To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Semantics and pragmatics.
Journal articles on the topic 'Semantics and pragmatics'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Semantics and pragmatics.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Lascarides, Alex, and Ann Copestake. "The Pragmatics of Word Meaning." Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5 (June 12, 1995): 204. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v5i0.2707.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, we explore the interaction between lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistic processing is nformationally encapsulated and utilises relatively simple 'taxonomic' lexical semantic knowledge. On this basis, defeasible lexical generalisations deliver defeasible parts of logical form. In contrast, pragmatics is open-ended and involves arbitrary knowledge. Two axioms specify when pragmatic defaults override lexical ones. We demonstrate that modelling this interaction allows us to achieve a more refined interpretation of words in a discourse context than either the lexicon or pragmatics could do on their own.
2
Kecskes, Istvan. "Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics-pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective." Intercultural Pragmatics 16, no. 5 (November 26, 2019): 489–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0026.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe semantic-pragmatic interface debate is about how much actual situational context the linguistic signs need in order for them to be meaningful in the communicative process. There is evidence that interlocutors in intercultural interactions rely more Some of the ideas in the paper are based on chapter six in Kecskes (2019). on the compositional meaning of linguistic signs (semantics) than contextually supported meaning (pragmatics) because actual situational context cannot help pragmatic implication and interpretation the way it does in L1 communication. At the same time in pragmatic theory there seems to be an agreement between the neo-Gricean account and the post-Gricean account on the fact that the process of implicature retrieval is context-dependent. But will this L1-based contextualism work in intercultural interactions? Is pragmatics impoverished if interlocutors can only partly rely on pragmatic enrichment coming from context and the target language? The paper argues that in fact pragmatics is invigorated rather than impoverished in intercultural communication. A new type of synchronic events-based pragmatics is co-constructed by interlocutors. Instead of relying on the existing conventions, norms and frames of the target language interlocutors create their own temporary frames, formulas and norms. There is pragmaticization of semantics which is a synchronic, (usually) one-off phenomenon in which coded meaning, sometimes without any specific pragmatic enrichment coming from the target language, obtains temporary pragmatic status. This pragmatic enrichment happens as a result of interlocutors’ blending their dictionary knowledge of the linguistic code (semantics) with their basic interpersonal communicative skills and sometimes unusual, not necessarily target language-based pragmatic strategies that suit them very well in their attempt to achieve their communicative goals.
3
Legg, Catherine. "A properly pragmatist pragmatics." Pragmatics and Cognition 27, no. 2 (December 31, 2020): 387–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.20005.leg.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Although most contemporary philosophers of language hold that semantics and pragmatics require separate study, there is surprisingly little agreement on where exactly the line should be drawn between these two areas, and why. In this paper I suggest that this lack of clarity is at least partly caused by a certain historical obfuscation of the roots of the founding three-way distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in Charles Peirce’s pragmatist philosophy of language. I then argue for recovering and revisiting these original roots, taking indexicality as a case-study of how certain questions connected with the distinction which are currently considered complex and difficult may be clarified by a ‘properly pragmatist pragmatics’. Such a view, I shall argue, upends a certain priority usually accorded to semantics over pragmatics, teaching that we do not work out what terms mean in some abstract overall sense and then work out to what use they are being put; rather, we must understand to what use terms are being put in order to understand what they mean.
4
Johnson, Cynthia A., and Brian D. Joseph. "Morphology and syntax … and semantics … and pragmatics." Morphology and its interfaces 37, no. 2 (December 31, 2014): 306–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/li.37.2.08joh.
Full textAbstract:
Agreement minimally involves interaction between morphology and syntax, as a target’s features vary according to the morphological form of a controller in a given syntactic context. However, semantics can also play a role, and the term “semantic agreement” has been used to describe various constructions where morphosyntactic feature values of the agreement target do not match the formal features of the controller, reflecting instead meaning-based properties of the noun. In this paper, we deconstruct instances of “semantic agreement,” as there is good evidence to believe that more than just the semantics is involved in the agreement process. In some cases, e.g. Russian hybrid nouns like vrač ‘doctor’, the local context provides the agreement features, giving a type of “pragmatic agreement”. In other cases, socio-cultural information plays a role, showing a broader type of pragmatic agreement. In light of these observations, we offer a deconstruction of semantic agreement phenomena in order to show the complex ways morphology interacts with syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Finally, we argue that the distinction between syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic agreement is paralleled by (and benefits from) earlier discussions of syntactic versus pragmatic control.
5
LASCARIDES, ALEX, and ANN COPESTAKE. "Pragmatics and word meaning." Journal of Linguistics 34, no. 2 (September 1998): 387–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226798007087.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, we explore the interaction between lexical semantics and pragmatics. We argue that linguistic processing is informationally encapsulated and utilizes relatively simple ‘taxonomic’ lexical semantic knowledge. On this basis, defeasible lexical generalisations deliver defeasible parts of logical form. In contrast, pragmatic inference is open-ended and involves arbitrary real-world knowledge. Two axioms specify when pragmatic defaults override lexical ones. We demonstrate that modelling this interaction allows us to achieve a more refined interpretation of words in a discourse context than either the lexicon or pragmatics could do on their own.
6
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. "Semantics versus Pragmatics." Journal of Pragmatics 38, no. 8 (August 2006): 1323–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.10.005.
Full text
7
Zubeldia, Larraitz. "Experimental pragmatics/semantics." Journal of Pragmatics 44, no. 14 (November 2012): 2100–2103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.013.
Full text
8
McNally, Louise. "Semantics and pragmatics." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4, no. 3 (February 4, 2013): 285–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1227.
Full text
9
Miestamo, Matti. "Towards a typology of standard negation." Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23, no. 1 (June 2000): 65–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/033258600750045787.
Full textAbstract:
Standard negation is the basic sentential negation in a language. This article proposes a typology of standard negation that takes into account the whole negative construction and allows explanation of different negation types by different semantico-pragmatic background phenomena. There is semantic and pragmatic asymmetry between affirmation and negation, and this asymmetry is manifested in different ways in the morphosyntax of negative constructions. The primary division in the classification is between symmetric and asymmetric negation. The asymmetric type can be divided into subtypes according to which aspects of the semantico-pragmatic asymmetry are grammaticalized in the negative constructions. Symmetric and asymmetric negative constructions are analogous to the affirmative structure and to the background semantics and pragmatics of negation, respectively.
10
Davis, Steven. "Linguistic semantics, philosophical semantics, and pragmatics." Philosophia 18, no. 4 (December 1988): 357–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02380648.
Full text
11
Voltolini, Alberto. "L'irrimediabile dilemma del traduttore." PARADIGMI, no. 2 (July 2009): 33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/para2009-002004.
Full textAbstract:
- This paper will try to show that there are not only de facto, but also de jure reasons as to why a translation cannot keep all the aspects of the original that it should, intuitively speaking, preserve in order for it to ideally be a good translation. For instance, if you preserve figurativity in translation you can hardly preserve the truthconditional meaning of the original; if you preserve self-reference in translation you can hardly preserve the lexical meaning of the original, and so on. Yet, such an impossibility result is not so negative as it may seem. For it allows translation to work as a test in order to identify, among all phenomena that generically contribute to the signification of a sentence, which are the genuinely semantic ones. Hence, it strengthens Kripke's criterion for telling semantics from pragmatics, which is precisely based on permeability vs. impermeability to translation.Parole chiave: Semantica, Pragmatica, Traduzione, Dilemma, Risultato di impossibilitŕ, Aspetti della significazione.Keywords: Semantics, Pragmatics, Translation, Dilemma, Impossibility result, Aspects of signification.
12
Stalmaszczyk, Piotr. "Pragmatic Semantics." International Review of Pragmatics 4, no. 1 (2012): 111–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187731012x632081.
Full textAbstract:
The division of labour between semantics and pragmatics, and the proper delimitation of the respective disciplines, has been thoroughly discussed within different theoretical approaches. Research conducted in recent years concentrates on the issue of pragmaticising meaning, i.e. shifting the burden of theoretical analysis from semantics to pragmatics.
13
Niu, Min, and Thawascha Dechsubha. "The semiotic dimension of contemporary pragmatics." Technium Social Sciences Journal 27 (January 8, 2022): 802–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v27i1.5651.
Full textAbstract:
Contemporary Pragmatics has the semiotic features from the respects of disciplinary naming, the means of development, and theoretical source to research object and method. It is not only an independent linguistics and language science, but also an interdisciplinary field and paradigm. This paper is to explore the semiotic features and dimensions of Pragmatics for tracing back the origin and the theoretical resources from semiotic perspective, and to define its research scope and clarify the connotation of its conception. As Semiotics has a triad dimension of semiosis, one of which is the “pragmatic dimension”. Therefore, contemporary pragmatics includes at least three semiotic dimensions: scientific semiotics, linguistic semiotics and social semiotics. The semiotic analysis of Pragmatics could be conducive to clarify and fix the semiotic and philosophical origin, definition, disciplinary connotation and meaning of Pragmatics, which is also theoretically helpful for clarifying the concepts for the study of philosophical pragmatism, pragmaticism, semiotics, semantics and syntax.
Key Words: Semiotic, Pragmatics, Pragmaticism
14
Rooij, Robert van. "Formal Pragmatics. Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus." Journal of Pragmatics 37, no. 5 (May 2005): 749–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.009.
Full text
15
Abdullayeva, Dildora Shuhratovna. "LINGUISTIC PRAGMATICS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL IDIOMS." Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal 02, no. 01 (January 1, 2022): 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.37547/social-fsshj-02-01-03.
Full textAbstract:
In this article we will discuss Pragmatical meanings of phraseological units and difference between informema and pragmemas. The main purpose of the article is to define and explain the meaning of this term. The research explored comperative method in both finding theory and suitable examples. The finding of the research shows the impact of pragmatics in real life conversation. While socializing people really need pragmatic meaning for understanding speaker’s attitude, feeling and thoughts. Theoretical contributions and practical are presented by phraseological units, idioms and authentic dialogues, and drew a conclusion, opposite meaning of semantics argued as pragmatics.
16
Nosita, Desi, and Setia Rini. "EFFECT OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION." English Language Teaching Journal 3, no. 1 (March 31, 2023): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.35897/eltj.v3i1.905.
Full textAbstract:
Language learning cannot be separated from philosophy because philosophy is the mother of science. In its development, language learning was influenced by the philosophy that developed at its time, including analytic philosophy. The influence of Analytic Philosophy is felt in language teaching, especially in semantic and pragmatic research. And Russell's theory of Logical Atomism opens new horizons for scientific research, including linguistics. On the other hand, semantics is an image which is then continued by the theory of meaning used by Wittgenstein as an early study of semantics and pragmatics. Furthermore, the analytical philosophy developed by The Oxford School develops a theory of speech acts that naturally influence language learning, learning is a speech act of language learning. Keywords: Philosophy, analytic, English, pragmatics
17
Ihalainen, Pasi. "Between historical semantics and pragmatics." Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7, no. 1 (January 12, 2006): 115–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.7.1.06iha.
Full textAbstract:
This paper discusses the methodology of conceptual history, a branch of the study of the history of political thought which focuses on the changing meanings of political concepts over the course of time. It is suggested here that methodological disputes among historians of political thought frequently arise out of differing theories of language and meaning and that historians should be more open-minded to the idea of combining various research strategies in their work. Conceptual history, for instance, can be viewed as the combination of historical versions of semantics and pragmatics. While the study of the macro-level semantic changes in the language of politics can reveal interesting long-term trends and innovative uses of language, a contextual analysis of speech acts is also needed when the rhetorical aspects of conceptual change are traced. This interaction of semantic and pragmatic analysis in conceptual history is illustrated by examples originating from eighteenth-century political preaching.
18
Джарбо Сaмер Омар. "The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of the Singular Feminine Demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic." East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 4, no. 1 (June 27, 2017): 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2017.4.1.jar.
Full textAbstract:
The aim in this study is to investigate the interface between semantics and pragmatics in relation to the use of the indexical demonstrative ‘haay’ ‘this-S.F.’ in Jordanian Arabic (JA). It is argued here that an analysis of meaning in relation to context-sensitivity inherent in the use of ‘haay’ can give evidence to the view that semantic and pragmatic processes can be distinguished from each other. I have found that the meaning of ‘haay’ consists of three distinct levels: linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic meaning. The denotational and conventional senses of ‘haay’ comprise its linguistic meaning, its semantic meaning is generated when any of the variables in the linguistic meaning is selected in relation to 'narrow context', the pragmatic meaning depends on relating the semantic meaning to an entity in the physical context of interaction. The results of this study support the view that the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be distinctively demarcated.
References
Agha, A. (1996). Schema and superposition in spatial deixis. Anthropological Linguistics,38(4), 643–682.
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal ofPragmatics, 34(4), 361–402.
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124–162.
Bach, K. (1997). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters,Linguistiche Berichte, 8, 33–50.
Bach, K. (2001). You don’t say? Synthese, 128(1), 15–44.
Bach, K. (2012). Context dependence. In: The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy ofLanguage, (pp. 153–184). M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (eds.). New York:Continuum International.
Bartsch, R. (1996). The myth of literal meaning. In: Language Structure and LanguageUse: Proceedings of the International Conference on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics.Munster, 1994, (pp. 3–16). E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds.). Tubingen: Niemeyer:.
Berg, J. (2002). Is semantics still possible? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 349–59.
Braun, D. (2008). Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguisticsand Philosophy, 31(1), 57–99.
Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of SemanticMinimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell
Carston, R. (2008). Linguistic communication and the semantics-pragmatics distinction.Synthese, 165(3), 321–345.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dascal, M. (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science, 11(3), 259–281.
Doerge, C. F. (2010). The collapse of insensitive semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy,33(2), 117–140.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. NewYork: Academic Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3),275–304.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. (1999). Speakers’ intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition, 69(3), 355–359.
Gibbs, R. W. & Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition,62(1), 51–74.
Giora, R., (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded saliencehypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurativelanguage. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929.
Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: different or equal? Journal ofPragmatics, 34(4), 487–506.
Grice, H.P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, 9,P. Cole (ed.). (pp.113–127). New York: Academic Press; reprinted in H.P. Grice (1989).Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hanks, W. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jarbou, S. O. (2012). Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy.Pragmatics, 22(1), 103–118.
Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In: Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry, andH. Wettstein (eds.). (pp. 481–563). New York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: ThomasY. Crowell.
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In: Linguistics,F. Newmeyer (ed.). The Cambridge Survey, Vol. II (pp. 139–163). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, C. J. (1990). Some hypotheses concerning the evolution of polysemous words.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 211–219.
Lepore, E., & Ludwig, K. (2000). The semantics and pragmatics of complexdemonstratives. Mind, 109(434), 199–240.
Levinson, S.C. (1995). Three levels of Meaning. In: Grammar and meaning. Essays inHonour of Sir John Lyons, (pp. 90–115). F.R. Palmer (ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Deixis and pragmatics. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp.97–121), L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manning, P. (2001). On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, 43(1), 54–100.
Nicolle, S. & Clark, B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response toGibbs and Moise. Cognition, 69(3), 337–354.
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4(4), 295–329.
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Blackwell, Oxford.
Recanati, F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal interpretation’. Cognitive Science, 19,207–232.
Recanati, R. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(3), 299–345.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Mmeaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rumelhart, D., E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meaning. In:Metaphor and Thought. (pp. 78-90), A. Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Searle, J. R., (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207–224.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In:Meaning in Anthropology. (pp. 11–56), K. Basso, & H.A. Selby (eds.). Albuquerque:School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson D. (1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,86(1985-6), 153–171.
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In: Semantics for Natural Language. (pp. 380–97), D.Davidson and G. Harman (eds.). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Stokke, A. (2010). Intention-sensitive semantics. Synthese 175, 383–404.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Vicente, B. (2002). What pragmatics can tell us about (literal) meaning: A critical note onKent Bach’s theory of impliciture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 403–421.
19
Danvy, Olivier. "Pragmatics for formal semantics." ACM SIGPLAN Notices 47, no. 3 (April 18, 2012): 93–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2189751.2047878.
Full text
20
Borisov, Evgeny V. "Indexicals, semantics and pragmatics." Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya, sotsiologiya, politologiya, no. 67 (June 1, 2022): 292–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863x/67/26.
Full text
21
Stojanovic, Isidora. "The semantics/pragmatics distinction." Synthese 165, no. 3 (June 5, 2007): 317–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9190-9.
Full text
22
Kalisz, Roman. "A Concept of General Meaning: Selected Theories in Comparison to Selected Semantic and Pragmatic Theories." Research in Language 11, no. 3 (September 30, 2013): 239–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0024-6.
Full textAbstract:
The paper discusses a concept of general meaning with reference to various relevant semantic and pragmatic theories. It includes references to Slavic axiological semantics (e.g. Krzeszowski (1997); Puzynina (1992)), Wierzbicka’s (e.g. 1980, 1987) atomic expressions and classical pragmatics theories, such as speech acts, Gricean theory of conversational implicature, politeness theory and and relevance theory.
23
Erk, Katrin. "The Probabilistic Turn in Semantics and Pragmatics." Annual Review of Linguistics 8, no. 1 (January 14, 2022): 101–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-015515.
Full textAbstract:
This article provides an overview of graded and probabilistic approaches in semantics and pragmatics. These approaches share a common set of core research goals: ( a) a concern with phenomena that are best described as graded, including a vast lexicon of words whose meanings adapt flexibly to the contexts in which they are used, as well as reasoning under uncertainty about interlocutors, their goals, and their strategies; ( b) the need to show that representations are learnable, i.e., that a listener can learn semantic representations and pragmatic reasoning from data; ( c) an emphasis on empirical evaluation against experimental data or corpus data at scale; and ( d) scaling up to the full size of the lexicon. The methods used are sometimes explicitly probabilistic and sometimes not. Previously, there were assumed to be clear boundaries among probabilistic frameworks, classifiers in machine learning, and distributional approaches, but these boundaries have been blurred. Frameworks in semantics and pragmatics use all three of these, sometimes in combination, to address the four core research questions above.
24
Erk, Katrin. "The Probabilistic Turn in Semantics and Pragmatics." Annual Review of Linguistics 8, no. 1 (January 14, 2022): 101–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-015515.
Full textAbstract:
This article provides an overview of graded and probabilistic approaches in semantics and pragmatics. These approaches share a common set of core research goals: ( a) a concern with phenomena that are best described as graded, including a vast lexicon of words whose meanings adapt flexibly to the contexts in which they are used, as well as reasoning under uncertainty about interlocutors, their goals, and their strategies; ( b) the need to show that representations are learnable, i.e., that a listener can learn semantic representations and pragmatic reasoning from data; ( c) an emphasis on empirical evaluation against experimental data or corpus data at scale; and ( d) scaling up to the full size of the lexicon. The methods used are sometimes explicitly probabilistic and sometimes not. Previously, there were assumed to be clear boundaries among probabilistic frameworks, classifiers in machine learning, and distributional approaches, but these boundaries have been blurred. Frameworks in semantics and pragmatics use all three of these, sometimes in combination, to address the four core research questions above.
25
Novozenova, Zoya Leonidovna. "Verbal Sentence: Pragmatics vs. Semantics, Pragmatics vs. Grammar." Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Philology. Journalism 14, no. 1 (2014): 5–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.18500/1817-7115-2014-14-1-5-9.
Full text
26
Huang, Yan. "Unarticulated constituents and neo-Gricean pragmatics." Language and Linguistics / 語言暨語言學 19, no. 1 (January 5, 2018): 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lali.00001.hua.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In recent years, the concept of unarticulated constitutes has generated a fierce debate both in the philosophy of language and in linguistic semantics and pragmatics. By unarticulated constituent is meant a propositional (or conceptual) constituent of a sentence that is communicated by the speaker in uttering that sentence, but is not linguistically represented in that uttered sentence. The main aim of this article is to provide a neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis of unarticulated constituents, showing that the current existing mechanism of neo-Gricean pragmatic theory can handle unarticulated constituents in a straightforward and elegant way. Second, I defend the neo-Gricean position that the pragmatic enrichment of unarticulated constituents is nothing but a neo-Gricean, pre-semantic conversational implicature. And third and finally, I briefly evaluate an alternative, formal syntactico-semantic analysis of unarticulated constituents.
27
Benz, Anton, Katja Jasinskaja, and Uli Sauerland. "Theoretical Pragmatics: An Introduction." International Review of Pragmatics 4, no. 2 (2012): 133–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040202.
Full textAbstract:
The last decade witnessed a surge of new research in pragmatics, fuelled by the emergence of new theoretical frameworks, an increased interest in the semantics-pragmatics interface, and the establishment of experimental pragmatics as a new research paradigm. Many of these developments concern the line of pragmatics which originated with the work of H. Paul Grice. Of new theoretical frameworks, we may mention different variants of optimality and game theoretic approaches, localist semantic theories of embedded implicatures, logical globalist formalisations of Gricean pragmatics, and multi-layered semantics for conventional implicatures. At the same time, research in older frameworks such as Neo-Gricean and Post-Gricean pragmatics continued, and new investigations of speech act and presupposition theory emerged. This development led to a diversification of theoretical approaches, a synthesis of which is desirable but not to be expected in the near future. This issue is intended as a contribution to the enhancement of mutual awareness and the discussion of each other’s results.
28
Haralambous, Yannis, and Philippe Lenca. "Beyond the Semantic Web: Towards an Implicit Pragmatic Web and a Web of Social Representations." Future Internet 15, no. 7 (July 13, 2023): 239. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi15070239.
Full textAbstract:
Motivated by the distinction between semantics and pragmatics as sub-disciplines of linguistics, shortly after Tim Berners-Lee introduced the Semantic Web in 2001, there have been works on its extension to the “pragmatic level”. Twenty years later, the Semantic Web is more popular than ever, while little has been achieved in extending it into a Pragmatic Web. Social representations introduced by Serge Moscovici in the 1960s seem totally ignored by the information technology community even though they are strongly related to research on opinion mining and representation in social media. We, thus, recall the major results of academic research on the Pragmatic Web, followed by our proposal for an Implicit Pragmatic Web inspired by various sub-domains of the discipline of pragmatics. We further recall the basics of the social representations theory and discuss their potential implementations in a Web of Social Representations and thus their potential contribution towards at least a part of the future internet.
29
Berthelin, Signe Rix, and Kaja Borthen. "The semantics and pragmatics of Norwegian sentence-internal jo." Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42, no. 01 (May 2019): 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0332586519000052.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe paper proposes a refined analysis of the semantics and pragmatics of the Norwegian non-truth-conditional adverb jo ‘after all, of course’. According to the literature, jo indicates that the proposition is ‘given’ in some sense or other. Based on new empirical investigations, we argue that the Relevance-theoretic notion mutual manifestness (Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995, Blass 2000) accurately captures the givenness aspect of jo, and we demonstrate through authentic examples what it means for a proposition to be mutually manifest. In addition to mutual manifestness, jo signals that the proposition is a premise for deriving a conclusion. The conclusion often – but not always – opposes someone’s view. We argue that the frequent opposition interpretations are a consequence of the nature of the procedures encoded by jo. In addition to clarifying the semantic and pragmatic properties of jo, the paper sheds light on the Relevance-theoretic notion procedural semantics as well as illustrating its usefulness in the study of pragmatic particles.
30
Fortuny Andreu, Jordi. "Sobre el lligam sintàctic de variables i la relació de c-comandament." Quaderns de Filologia - Estudis Lingüístics 23, no. 23 (December 24, 2018): 227. http://dx.doi.org/10.7203/qf.23.13529.
Full textAbstract:
This article is focused on a central aspect of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: the so-called anaphorical relations. More precisely, it identifies a selection of shortcomings of Chomsky’s (1981) classical binding theory and Huang’s (2007) version of the pragmatic neo-Gricean apparatus, originally proposed by Levinson (1987, 1989). Besides enumerating interesting problems for certain theoretical frameworks, I highlight the need for integrating syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors in order to construct a more adequate theoretical model for anaphora.
31
Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat. "Optimality-theoretic pragmatics." ZAS Papers in Linguistics 51 (January 1, 2009): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.51.2009.372.
Full textAbstract:
The article aims to give an overview about the application of Optimality Theory (OT) to the domain of pragmatics. In the introductory part we discuss different ways to view the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics. Rejecting the doctrine of literal meaning we conform to (i) semantic underdetermination and (ii) contextualism (the idea that the mechanism of pragmatic interpretation is crucial both for determining what the speaker says and what he means). Taking the assumptions (i) and (ii) as essential requisites for a natural theory of pragmatic interpretation, section 2 introduces the three main views conforming to these assumptions: Relevance theory, Levinson’s theory of presumptive meanings, and the Neo-Gricean approach. In section 3 we explain the general paradigm of OT and the idea of bidirectional optimization. We show how the idea of optimal interpretation can be used to restructure the core ideas of these three different approaches. Further, we argue that bidirectional OT has the potential to account both for the synchronic and the diachronic perspective on pragmatic interpretation. Section 4 lists relevant examples of using the framework of bidirectional optimization in the domain of pragmatics. Section 5 provides some general conclusions. Modeling both for the synchronic and the diachronic perspective on pragmatics opens the way for a deeper understanding of the idea of naturalization and (cultural) embodiment in the context of natural language interpretation.
32
Nippold, Marilyn A. "Developmental Markers in Adolescent Language." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 24, no. 1 (January 1993): 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2401.21.
Full textAbstract:
Adolescents with language disorders frequently manifest delays in syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Proper assessment and intervention with these students requires the speech-language pathologist to have adequate knowledge of normal adolescent language development. In this article, selected aspects of normal development during adolescence are discussed in the areas of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Possible clinical implications of the developmental literature also are discussed.
33
Malakhova, V. L. "Principal stages of speech pragmasemantic sense formation and methods of its analysis." Vestnik of Samara University. History, pedagogics, philology 27, no. 4 (December 30, 2021): 114–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.18287/2542-0445-2021-27-4-114-121.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to peculiarities and differences of two linguistic fields semantics and pragmatics. The objective of the work is to state the extent of participation of semantic and pragmatic parameters in the process of sense formation. The relevance of the study is beyond doubt, since the pragmasemantic analysis of discourse functional space helps to identify the potential of linguistic means in the process of forming meanings and their transformation into integral sense under the influence of contextual factors, and to determine optimal ways of expressing communicative intention of the author of the discourse and of providing adequate understanding of the sense by the referent. The author also describes main features, differences and similarities of the concepts text and discourse. The specificity of semantic and pragmatic meanings, their correlation and the degree of participation in formation of discourse functional space are analyzed. On the basis of this, the algorithm for pragmasemantic sense formation is deduced. The author emphasizes that the initial meaning is formed by a semantic meaning, in the process of speech actualizing it is supplemented with a pragmatic meaning, which is further transformed into a pragmatic and semantic and communicative-pragmatic sense. This process is illustrated by fragments from works of fiction by contemporary English-speaking authors. The research uses semantic and pragmatic analysis and discourse analysis as the principal methods. The author describes their features, and proves the viability of their application to the object of the research. The author comes to the conclusion that the pragmasemantic analysis of English discourse makes it possible to understand the mechanisms of formation of meanings and sense of a speech work. The contribution of both semantics and pragmatics to the overall communicative interaction is undeniable, since any communication is necessarily analyzed taking into account semantic and pragmatic aspects.
34
Manor, Ruth. "Pragmatic considerations in semantic analyses." Pragmatics and Cognition 3, no. 2 (January 1, 1995): 225–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.3.2.03man.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I argue against a sharp separation of semantics from pragmatics. While it may be useful to consider semantics independently of pragmatics, in some cases this strategy may lead us astray. First, I make a methodological point. Competing semantic analyses are often presented as supported by competing semantic intuitions of native speakers. Functional considerations are pragmatic considerations which should affect our choice of semantics. These are inferences from the linguistic goals the speakers actually achieve to the meanings their expressions must therefore have. Second, there are linguistic expressions whose semantic (literal) meaning is a function of their pragmatic uses. I consider two examples. First, the logicians' debate over the universal analysis of conditionals in natural language. The participants in the debate all ignore conditional forms other than the assertoric and subjunctive. In particular they ignore the conditional speech-act reading. The meaning of the conditional is related to its function: to restrict the commitment of a given speech-act to special conditions. A functional proof of the existence of such conditionals (even in the assertoric mood) is given, thus showing that the different semantics account only for part of the relevant facts. The second example concerns vague terms. I claim that one of their main uses is to help us identify objects by reference not to their absolute properties but relative to their background. This function cannot be performed by the use of non-vague terms. Vague terms are context dependent and may in some contexts be used non-vaguely and refer to distinct objects in the discourse domain. In a way, what these terms end up denoting is a function of the use of predicates to partition a given domain.
35
Agazzi, Evandro. "Truth between semantics and pragmatics." EPISTEMOLOGIA, no. 1 (September 2015): 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/epis2015-001001.
Full text
36
Polinsky, Maria, Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra Thompson. "Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics." Language 73, no. 4 (December 1997): 901. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/417375.
Full text
37
Majid, Asifa. "Making semantics and pragmatics “sensory”." Journal of Pragmatics 58 (November 2013): 48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.019.
Full text
38
McKie, John R. "Donnellan's distinction: Semantics versus pragmatics." Philosophia 22, no. 1-2 (January 1993): 139–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02379812.
Full text
39
Kellerwessel, Wulf. "Katz on Semantics and Pragmatics." ProtoSociology 11 (1998): 110–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/protosociology19981134.
Full text
40
Natalia Yurevna, Guryeva. "Commercial Correspondence: Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax." Issledovatel'skiy zhurnal russkogo yazyka i literatury 12, no. 2 (September 1, 2018): 111–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/iarll.12.2.111.
Full text
41
Attardo, Salvatore. "Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor." Language and Linguistics Compass 2, no. 6 (November 2008): 1203–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00107.x.
Full text
42
Gillon, Brendan S. "On the semantics/pragmatics distinction." Synthese 165, no. 3 (June 12, 2007): 373–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9186-5.
Full text
43
Hollenbaugh, Ian. "The development of the Imperfect in Ancient Greek from simple past to imperfective as a blocking phenomenon." Journal of Greek Linguistics 21, no. 1 (June 23, 2021): 58–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02101003.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article seeks to combine the viewpoints of formal semantics and pragmatics, typology, historical linguistics, and philology, in order to give a diachronic overview of the semantic and pragmatic changes observable for the Imperfect indicative within the recorded history Greek. Since its development does not adhere to typologically expected stages of semantic change, I provide a pragmatic account by taking into consideration not only the Imperfect but also the rest of the past-tense system of Greek, namely the Aorist and Perfect. With this holistic approach, I am able to motivate a development that is otherwise typologically anomalous.
44
Klinge, Alex. "Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface." Journal of Pragmatics 34, no. 6 (June 2002): 795–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00033-4.
Full text
45
Medvedeva, Aliya A. "BRANDING AS A LINGUOCULTURAL PHENOMENON: A PRAGMATIC AND SEMANTIC ASPECT." Proceedings of Southern Federal University. Philology 25, no. 4 (December 1, 2021): 89–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.18522/1995-0640-2021-4-89-96.
Full textAbstract:
The article touches upon the analysis of the pragmаtic and semantic aspect that is entwined into the phenomenon of branding. The phenomenon of branding reflects a significant cultural layer of the modern consumer society. The essence of the brand is central to understanding the concept of the brand itself. It is a representation of semantic and pragmatic characteristics that merge into a single pragmatic-semantic unit. To reveal the presuppositions inherent in the essence of the brand, it is necessary to be able to “understand” the target audience and recognize an individual as a representative of this target audience with their interests and needs. Understanding the essence of the brand and decoding the presuppositions embedded in it is impossible without correct perception of the pragmatic-semantic aspects of the entire semiotic situation, within which the brand functions as a linguocultural phenomenon. That means that the concept of a brand in the article is considered not only as a marketing concept when promoting commercial products, but is understood more broadly as a linguocultural phenomenon, whose pragmatics is formed by merging key semantic layers – syntactics, semantics, semiotics – into it in the context of the modern linguocultural situation. The semantics of the brand and its decoding through the disclosure of the linguo-semiotic aspects integrated into the brand name during its formation largely depend on the pragmatic potential, which sends the participants of the communication directly to the context of speech use. Thus, we can say that the formation of the brand’s message is based on two aspects engaged in forming the semantic load - linguistic and paralinguistic, implemented through the pragmatics of the brand, whose formation, in turn, takes place at the above mentioned three semantic levels.
46
Leclercq, Benoît. "Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar." Belgian Journal of Linguistics, Volume 34 (2020) 34 (December 31, 2020): 225–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00048.lec.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This squib provides a theoretical discussion on the use of the terms semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. In the literature, the difference between semantics and pragmatics is often conceptualized either in terms of conventionality or in terms of truth-conditionality (Huang 2014, 299). It will be shown that, even though constructionists claim that there is no semantics–pragmatics distinction, both these underlying concepts are central to the study of constructions. Therefore, the aim is twofold. First, in keeping with Cappelle (2017), it will be argued that constructionists should make more explicit the distinction between the two types of (encoded) meaning. Second, it will be shown that constructionists need to be more terminologically consistent and agree on how to use the terms semantics and pragmatics. Following Depraetere (2019), I will argue that the terms semantics and pragmatics are most explanatory when defined in truth-conditional terms. In this way, finer-grained understanding of the meaning of constructions can be achieved.
47
Timofeeva, Mariya K. "Linguistic scales: current state-of-the-art." NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication 17, no. 3 (2019): 5–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2019-17-3-5-17.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this article consists in reviewing the basic areas of studying language scales in pragmatics; several prospects of their investigation are discussed. Presently, language scales are the object of intensive research in semantics and pragmatics, from linguistic, logical, psycholinguistic, and neuro-linguistic perspectives. We are interested mainly in pragmatics (although the area of semantics is also considered) and concentrate on linguistic rather than logical, psycholinguistic, or neuro-linguistic aspects. The article continues the series of publications intending to review and systematize pragmatic investigation in basic topical areas. An interest in studying linguistic scales in pragmatics has increased primarily due to the works of H. P. Grice, L. Horn, G. Gazdar, and S. Levinson. An important class of general pragmatic principles of communication was introduced by H. P. Grice and then was elaborated on greater detail in neo-gricean pragmatics. This class of principles specifies quantity characteristics of communication, and can be defined in terms of scales. Language scales give rise to a special class of implicatures called “scalar implicatures”. In many cases, it is necessary for a speaker to choose some position on a scale. Scalar implicature appears as a result of this choice. Each position potentially generates a certain set of implications. This pragmatic phenomenon is intensively studied in linguistics, logic, and experimental investigations. The literature in the area is ample; the article draws only a general picture of the area. The article proposes: 1) to elicit a system of potential language scales for a concrete language; 2) to consider individual / situational scales; 3) to consider dynamics of scales in speech (in accordance with basic ideas of dynamic semantics). The proposed areas of practical application are the following: stylistic analysis and studying an author’s style, modelling of reasoning and communication (particularly in dialogue systems), constructing formal ontologies of different subject areas.
48
Champollion, Lucas. "Homogeneity in donkey sentences." Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26 (October 15, 2016): 684. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3864.
Full textAbstract:
Donkey sentences have existential and universal readings, but they are not often perceived as ambiguous. I extend the pragmatic theory of homogeneity in plural definites by Križ (2016) to explain how context disambiguates donkey sentences. I propose that a semantic theory produces truth value gaps in certain scenarios, and a pragmatic theory fills these gaps in context-dependent ways. By locating the parallel between donkey pronouns and definite plurals is located in the pragmatics rather than in the semantics, I avoid problems known to arise for some previous accounts according to which donkey pronouns and definite plurals both have plural referents (Krifka 1996; Yoon 1996). I sketch an extension of plural compositional DRT (Brasoveanu 2008) that delivers the required truth value gaps by building on concepts from error-state semantics and supervaluation quantifiers.
49
Sun, Ying. "Artificial Intelligence Method for Accurate Translation of Fuzzy Semantics in English Language and Literature." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 19, no. 1 (September 27, 2023): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijswis.331033.
Full textAbstract:
In order to address the drawbacks of semantic ambiguity, inaccurate quantifiers, and low translation accuracy in traditional grammar-based translation methods, this paper proposes an artificial intelligence translation method based on semantic analysis for English fuzzy semantics. Firstly, a comprehensive analysis of English language semantics was carried out from different semantic levels such as language, knowledge, and pragmatics, and the key points of fuzzy semantics were identified. Then, key feature quantities for accurate translation of fuzzy semantics in English vocabulary and literature were constructed, and artificial intelligence methods were used to optimize fuzzy semantics. The experimental results show that the proposed method can avoid semantic understanding ambiguity and improve the accuracy of English language translation.
50
Peng, Yuhai. "On the Integrated Descriptions of Metaphorical Sememes of Verbs." Russian and Chinese Studies 5, no. 1 (May 11, 2021): 62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.17150/2587-7445.2021.5(1).62-72.
Full textAbstract:
Cognitive metaphor is an important way and mechanism of semantic derivation of verbs, the resulting large number of verbal metaphorical sememes has different expressions in their semantic features, formal syntax, communicative structure and even modality and pragmatics. This paper thoroughly and carefully discusses the problem of semantic change of verbal metaphor in terms of the integrated description method of the Moscow Semantic School. Thus, we will create a unique and innovative framework and theoretical model of generalized formal feature analysis, we will also try to introduce formal semantic description and micro-level semantic interpretation into the analysis system of semantic change of the verbal metaphor. Furthermore, we will describe in detail and characterize a number of changes caused by metaphorical semantic change of Russian verbs from the perspective of multi-dimensional integration. This study breaks down the barriers between semantics, cognition, pragmatics and grammar and the traditional analysis pattern of semantic derivation which contributes to significant broadening of the theoretical semantic vision and deepening of the research of cognitive semantics problems of verbal metaphor. It also helps explore innovative analytical methods and strategies for the study of Russian lexical and syntactic semantics.