Meaning of words – meaning of speech acts

Approaches to meaning

• Meaning as – Reference – Logical form – Context and use – Conceptual structure – Culture » from Forrester 1996, 42 • NB: No either … or … issue, rather depending on research interest and / or context of application

Reference

• In Fregean terms: – Sense : meaning – Reference : truth-value • Less restrictive: – Words refer to entities and relationships within a world • One-to-one or via a conceptual structure • Entities and relationships: – Persons/objects, events, space, time, modality

Logical form

• Meaning : truth-conditions (of a sentence) • In everyday terms: we know the meaning of a sentence if we know under which circumstances what is said literally (its proposition) is true – (1) The arrow hits the target.

– (1) is true if, and only if •  x  y ((arrow(x)  target(y))  hit (x,y)) • Relates to Philosophy of Language as well as Artificial Intelligence applications

Context and use

• Meaning and use are inseparable • Utterances provoke “activation” of presuppositions • Presuppositions: –

Semantic

: invoked by lexemes and syntactic structure, e.g. (1) presupposes that there is an arrow, a target and a hitting-relation between both –

Pragmatic

: (2) The baby cried. The mother picked it up.

– (2) presupposes, e.g. that the baby stopped crying, it lay in a cot, a pram, … but not on the kitchen table …

Conceptual structure

• Pre- / non-linguistic mental models of the world and elements of it – E.g. spatial relations, school: building, school: institution • Explains why we can refer to abstract entities – vs. prototype semantics – Is there prototypical love? Or more pragmatically: there are good fish and bad fish

Culture

• Acquisition of cultural practices and language acquisition are closely related, parallel processes • Rationale: Culture shapes the way we think; the way we think shapes the way we speak (what we have to and are able to express in words) • But beware of the Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax (Pullum, 1991)

The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax • “It is quite obvious that in the culture of the Eskimos … snow is of great enough importance to split up the conceptual sphere that corresponds to one word and one thought in English into several distinct classes …” • “It is quite obvious that in the culture of the printers … fonts are of great enough importance to split up the conceptual sphere that corresponds to one word and one thought among non-printers into several distinct classes …” Pullum 1991

perception

Extra-linguistic event

From Semantics to Pragmatics

• What do sentences mean in the context of actual conversation?

• How do participants in interactions convey this meaning to other participants?

• What are the organising principles of conversation / verbal interaction? • What else is conveyed in interaction settings?

• These topics rest on the intersection between semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, sociology, and possibly psychology and psycholinguistics.

Grice’s maxims of conversation Levinson 1983, 101/2

Conversational Implicatures

• A: Have you seen Rebecca?

• B: There’s a pink mustang at the back of Paul’s flat.

Forrester 1996, 52 • B’s utterance forces A to draw certain inferences assuming that B is not violating the cooperative principle.

• Levinson 1983, 103: “people will interpret what we say as conforming to the maxims on at least some level” and • the maxims of conversation “describe rational means for conducting co operative exchanges.”

More on implicatures • Generalised implicatures – I walked into a house. Implicates: – The house was not my house.

• Particularised implicatures – The dog looks very happy. Implicates: – Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef. Only e.g. in the following context: – A: What on earth happened to the roast beef?

– B: The dog is looking very happy.

• Conventional implicatures – Do not affect truth conditions of a sentence – Cannot be detached from the word / sentence • E.g. German du/Sie distinction • ?Du bist der Professor. Vs. Sie sind der Professor.

Flouting maxims

• A: Teheran’s in Turkey, isn’t it, teacher?

• B: And London’s in Armenia, I suppose.

– Quality • War is war.

– Quality (Tautology).

• Johnny: Hey Sally, let’s play marbles.

• Mother: How is your homework getting along Johnny?

– Relevance • Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from

Rigoletto

.

– Manner (and others) • Special case: Metaphors, particularised, yet quite context independent – England is as sinking ship.

Computing implicatures

Levinson 1983, 113/4

Speech to interaction: Speech acts (Austin /Searle)

• Locutionary act -

what is said

• Illocutionary act -

speech act

• Perlocutionary act -

effect of speech act

• Felicity Conditions (for promises): – Preparatory conditions • Hearer would prefer S doing the act • It is not obvious that S would do the act anyway – Sincerity condition • Speaker intends to do the act – Essential condition • Speaker intends that the utterance will place him/her under an obligation to do a future act

Types of Speech Acts • • • • • Representatives – Commit speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition • asserting • Concluding Directives – Attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something • requesting • Questioning Commissives – Commit speaker to some future course of action • promising • • Threatening Offering Expressives – Express a psychological state • thanking • • • apologising welcoming Congratulating Declaratives – Effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs, usually involving elaborate extra linguistic institutions • excommunicating • declaring war • • christening firing from employment

Speaker’s intentions and hearer’s perceptions 1. Mother: Where are your boots?

2. Son: In the closet 3. Mother: I want you to put them on right now!

(1) Intended as an order, interpreted as a question. Or response (2) is joke?

(2) Interpreted as a refusal to obey her order. Or indicate that joking is not appropriate Maybe all of these are present? Context is critical.

Speech acts to Joint actions

• A

joint project

others.

is a

joint action

projected by one of its participants and taken up by the (Clark 1996, 191) • Principle of joint construal: For each signal the speaker and the addressee try to create a joint construal of what the speaker is to be taken to mean by it. (Clark 1996, 212)

•

Common Ground (shared bases):

– “

p

is common ground for members of community C if and only if: – 1. every member of C

has information that

basis

b

holds; – 2.

b

indicates to every member of C that every member of C

has

information that b holds; – 3.

b

indicates to members of C that

p

.” (Clark 1996, 94) •

Common Ground (mutual beliefs):

– “1. A and B each

believe that

situation

s

holds – 2.

s

indicates to A and to B that A and B each holds believe that s – 3.

s

indicates to A and to B that there is (object o) between them” (Clark 1996, 97)

1 cop overholt (1.0) isr with with with thread?

cop don’t mind- er no. Just an overholt 5 i just want to lift at this stage, you know?

isr m=hm.

(3.0) cop could you set one?

ast what do you want now?

an overholt?

10 cop yes- size eight; ast you better first take a small one, don’t you?

isr now, come on cop hm- i hardly get (.)out of here; you know, ast hm=hm.

15 cop could you (.) perhaps= isr =and that one’s a little bit too big, eh?

cop (works out) [alright that way.] ast [alright that way.] (-) I’ll close it then, okay?= 20 cop =ye=ah.

jAct: abdominal tumor resection

jAct(jA 1 - jA n )

jA n+x

: providing instrument jP1: proposal jP1: compliance  jP1’: alteration jP1’: compliance  jP1’: alteration jP2: proposal jP2: confirmation

jA n+y

: closure of a renal vessel jP1: proposal/request jP1: declination  jP1’: alteration/proposal jP1’: confirmation jP2: proposal jP3: proposal/break jP3: alteration (jP2: declination/break) jP3: confirmation jP1(re-start): proposal/request jP2’(re-start)/jP4: alteration/proposal jP4: compliance/alteration jP4: compliance jP1(re-start): confirmation jP4 (?) /1(re-start): confirmation

Adjacency Pairs • Adjacency Pairs (Levinson 1983, 303) – are sequences of two utterances that are: • adjacent • produced by different speakers • ordered as a

first part

and a produce a second part] (PG)

second part

• typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (...) • [production of a first part requires closing a TCU and a next speaker to • Clark 1996, 201: – „1.Adjacency pairs consist of two ordered actions – a first part and a – second part.

– 2. The two parts are performed by different agents A and B.

3. The form and content of the second part is intended, among other things, to display B’s construal of the first part for A.

– 4. The first part projects uptake of a joint task by the second part.“

Adjacency pairs

Conversation Analysis – Basic Terms

• Turn • Turn-taking • Turn constructional unit (TCU) • Transition relevance place (TRP) – intonation rising or falling – drawl on final syllable – stereotyped sequences – drop in pitch or loudness – completion of syntactic clause – termination of gestural movement – tags such as “you know” – hold the floor with “attempt suppression signal” • (following Duncan, 1972)

CA – Basic Terms

• Rules for transition – current speaker can select next speaker – non-selection allows for self-selection – the current speaker can continue, but is not obliged to • Projectability • Insertion Sequences • Conditional Relevance

Conversational Organisation

• Preference Organisation – Preferred vs. Dispreferred (marked vs. unmarked) – Repairs • Sequential Organisation – (pre-)sequences – openings / closings • Topical Organisation

Accountability for non-response

Preference organisation

Closing sequence

New topic introduction

Social meaning of verbal actions

• Deixis: sets what is said into a relation to the speaker’s position • Person deixis – Who am I?

• Spatial deixis – Where is here?

• Temporal deixis – When is now?

• Discourse deixis – Where are we in a narrative universe?

Social deixis

• What we say and how we say it conveys our relationship to other participants in an interaction.

• Examples: – Politeness phenomena / social honorifics – Code-switching / register change

Politeness phenomena

• Accounting for status (often combined with age) differences – Du/Sie distinction (also e.g. in French and Dutch; but Danish: ‘Sie’ equivalent almost only used to address the Queen) – Honorifics such as: Ma’am, Your Honour, Your Excellency, Father, … – Some languages, e.g. Japanese require some kind of addressee honorifics in almost any utterance – Producing more elaborate utterances, e.g. in requests • ‘face’ maintaining acts – E.g. hedging (similar to requests) • Can be more or less formulaic

Code-switching / register change

• Using a language variety according to social setting, e.g. informal v. business or friends v. government officials • Switching between different languages according to addressee and / or situation – Kenyan example: Luyia when chatting with bus driver, Swahili when negotiating fare, English when requesting change to be given – Professional contexts

Examples: professional contexts • PIC: kannst du den

glide path angle

mal

select

e?

• F/O: set speed brake one eight zero (.)

tschuldigung

. one nIne zero.

• PIC: one niner zero.

• F/O: guet. wir ham bereits

final configuration

.

landing check three greens

.

• PIC: jawohl ah- (.)

landing- (---) all green

. ja.