Pub Date : 2020-08-19DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01202003
Guojin Hou
No other interdisciplinary issue has inspired a greater debate than the pragmatics-rhetoric border. This paper explores the pragmatics-rhetoric boundary issues and the possibility of marrying pragmatics to rhetoric for pragma-rhetoric. It first addresses the twenty ‘puzzles’ or predicaments the past studies of pragmatics and rhetoric have met with. It is held that similarities between the two disciplines make ‘pragma-rhetoric’ possible and their differences serve as the conditions for their inter-complementarity. Then we discuss some misunderstandings about pragma-rhetoric integration. Due to the alikeness of speech acts, pragmatic acts and rhetoric acts, we forward ‘pragma-rhetorical act’ (PRA) for an umbrella term in the emerging ‘pragma-rhetoric’. Finally we formulate the academic tasks and features of the interdiscipline, with a ‘standard paradigm’ and two ‘sub-paradigms’ of pragma-rhetorical research.
{"title":"Puzzles for pragmatics and rhetoric and advent of pragma-rhetoric","authors":"Guojin Hou","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01202003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 No other interdisciplinary issue has inspired a greater debate than the pragmatics-rhetoric border. This paper explores the pragmatics-rhetoric boundary issues and the possibility of marrying pragmatics to rhetoric for pragma-rhetoric. It first addresses the twenty ‘puzzles’ or predicaments the past studies of pragmatics and rhetoric have met with. It is held that similarities between the two disciplines make ‘pragma-rhetoric’ possible and their differences serve as the conditions for their inter-complementarity. Then we discuss some misunderstandings about pragma-rhetoric integration. Due to the alikeness of speech acts, pragmatic acts and rhetoric acts, we forward ‘pragma-rhetorical act’ (PRA) for an umbrella term in the emerging ‘pragma-rhetoric’. Finally we formulate the academic tasks and features of the interdiscipline, with a ‘standard paradigm’ and two ‘sub-paradigms’ of pragma-rhetorical research.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"246-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01202003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46102679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-19DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01202001
L. D. Saussure, T. Wharton
In this paper, we argue that the successful integration of expressive acts of communication into an inferential theory of pragmatics faces a major challenge. Most post-Gricean pragmatic theories have worked to develop accounts of the interpretive processes at work in the communication of propositions; the challenge, therefore, is how expressive acts be integrated when their content is, as it appears to be, non-propositional. Following previous research (Wharton, 2009), we link the affective effects produced as a result of such acts to descriptive ineffability and procedurality, and argue that they activate experiential heuristics through which they find relevance. Our approach stands at least partially within the development of recent approaches to emotion as evaluative devices (appraisal theory) and we suggest that certain cognitive effects arise in communication thanks to affective effects, which then act as attention attractors and boosters for optimally relevant cognitive effects. We show that, sometimes, affect can win out over the non-affective side of cognition and also that at least some poetic artefacts may activate ‘pure affective effects’, which can be relevant in their own right, i.e. relevant without cognitive effects.
{"title":"Relevance, effects and affect","authors":"L. D. Saussure, T. Wharton","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01202001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper, we argue that the successful integration of expressive acts of communication into an inferential theory of pragmatics faces a major challenge. Most post-Gricean pragmatic theories have worked to develop accounts of the interpretive processes at work in the communication of propositions; the challenge, therefore, is how expressive acts be integrated when their content is, as it appears to be, non-propositional. Following previous research (Wharton, 2009), we link the affective effects produced as a result of such acts to descriptive ineffability and procedurality, and argue that they activate experiential heuristics through which they find relevance. Our approach stands at least partially within the development of recent approaches to emotion as evaluative devices (appraisal theory) and we suggest that certain cognitive effects arise in communication thanks to affective effects, which then act as attention attractors and boosters for optimally relevant cognitive effects. We show that, sometimes, affect can win out over the non-affective side of cognition and also that at least some poetic artefacts may activate ‘pure affective effects’, which can be relevant in their own right, i.e. relevant without cognitive effects.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01202001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42572806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-19DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01202005
Kazuki Hata
This article focuses on the utilisation of but in English at turn-final placement regarding provisions for what follows next, where the token is not a display of a traditional sense of content-level contrasts. The production of final buts in this article is a point of expansion relevance and emergent as a means of intersubjectively creating another opportunity space to deal with the ongoing disaffiliation or lack of resources. My observations particularly unpack the contextual properties of final buts. First, a but-turn is designed not strictly to show a partial agreement and back down from the original statement. It can be more plausibly argued that the but-turn indicates which resource of interaction is (or is not) requested at that specific moment to accomplish the ongoing agenda. Second, a projected action of reworking can be formulated in collaborative completion with a co-participant explicating the account to the but-turn.
{"title":"Expansion-relevant final but for preference organisation","authors":"Kazuki Hata","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01202005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article focuses on the utilisation of but in English at turn-final placement regarding provisions for what follows next, where the token is not a display of a traditional sense of content-level contrasts. The production of final buts in this article is a point of expansion relevance and emergent as a means of intersubjectively creating another opportunity space to deal with the ongoing disaffiliation or lack of resources. My observations particularly unpack the contextual properties of final buts. First, a but-turn is designed not strictly to show a partial agreement and back down from the original statement. It can be more plausibly argued that the but-turn indicates which resource of interaction is (or is not) requested at that specific moment to accomplish the ongoing agenda. Second, a projected action of reworking can be formulated in collaborative completion with a co-participant explicating the account to the but-turn.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"295-321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01202005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48930996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-19DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01202002
P. Duffley, P. Larrivée
The meaning of indefinites of the wh-ever paradigm has been the object of a number of claims regarding its ignorance and indifference readings. These are examined here in the light of a systematic analysis of 2500 occurrences of the wh-ever paradigm in the Brigham-Young-University TV-corpus. Contrary to general assumptions, ignorance and indifference readings are not separate, as they are found jointly in 27 % of occurrences. Each reading is sensitive to contextual cues: ignorance associates with animacy, and is compatible with plural nouns; indifference associates with independent use, subtrigging by modals and singular nouns. Finally, scalarity is not a dominant dimension of the wh-items’ interpretation, being associated with subtrigging by modal expressions and focus stress, and requiring an indifference reading. These items are defined as evoking an unidentified referent requiring identification belonging to an open-ended series of possibilities.
{"title":"Whatever floats your boat","authors":"P. Duffley, P. Larrivée","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01202002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The meaning of indefinites of the wh-ever paradigm has been the object of a number of claims regarding its ignorance and indifference readings. These are examined here in the light of a systematic analysis of 2500 occurrences of the wh-ever paradigm in the Brigham-Young-University TV-corpus. Contrary to general assumptions, ignorance and indifference readings are not separate, as they are found jointly in 27 % of occurrences. Each reading is sensitive to contextual cues: ignorance associates with animacy, and is compatible with plural nouns; indifference associates with independent use, subtrigging by modals and singular nouns. Finally, scalarity is not a dominant dimension of the wh-items’ interpretation, being associated with subtrigging by modal expressions and focus stress, and requiring an indifference reading. These items are defined as evoking an unidentified referent requiring identification belonging to an open-ended series of possibilities.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01202002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41937012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-15DOI: 10.1163/18773109-00802006
Angelo Turri, John Turri
A standard view in social science and philosophy is that a lie is a dishonest assertion: to lie is to assert something that you think is false in order to deceive your audience. We report four behavioral experiments designed to evaluate some aspects of this view. Participants read short scenarios and judged several features of interest, including whether an agent lied. We found evidence that ordinary lie attributions can be influenced by aspects of audience uptake, are based on judging that the agent made an assertion (assertion attributions), and, at least in some contexts, are not based on attributions of deceptive intent. The finding on assertion attributions is predicted by the standard view, but the finding on intent attributions is not. These results help to further clarify the ordinary concept of lying and shed light on the psychological processes involved in ordinary lie attributions and related judgments.
{"title":"Lying, Uptake, Assertion, and Intent","authors":"Angelo Turri, John Turri","doi":"10.1163/18773109-00802006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00802006","url":null,"abstract":"A standard view in social science and philosophy is that a lie is a dishonest assertion: to lie is to assert something that you think is false in order to deceive your audience. We report four behavioral experiments designed to evaluate some aspects of this view. Participants read short scenarios and judged several features of interest, including whether an agent lied. We found evidence that ordinary lie attributions can be influenced by aspects of audience uptake, are based on judging that the agent made an assertion (assertion attributions), and, at least in some contexts, are not based on attributions of deceptive intent. The finding on assertion attributions is predicted by the standard view, but the finding on intent attributions is not. These results help to further clarify the ordinary concept of lying and shed light on the psychological processes involved in ordinary lie attributions and related judgments.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"8 1","pages":"314-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00802006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44854308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-13DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201104
Grace Zhang
Existing studies focus on the effectiveness of vague language (VL). This study offers a balanced account by highlighting the ineffectiveness of VL. Drawn from institutional data involving the interactions between Australian custom officers and passengers, this study finds that while VL was effective in most cases, it was challenged in 8 % of cases. The data reveals a correlation: the more severe a situation is, the more VL is challenged. Officers performed the most VL challenging when carrying out their institutional duties, and passengers challenged VL to clarify information. Half of the responses to the VL challenge produced the required precise information. Non-compliance occurred because of either no information being available (mostly by officers, non-purposive vagueness) or withholding information (mostly by passengers, purposive vagueness). VL serves both cooperative and competitive purposes depending on the needs of the speaker. It is a double-edged sword and can both facilitate and hinder the proper use of language. The implication is that the acceptance of VL is not universal, and it requires contextual suitability to avoid communication breakdowns.
{"title":"Vague language challenged","authors":"Grace Zhang","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01201104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01201104","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Existing studies focus on the effectiveness of vague language (VL). This study offers a balanced account by highlighting the ineffectiveness of VL. Drawn from institutional data involving the interactions between Australian custom officers and passengers, this study finds that while VL was effective in most cases, it was challenged in 8 % of cases. The data reveals a correlation: the more severe a situation is, the more VL is challenged. Officers performed the most VL challenging when carrying out their institutional duties, and passengers challenged VL to clarify information. Half of the responses to the VL challenge produced the required precise information. Non-compliance occurred because of either no information being available (mostly by officers, non-purposive vagueness) or withholding information (mostly by passengers, purposive vagueness). VL serves both cooperative and competitive purposes depending on the needs of the speaker. It is a double-edged sword and can both facilitate and hinder the proper use of language. The implication is that the acceptance of VL is not universal, and it requires contextual suitability to avoid communication breakdowns.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"107-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01201104","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44952064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-13DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201102
Gholamreza Kassaei, M. Amouzadeh
This paper sets out to investigate the ways in which some of the Discourse Markers (DM s) in Persian are used by looking at a corpus of 475 million words. By adopting Fraser’s notion of DM (2009), it will analyse all possible combinations of thirty DMs categorized into three groups: contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. This categorization will be based on the types of semantic relationship they signal between the propositions of the discourse segments preceding and following them. Their deployment in the attested data demonstrates that the ordering of these DM s is by no means arbitrary. The result of our investigation also reveals that Persian contrastive DM s show a strong tendency to combine with the members of their own category, while elaborative DM s tend to combine with inferential DM s. Inferential DM s, too, have a tendency for intra-category combinations; however, such combinations are much less frequent than those of contrastive DM s. Contrastive DM s have the lowest predisposition for combining with inferential DM s. In short, by exploring the frequency of all sequences of DM s under investigation, a hierarchy of DM combinations in Persian will be proposed, which can be argued to predict certain possible configurations of DM sequences in Persian, and such empirical findings will build up some basis for future typological research as well as for the theorization of DM sequences in general.
{"title":"The combination of Discourse Markers in Persian","authors":"Gholamreza Kassaei, M. Amouzadeh","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01201102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01201102","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper sets out to investigate the ways in which some of the Discourse Markers (DM s) in Persian are used by looking at a corpus of 475 million words. By adopting Fraser’s notion of DM (2009), it will analyse all possible combinations of thirty DMs categorized into three groups: contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. This categorization will be based on the types of semantic relationship they signal between the propositions of the discourse segments preceding and following them. Their deployment in the attested data demonstrates that the ordering of these DM s is by no means arbitrary. The result of our investigation also reveals that Persian contrastive DM s show a strong tendency to combine with the members of their own category, while elaborative DM s tend to combine with inferential DM s. Inferential DM s, too, have a tendency for intra-category combinations; however, such combinations are much less frequent than those of contrastive DM s. Contrastive DM s have the lowest predisposition for combining with inferential DM s. In short, by exploring the frequency of all sequences of DM s under investigation, a hierarchy of DM combinations in Persian will be proposed, which can be argued to predict certain possible configurations of DM sequences in Persian, and such empirical findings will build up some basis for future typological research as well as for the theorization of DM sequences in general.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"135-163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01201102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45256768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-13DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201105
J. Rett
The goal of this paper is to help develop a general picture of conversational implicature (Grice, 1975) by looking beyond scalar implicature to see how the phenomenon behaves in a general sense. I focus on non-scalar Quantity implicatures and Manner implicatures. I review canonical examples of Manner implicature, as well as a more recent, productive one involving gradable adjective antonym pairs (Rett, 2015). Based on these data, I argue that Manner implicatures—and conversational implicatures generally—are distinguishable primarily by their calculability; their reinforceability; their discourse sensitivity (to the Question Under Discussion; Roberts, 1990; van Kuppevelt, 1995; Simons et al., 2011); and their embeddability (under negation, propositional attitude verbs, quantifiers, etc.). I use these data to draw conclusions about the usefulness of implicature-specific operators and about ways to compositionally represent conversational implicatures.
{"title":"Manner implicatures and how to spot them","authors":"J. Rett","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01201105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01201105","url":null,"abstract":"The goal of this paper is to help develop a general picture of conversational implicature (Grice, 1975) by looking beyond scalar implicature to see how the phenomenon behaves in a general sense. I focus on non-scalar Quantity implicatures and Manner implicatures. I review canonical examples of Manner implicature, as well as a more recent, productive one involving gradable adjective antonym pairs (Rett, 2015). Based on these data, I argue that Manner implicatures—and conversational implicatures generally—are distinguishable primarily by their calculability; their reinforceability; their discourse sensitivity (to the Question Under Discussion; Roberts, 1990; van Kuppevelt, 1995; Simons et al., 2011); and their embeddability (under negation, propositional attitude verbs, quantifiers, etc.). I use these data to draw conclusions about the usefulness of implicature-specific operators and about ways to compositionally represent conversational implicatures.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"44-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01201105","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46225839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-13DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201101
I. Lehman, Ł. Sułkowski, Piotr Cap
This short paper makes a tentative attempt to capture the most salient of persuasion strategies engaged in the construction of leadership in three different yet apparently interrelated domains of public life and public policy, political communication, management/business discourse, and academic communication. It explores the cognitive underpinnings, as well as linguistic realizations, of such concepts/phenomena/mechanisms as consistency-building, source-tagging, forced conceptualizations by metaphor, and discursive neutralization of the cheater detection module in the discourse addressee. A preliminary conclusion from the analysis of these mechanisms is that the three discourses under investigation reveal striking conceptual similarities with regard to the main strategies of credibility-building and enactment of leadership. At the same time, they reveal differences at the linguistic level, i.e. regarding the types of lexical choices applied to realize a given strategy.
{"title":"Leadership, credibility and persuasion","authors":"I. Lehman, Ł. Sułkowski, Piotr Cap","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01201101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01201101","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This short paper makes a tentative attempt to capture the most salient of persuasion strategies engaged in the construction of leadership in three different yet apparently interrelated domains of public life and public policy, political communication, management/business discourse, and academic communication. It explores the cognitive underpinnings, as well as linguistic realizations, of such concepts/phenomena/mechanisms as consistency-building, source-tagging, forced conceptualizations by metaphor, and discursive neutralization of the cheater detection module in the discourse addressee. A preliminary conclusion from the analysis of these mechanisms is that the three discourses under investigation reveal striking conceptual similarities with regard to the main strategies of credibility-building and enactment of leadership. At the same time, they reveal differences at the linguistic level, i.e. regarding the types of lexical choices applied to realize a given strategy.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"165-181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01201101","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46384044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-13DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201103
M. Terkourafi, Benjamin Weissman, Joseph Roy
Research on the effect of face-orientation on scalar implicatures has claimed that face-threatening contexts are one type of context in which scalar implicatures are not warranted. However, that research has been based on the two staples of scalar implicature research, some and or. Given research on scalar diversity has shown that these terms are rather exceptional in inducing high rates of scalar implicatures, we believe it is time for a reassessment. We explored the relationship between scalar implicatures and face concerns by means of an experiment involving eight types of scalar terms in face-boosting and face-threatening contexts. While our results showed that some and or reliably tended to induce scalar implicatures in both types of contexts, confirming the findings of scalar diversity research in this respect, we failed to replicate previous findings that face-threatening contexts do not induce scalar implicatures. We discuss reasons for these findings and how face concerns should be implemented for future experimentation in this vein.
{"title":"Different scalar terms are affected by face differently","authors":"M. Terkourafi, Benjamin Weissman, Joseph Roy","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01201103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01201103","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Research on the effect of face-orientation on scalar implicatures has claimed that face-threatening contexts are one type of context in which scalar implicatures are not warranted. However, that research has been based on the two staples of scalar implicature research, some and or. Given research on scalar diversity has shown that these terms are rather exceptional in inducing high rates of scalar implicatures, we believe it is time for a reassessment. We explored the relationship between scalar implicatures and face concerns by means of an experiment involving eight types of scalar terms in face-boosting and face-threatening contexts. While our results showed that some and or reliably tended to induce scalar implicatures in both types of contexts, confirming the findings of scalar diversity research in this respect, we failed to replicate previous findings that face-threatening contexts do not induce scalar implicatures. We discuss reasons for these findings and how face concerns should be implemented for future experimentation in this vein.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01201103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43185863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：