Typology of pragmatic implications from the point of view of interaction between pragmatics and semantics

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The subject matter of the study is communicative implications as one of the forms of implementation of speech acts. The starting point is the well-known theory of H. P. Grice, in which pragmatic implications are based on the principle of cooperation. The author shows the limitations of Grice’s theory, which presents the communicative conditions of implications, but does not present the communicative consequences. As an alternative, the author proposes the concept of pragmatic implications, taking into account the premises and consequences of indirect speech acts. Considering implication as a two-place relation between antecedent and consequent, the author identifies three types of implications that differ in the type of information in the antecedent and consequent parts: 1) semantic antecedent > pragmatic consequent; 2) pragmatic antecedent > pragmatic consequent; 3) pragmatic antecedent > semantic consequent. This approach makes it possible to present indirect communication to the fullest extent, and also to explain many communicative phenomena in terms of the interaction between semantics and pragmatics. Implications are interpreted as the result of mental processing of conditionally categorical syllogisms, in which the first premise is an element of the cultural worldview. Thus, the author shows the relative nature of the opposition of conventional and communicative implications. The article uses the material of the modern Russian language, borrowed from various sources: journalism, fiction, the Internet, urban folklore and colloquial speech. The leading research method was pragmatic, namely, illocutionary, analysis with elements of discourse content analysis.

Full Text

    

×

About the authors

Aleksander Kiklewicz

Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie; University of Natural Sciences and Humanities

Author for correspondence.
Email: akiklewicz@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6140-6368
SPIN-code: 4612-0003
Scopus Author ID: 52663762100
ResearcherId: S-6114-2017
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Kiklewicz

Professor, Doctor habil., works at the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and at the Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Poland. He is the author of over 400 scholarly publications in the field of theory and philosophy of language, semantics, functional syntax, pragmalinguistics, psycholinguistics, communicative and comparative linguistics. Prof. Kiklewicz is Director of the Center for Eastern European Studies, editor-in-chief of the journal “Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski”, member of Polish Linguistic Society, the Committee of Humanities of the Polish Academy of Sciences; the Olsztyn Science Forum, Societas Humboldtiana Polonorum

Poland, ul. Kurta Obitza 1, 10-725 Olsztyn, Poland

References

  1. Antoshina, Diana V. 2018. Using the concept of implication to denote logical-semantic relations in semantics and pragmatics. Vestnik VGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul'turna-ya kommunikatsiya 1. 83–90. (In Russ.)
  2. Benz, Anton, Katja Jasinskaja & Fabienne Salfner. 2013. Implicature and discourse structure: An introduction. Lingua 132. 1–12.
  3. Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann. 1995. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Moscow: Medium. (In Russ.)
  4. Carretero, Marta & Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla. 2015. Evidentiality as conversa-tional implicature: Implications for corpus annotation. Procedia – Social and Behav-ioural Sciences 212 (2). 146–150.
  5. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterance. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communica-tion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  6. Coste, Daniel et al. 2003. Europeiski System Opisu Kształcenia Yęzykowego: Uczenie Się, Nauczanie, Ocenianie. Warszawa: CODN.
  7. Davidson, Donald. 1990. What metaphors mean. In Nina D. Arutyunova & Marina A. Zhurinskaya (eds.), Teoriya Metafory, 173–193. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)
  8. Davis, Wayne A. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Dębowski, Józef. 2010. Prawda i Warunki Jej Możliwości. Olsztyn: Instytut Filozofii.
  10. Dement'yev, Vadim V. 2006. Indirect Communication. Moskva: Gnozis. (In Russ.)
  11. Demina, Larisa A. 2009. Modeling communicative dialogue and revising the paradigm of meaning in the theory of speech acts. RATSIO.ru 1. 103–116. (In Russ.)
  12. Fix, Ulla. 2001. Die Ästhetisierung des Alltags – am Beispiel seiner Texte. Zeitschrift für Germanistik. Neue Folge XI. 36–53.
  13. Fleischer, Michael. 1991. Die Semiotik des Spruches. Kulturelle Dimensionen Moderner Sprüche (An Deutschem und Polnischem Material). Bochum: Brockmeyer
  14. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
  15. George, Elizabeth Jasmi & Radhika Mamidi. 2020. Conversational implicatures in Eng-lish dialogue: Annotated dataset. Procedia Computer Science 171. 2316–2323.
  16. Godon, David & George Lakoff. 1985. Conversational Postulates. In Elena V. Paduche-va (ed.), New in Foreign Linguistics, XVI: Linguistic Pragmatics, 276–302. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)
  17. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & John L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics III, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
  18. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1985. Logic and conversation. In Elena V. Paducheva (ed.), New in Foreign Linguistics. XVI: Linguistic Pragmatics, 217–237. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)
  19. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1993. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge etc.: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
  20. Holgraves, Thomas & Brian Kraus. 2018. Processing scalar implicatures in conversa-tional contexts: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 46. 93–108.
  21. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.
  22. Kiklewicz, Aleksander. 1999. Lectures in Functional Linguistics. Minsk: Izdatel'stvo BGU. (In Russ.)
  23. Kiklewicz, Aleksander. 2020. Fenomeny Komunikacii (Normy i Dewiacje w Zachowani-ach Językowych). Olsztyn: CBEW.
  24. Kiklewicz, Aleksander. 2020. The aesthetic aspect of the influence of the media (on the example of journalism and the Internet). Filologicheskie Nauki 6. 16–24. (In Russ.)
  25. Kiklewicz, Aleksander. 2011. Reguły konwersacii Grice’a: Semantyka czy pragmatyka? Linguistica Copernicana 2. 25–38.
  26. Kurcz, Ida. 2000. Psychologia Języka i Komunikacji. Warszawa: PWN.
  27. Laguta, Olga N. 2003. Metaphorology: Theoretical Aspects. Part 1. Novosibirsk: Novosi-birskiy gos. universitet. (In Russ.)
  28. Lakoff, Ronny. 1973. The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Claudia Corum & T. Cedric Smith-Stark (eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chi-cago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  29. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
  30. Levinson, Stephen C. 1985. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  31. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Levin-Steinmann, Anke. 2001. Razmyshleniya o vybrannykh kognitivnykh aspektakh frazeologimov. Die Welt der Slaven XLVI. 225–232.
  33. Mel'nikov, Mikhail N. 1987. Russian Children's Folklore. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. (In Russ.)
  34. Muchnik, Beniamin S. 1985. Man and Text. Fundamentals of the Culture of Writing. Moscow: Kniga. (In Russ.)
  35. Nikitin, Mikhail V. 1988. Foundations of the Linguistic Theory of Semantics. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. (In Russ.)
  36. Ohlhoff, Dörthe. 2002. Das Freundliche Selbst und der Angreifende Feind. Politische Metaphern und Körperkonzepte in der Wissensvermittlung der Biologie. www.metaphorik.de (accessed 25 November 2020).
  37. Osthus, Dietmar. 2002. Metaphernspiele in Pressentexten: Ludischer Metapherneinsatz
  38. in Französischen und Deutschen Tageszeitungen. www.metaphorik.de (accessed 25 November 2020).
  39. Pedersen, Janni. 2016. Apes in conversation: The role of the human interlocutor. Lan-guage & Communication 50. 1–11.
  40. Schütz, Alfred. 1975. Collected Papers. III: Studies in Phenomenological Philosophy. Berlin: Springer Netherland.
  41. Schwitalla, Johannes. 1979. Dialogsteuerung in Interviews: Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Dialogsteuerung mit empirischen Untersuchungen von Politiker-, Experten- und Starinter-views in Rundfunk und Fernsehen. München: Hueber.
  42. Szumska, Dorota. 2012. Implikatura: Poslednee iskusheie lingvista. In Dorota Szumska (ed.), Yazyk i Metod: Russkiy Yazyk v Lingvistichekikh Issledovaniyakh XX veka I, 361–366. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ.
  43. von Thun, Friedemann Schuktz. 2010. Miteinander reden. 1: Störungen und Klärungen. Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
  44. Vallejo, David Rubio. 2017. Actuality effects as conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics 112. 44 –67.
  45. Verbuk, Anna & Thomas Shultz. 2010. Acquisition of Relevance implicatures: A case against a Rationality-based account of conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmat-ics 42 (8). 2297–2313.
  46. Vereshchagin, Yevgeny M. & Vitaly Kostomarov G. 1980. Linguistic and Cultural The-ory of the Word. Moscow: Russkiy yazyk. (In Russ.)
  47. Wasilewski, Jacek. 2006. Retoryka Dominacji. Warszawa: Trio.

Copyright (c) 2022 Kiklewicz A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies