Presentation on theme: "Review Exercises 1) Do the COMPONENTIAL analysis (not the compositional one) of the following words: a)hen b) rooster Componential analysis 2) Does ‘A’"— Presentation transcript:
Review Exercises 1) Do the COMPONENTIAL analysis (not the compositional one) of the following words: a)hen b) rooster Componential analysis 2) Does ‘A’ entail ‘B’? 1) A: “I eat bananas every morning.” B: “I eat fruit every morning.’ 2) A: “Campbell's soup has 1/3 less salt.” B: “Other brands have 1/3 more salt.” Implicatures/Entailments next
Entailment and Implicatures Sentence A entails B if whenever A is true, B must be true as well. (e.g. ‘Mary eats banana’ ENTAILS “Mary eats fruit”) = Semantic implication A implicates B if 1- A does NOT entail B, AND 2- Speaker is warranted in assuming B is true based on both the meaning of A & conversation rules (e.g “Not everyone will come” IMPLICATES ‘someone will come’) =Pragmatic implication back
Language in Advertising Conflict With Language in Advertising Old question: how truthful advertisers ought to be? Are they responsible for what their claims entail only or also for what they implicate? “ABC filters remove bacteria from your drinking water” e.g. “ABC filters remove bacteria from your drinking water” –Are we to JUST understand what that sentenece literally conveys –its entailment (it removes AT LEAST one tiny bacteria from drinking water)? OR, –Are we to believe (as the advertiser may intend us to) that “if we use ABC filters, our drinking water will be free of bacteria”, which is not really entailed but IMPLICATED?
ANSWER to “OLD QUESTION ANSWER to “OLD QUESTION” Because implicatures are crucial to language (seen in the hard entailment-implicature distinction), it’s “only right that advertisers be responsible for both entailments and implicatures of their claims” (p. 236). HOWEVER, in reality this isn’t always true, since advertisers are often responsible just for entailments. Consequence: advertising often formulates claims ‘that implicate a lot but entail a little.’ –They often use many techniques for this purpose.
Pragmatics The Study of the Contribution of Context to Meaning Or The Study of Language Use
Common Questions in Pragmatics How do people use language within a context? Why do they use language in particular ways? How do non-linguistic factors affect language use to perform different functions? –time –place –social relation between interactants SUMMARY: what is the intention of utterances within a context ? (SPEECH ACTS)
SPEECH ACTS : Human acts performed simply by using language We use language, for example, for: asking or giving information, making requests, complimenting, describing elements, apologizing, etc. This is a (not comprehensive) list of speech acts. –(There are many other speech acts).
3 Common Speech Acts: Assertion (gives info), Question (asks for information), and Orders/Requests (has others do or be something). These deserve special mention because (often) there are specific syntactic structures for marking them. Assertion is (often) through declarative sentences, questions through interrogatives, and orders/requests through imperatives.
Main Categories of Speech Acts Direct: performed by a clear syntactic form Example: an interrogative S simply for asking for info. ( a direct act can also be done performatively) –Performative: the utterance itself is the very act Example: “I pronounce you husband and wife” (2 conditions: in 1st person & in present tense -‘hereby’ test) Indirect: Indirect speech Acts rely on “Felicity Conditions” to be interpreted
Felicity Conditions Why is it that “I promise I’ll tell Mom if you hit me” is NOT a promise, but a threat? (It appears to be a promise due to the performative verb ‘Promise’) - It does not match the ‘Normal Expectations’ for the promise Speech Act. What are those “Normal Expectations”? Felicity Conditions!!: Conditions That Must Be Satisfied If a Speech Act Is to Be Performed Appropriately, Correctly, and Happily.
Felicity Conditions for “promises’ (for example) 1) Speaker (S) offers to do an action (A) for hearer (H) 2) S believes A is beneficial to H 3) H wants A 4) S is able/entitled/willing to do A 5) A has not taken place The previous sentence as a promise is ‘infelicitous’ because condition 3 (and probably 2) is missing. As a threat, however, it is ‘felicitous’ (do you see why?)
Indirect Speech Acts The actual intention or what the speaker really means is different from what she ‘appears’ to be doing with the sentence itself. The actual intention or meaning does NOT match the sentence form (interrogative, imperatives, etc.) These do not match the normal, usual and more logical/semantic ways to perform such acts. For example, a person can perform a request (which normally requires an imperative sentence) via a question (with an interrogative sentence).
Identifying indirect speech acts Ex. “How are you?” 1) Determine, by considering context and normal conversation behavior, what the real intended meaning is? Ask: “WHAT IS SHE REALLY DOING?” 2) Do you see any performative V? If so, it is direct. 3) If no, does the intended meaning match the typical sentence form? If yes, then it is direct. 4) Are there any felicity conditions violated for the speech act of the intended meaning? If no, direct. 5) Consider the final effect in the hearer/s, which can corroborate or not what the real intended meaning is.