Riassunto slides PDF

Preview

Summary

ENGLISH FOR TOURISM AND COMMERCESentence = a well-formed string of words which follows grammatical rules. It is a linguistic unit and it is an abstract construct defined by grammar.Study of sentence meaning → belongs to the linguistic study of semantics. It refers to the meaning of a sentence which ...

Description

ENGLISH FOR TOURISM AND COMMERCE Sentence = a well-formed string of words which follows grammatical rules. It is a linguistic unit and it is an abstract construct defined by grammar. Study of sentence meaning → belongs to the linguistic study of semantics. It refers to the meaning of a sentence which is indipendent of its realization in a concrete form (context, gestures are not taken into consideration). Utterance = the use of a piece of language (word, sentence/s). It refers to their use by a specific speaker in a specific occasion. Here context, pronunciation, pauses, gestures are taken into consideration. Es. “A coffee, please” in a bar; “Hello?” on the phone. The study of utterance meaning belongs to pragmatics. It is concerned with the relationship between the speaker and the utterance on the specific occasion of use. Utterance meaning (or speaker meaning) = what the speaker intends to convey. Context: refers to a dynamic setting in which a liguistic unit is systematically used. It is composed of 3 sources: a physical context; a linguistic context (refers to the sorrounding utterances in the same discourse); the general knoledge context (background knowledge, encyclopedic knowledge, real world knowledge context). Common ground = a set of backgorund assumptions shared by sender and addressee. Deixis → it means “to show or point out”. Deixis are some of the linguistic elements which require contextual information for their interpretation. Deictic forms are “here”, “this”, “there”, “her”, pronouns and possesives, demonstratives, adverbs of time and space, motion verbs (to come), first and second person pronouns etc. In order to interpret them it is necessary to know who the speaker is, who the hearers are, the time and the place of the discourse. “I want to go with her” → the deictic reference is resolved if accompanied by selecting gesture indicating the righit person in the context. → so they cannot be fully understood without additional contextual information (deictic information). → deixis is the relationship between the structure of the language and the context in which the language is used. When the pronoun “you” is used as impersonal its you is non-deictic (es. when you travel..

you will..). Anyone, not a right person. Third person pronouns could refer to the discourse and to the linguistic context, and they are considered anaphoric or cataphoric. “This town is famous for its small antique shops” → its is anaphoric (refers back to “town”) and cataphoric (refers forword to “shops”. I and you → refer to the phisical context because theyare speaker and addressee. Come and go → verbs of motions: movement away from/toward the deictic centre. Tense is also deictic. Tense has to be explicated (Explicature) in relation to the time of utterance, which makes it a deictic feature of language. The past tense locates events in relation to the time of utterance, so before the time of utterance. Future tense means after the time of utterance. Time adverbials have the function to help reveal the relation between time and tense. Es. the time adverb “already”, or “then”, “yesterday”, “at present”, “in 2 minutes”. Basic categories of deixis: time, place and person. •

Time or temporal deixis: concerns itself with the various times involved in and referred to in an utterance. “Recently”, “now”, “then”, “soon”

•

Place deixis: most common are “here”, “there” and the demonstratives “this”, “that”.

•

Person deixis: identification of the role of the participants in a speech event. Personal pronouns express number, gender, person. “We”: inclusiveness, in contrast with “they”, a denotation of exclusion. Vocatives Noun Phrases can function as person deictics → “John, if we..” or “Yes, Sir...”.

Other categories of deixis are: social and discourse •

Social deixis: social information encoded with expressions, such as relative social status and familiarity. “Doctor”, “manager”, “uncle”, “mother-in-law”, “Mister”, “Madame”.

•

Discourse deixis: use of expressions in an utterance to refer to parts of the entire discourse that contains that utterance. “This is a great story....” Anaphora: an anaphoric reference refers to something within a text that has been previously identified. “I give you this pen. It is fantastic” → it refers to the pen. Or, “in the last section”, “in the previous chapter”, “as already mentioned”. Cataphora: a cataphoric reference refers to something within a text that has not yet

been identified. Es. “This is how it works: ...” or “He was cold. Mario put his coat” → “he” is unknown until “Mario”. Pragmatics is about the interaction of semantic knowledge with knowledge of the world, taking into account the context of use. That's to say, it is concerned witht he context of use, with choises among semantic possibilities, and investigates the way language users build interpratations. In pragmatics, utterances are interpreted in context. Paul Grice (“Pragmatic theory”) say that communication requires the following collaborations: • •

The sender judges what to write or say to enable the addressee to recognize what he wants to convey. The addressee has to try to guess what the sender intends to convey

There are different ways of communicating the same message. The same tring of words (form) can convey different messages according to the context and the time. Misunderstandings are possible. Explicature: it is a basic interpretation of an utterance, using contextual information and knowledge of the world. Explicatures are based on linguistic and non-linguistic content to disambiguate the intended meaning. “You are welcomed to bring your own alchol provided that you are buying a meal” → a content interpretation of the lexical item “alchol” clarifies that they intended alcoholic beverage and not alcohol to sterilize. Disambiguation: it is the selection of one sense out of various potential senses provided by the linguistic system. Reference resolution: means assigning an appropriate contextual value to the relevant anaphoric expression. es. “John walked into a music room. The piano was made in the 19th century”. → Explicature: there was a piano in the music room. There is an antecedent reference or cross-bridge association between the music room and the piano. Saturation: refers to incomplete logical forms or sentences. It happens for example when there is a comparative form that is not complete: “John works too hard” (For what? It is incomplete)

Free enrichment: the enrichment focuses on a lexical item narrowing its meaning or by specifying it. ➔ Specifying: “there is nothing on tv tonight” → we can specify the word “nothing” with the noun phrase “nothing worth watching” making the original utterance clear. ➔ Narrowing: “everyone wore a new cardigan” → the meaning of “everyone” can be narrowed by making reference to the context es. “everyone at Mary’s party”. Example of truism: “John has a brain” → this is a truism because all humans have a brain, but we can narrow the meaning of the word “brain” by saying “John has a scientific brain”. Example of vagueness: “It is snowing”. This sentence is vague, it isn’t clear. The vagueness can be resolved by specifying the location: “It is snowing in Boston”.

Ad hoc concept construction: narrowing or broadening a concept. “John is depressed” → John could feel a bit low, very low or suicidal. It depends on the context. ➔ Examples of a loose or a broad or weakening sense of words: “The fridge is empty” or “Holland is flat”. Here we have a loose concept of “empty” and “flat”, a weakening of meaning. Also in metaphors such as “John is a bulldozer”→ weakening of the meaning of “bulldozer” → it is an ad hoc adjustment of meaning.

Examples of explicature where the same form (string of words) conveys different messages in 2 different contexts: 1. Context A → Anna send a text message to Bess: “Missed 10 PM bus”.

Bess replies “That was the last bus”. In this context she means the final bus for tonight. 2. Context B → Charley (waiting for a bus) asks to a bus driver: “Some of these buses

go via Portobello. Is this one of them?” Driver replies: “That was the last bus”. In this context the meaning is: the previous bus was one oh those going via Portobello. ➔ The 2 contexts offer a way to explain the meaning beyond the denotative one. ➔ The words “that” and “last” are deictics and they often need a context to be disambiguated.

Examples of implicatures for the 2 contexts: 1. Context A → The implicature process would be considering if Bess’s reply “that was

the last one” was made because she was sorry for Anna who found herself in a bad situation for missing the bus or if Bess meant it as a reprimand to Anna for being late. 2. Context B → The implicature process would be considering if the driver’s reply “that

was the last one” was meant as an apology or if it conveyed annoyance (because Charlie was confused).

General Pragmatic Inferences: can be made when words are part of an ordered semantic scale. A scale of value judgements is: “excellent is more than good and good is more than ok”. Es. A: What was the room like?

B: It was okay A: Not so good, hey?

Speaker A operates an implicature by means of inference derived from the semantic scale “excellent>good>ok”. The unenthusiastic tone of the voice of B confirms the implicature. A property of both implicature and explicature: both are “informed guesses”, so they can be cancelled. Es. B could have explained: “No, you got me wrong, the room was good.” This explanation would cancel the implicature “ok=not so good”, that relies on the semantic scale (excellent>good>ok).

IMPLICATURES: They arise both in speech and in writing. Definition: they are inferences that depend on the existence of norms for the use of language. Everyone engaged in communication knows the communicative norms (speakers, hearers, readers etc.) Paul Grice (philosopher) originated the conversational implicature. He conceptualized meaning and communication in a systematic pragmatic theory → The Gricean Pragmatic Theory. Grice defined the essence of meaning: “Meaning is communication which is planned to be recognized as intended meaning. It is a matter of expressing and recognizing intentions”. Grice describes the basis for the “ideal co-operative communication”: he identifies some of the communicational norms and explains how they are involved in reasoning about utterances that convey more than what is literally encoded (more than what they denote).

The cooperative principle and its component maxims ensure that in a conversational exchange the right amount of information is provided and that the conversation is conducted in a truthful, relevant and clearly expressed manner. Cooperative principle: “make your conversational contribution such as is required by the purpose of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”.

The Theory of conversational implicature ➔ The term implicature is used by Grice to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally says. ➔ The notion of conversational implicature is derived from a general principle of cooperative conversation and a number of maxims which speakers normally obey.

Cooperative principle (by Grice): “make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk in which you are engaged”. ➔ This means that you have to provide the necessary information required for the point in which the conversation takes place and be relevant to the communicative purpose of the conversation. Grice subdivides the cooperative principle into maxims of conversation classified into 4 categories: 1. QUALITY → Try to make your contribution one that is true, do not say what you

believe to be false and don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Be truthful. 2. QUANTITY → Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current

purpose of the conversation. Don’t make your contribution more informative than is required. Give the appropriate amount of information, don’t say less or more than is required. 3. MANNER → Be perspicuous (clear). Avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity.

Be brief and orderly. 4. RELATION → Be relevant to the current goals of the people involved.

Simplified version of Grice’s Theory of conversational implicature: 1. The cooperative principle: be cooperative 2. Respect the maxims of conversation

QUALITY MAXIM: try to be truthful, don’t say what lacks evidence ➔ In everyday conversations, asking for supporting evidence is one of the possibilities we have to apply this maxim. For example, a piece of evidence could be that a few people in the neighbourhood said what you’re saying. Another case is reporting to someone what someone else said (specific person) → you are reporting someone else’s believes. QUANTITY MAXIM: avoid giving too much information ➔ Implicature related to the quantity maxim → A: can anyone use this car park? is for customers of the supermarket.

B: It

Answering “no” would be sufficient and the answer appears to give unnecessary information. By implicature, we think that it is necessary to specify that the carpark is not for other motorists. We can also think that further proof of evidence is necessary to support a negative answer. Also, the answer of B could be a polite answer, preferable than just saying “no”. Indirectness: implicatures in general allow to communicate indirectly, and indirectness can be employed to convey politeness. Example of implicature related to the Maxim of quantity and quality (both): ➔ Situational context: 2 strangers on a train in Japan. Japanese citizen: Are you from America? UK citizen: No The question here is a common conversation opener in Japan. Therefore, “no” in that context in an insufficient answer (no maxim of quantity) even if is a true answer (maxim of quality).

Examples of negative implicatures (maxim of quantity): ➔ We brought a spare mug → negative implicature: we didn’t bring more than one ➔ There was an earth tremor → negative implicature: not as violent as an earthquake Speaker do not always obey the maxims that support the cooperative principle.

Speakers can: • Observe the maxims • Violate the maxims (telling a lie: violation of the maxim of quality) • Opting out • Flout the maxims → to openly disregard them Obeying the maxims: ➔ Example of implicature that arises from observing the quality maxim → John: “Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW in 1989”. This utterance conversationally implicates that the speaker believes his statement and that he has adequate evidence of what he claims. A conversational implicature is a conveyed message that is not part of what is said but can be inferred. It can arise when the speaker observes the maxims. ➔ Example of implicature that arises from observing the quantity maxim → John: “Jim has six credit cards”. This utterance conversationally implicates that the speaker claims that Jim has at least six credit cards. ➔ Example of implicature that arises from observing the manner maxim → John: “Jim went to a McDonald’s and bought two hamburgers”. This utterance conversationally implicates that the speaker claims that Jim first went to a McDonald’s and then bought two hamburgers.

What types of meaning a speaker can convey by opting out of one of the maxims? A speaker can opt out of a maxim for example by not saying anything. Another possibility is using hedges in conversation. ➔ Opting out the quality maxim: “as far as I know” or “I maybe wrong, but…” ➔ Opting out the quantity maxim: “As you probably already know…” or “I probably don’t need to say this, but…” ➔ Opting out the manner maxim by using hedges: “I’m not sure if this is clear, but..” or “I don’t know if this makes sense, but…”

➔ Opting out the relation maxim by using hedges: “By the way…” or “I don’t want to change the subject, but…”

What types of meaning a speaker can convey by flouting one of the maxims? The deliberate flouting of a maxim may result in conveying a conversational implicature, that is adding meaning to the literal meaning of an utterance. ➔ Example → A: I’m out of petrol

B: There is a garage round the corner

In this conversation, according to Grice, B would infringe the maxim “be relevant” if he was only stating the fact that “there is a garage round the corner” as the literal meaning of the utterance suggests. The implicature is that the garage is in the area, it is open and sells petrol. Moreover, A’s remark that he is out of petrol but that he is requesting some help. ➔ The deliberately open infringement of a maxim (flouting) has the purpose of conveying an extra message. Quality → Time is a great doctor. Time is not a doctor; therefore, the statement is openly false, but the speaker could mean people need time to heal their hurt feelings. Metaphors, irony and hyperbole are flouting the quality maxims.

➔ Quantity → War is war. This is a tautology and therefore it is not informative. So, the maxim of quantity is openly flouted. The implicature is that the inevitable consequences of being in a war is that many terrible events occur. ➔ Manner → A: John smiled

B: John did only slightly move his lips!

Here B is overtly flouting the maxim of manner “be brief” or “avoid unnecessary prolixity”. B’s implicature is that A should not use the term “smile” to refer to John’s reaction because what John did is less than a smile. In all cases where the speakers either obey or openly flout the Maxims hey are nonetheless following the cooperative principle of making their contribution relevant, truthful, clear, brief but not too short.

MAXIM OF MANNER: utterances should be clear, orderly, no obscurity and brief ➔ The brevity of the message is an aspect of the maxim of manner and it should be the effect of being clear. Example: 1 “Helen switched the lights off” vs 2 “Helen caused the lights to go off” 1 → it is a case of direct causation, which means that Helen operated the switch. 2 → it is a case of indirect causation, so the lights went off in an unusual way. The effect of giving a longer answer and with a more complex syntactic construction is an indication that the situation is abnormal. In this case the implicature could be that Helen plugged in too many appliances at the same time, and caused a power outage. ➔ Another aspect is that both speech and writing should be orderly. This implies that, for example, the recounts of two events should be presented by the sender in an order that reflects the real sequence of events. This means that it can be done without markers of sequence (first, then, before). Example: “We sold our car and bought a tandem bicycle” This example should be an account of two events that occurred in sequence. However, the conjunction “and” can be interpreted in a different way on the basis of possible implicatures. The possible implicatures are: the car sale happened before buying the tandem (generic interpretation of “and” as “and then”); or: the car sale led to buying a tandem (and=as a consequence). This implicatures can be cancelled in this context: you asked a friend what happened last summer and she answered “We sold our car and bought a tandem bicycle. The two transactions came through on the same day”. In this case, the friend makes clear that both happened simultaneously (at the same time). There are further implicatures based on encyclopaedic knowledge: A → the ownership of a tandem made them realise that they did not need the car. Or B → selling the car could raise the money for buying a tandem. MAXIM OF RELATION: be relevant ➔ Grice suggests that there is a general agreement of cooperation between participants in conversation. This means that each participant in the conversation can expect the other to conform to certain convention in speaking. These conventions have to do with informativeness (quant...