S. 1991. ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional Schiffer, S. 1991. ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional semantics?’. In: B. Loewer and G. Rey (eds) semantics?’. In: B. Loewer and G. Rey (eds) Meaning in Mind: Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his CriticsFodor and his Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.181-99.. Oxford: Blackwell.181-99.Schiffer, S. 1994. ‘A paradox of meaning’. Schiffer, S. 1994. ‘A paradox of meaning’. NoûsNoûs 28. 279-324. 28. 279-324.Schiffer, S. 2003. Schiffer, S. 2003. The Things We MeanThe Things We Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Srioutai, J. 2004. ‘The Thai Srioutai, J. 2004. ‘The Thai c1ac1a: A marker of tense or modality?’ In: : A marker of tense or modality?’ In: E. Daskalaki E. Daskalaki et. al.et. al. (eds). (eds). Second CamLing ProceedingsSecond CamLing Proceedings. University . University of Cambridge. 273-80.of Cambridge. 273-80.Srioutai, J. 2006. Srioutai, J. 2006. Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Reference to D1ay1II, Kh3oe:y, K1aml3ang, Y3u:I and C1a.Reference to D1ay1II, Kh3oe:y, K1aml3ang, Y3u:I and C1a. PhD PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.thesis. University of Cambridge.Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. 2007. ‘Composing utterance Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. 2007. ‘Composing utterance meaning: An interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper meaning: An interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper presented at the presented at the 10th International Pragmatics Conference10th International Pragmatics Conference, , Göteborg.Göteborg.Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. forthcoming. ‘More than radical Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. forthcoming. ‘More than radical pragmatics: Primary meaning without syntactic constraint’.pragmatics: Primary meaning without syntactic constraint’.

Documents

ICLC 5, K.U. Leuven, 9 July 2008 Meaning Merger: An Object of Study for Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics? Kasia M. Jaszczolt University of Cambridge,