The Semantics and Pragmatics of Irrealis Mood in Nyulnyulan Languages

2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 339-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
William McGregor ◽  
Tamsin. Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Semantics And Pragmatics

Development of Instruments for Assessing Linguistic Intelligence in Elementary School

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dea Sinta Maharani ◽  
Otang Kurniaman
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Schools ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Fifth Grade ◽  
Is Research ◽  
Fifth Grade Students ◽  
Intelligence Assessment ◽  
The World ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Homeroom Teachers

Linguistic intelligence is one of eight multiple intelligences that currently attracts attention in the world of education. Linguistic intelligence is a person's ability to speak both verbally and in writing, besides that people who have linguistic intelligence also master the components of linguistic intelligence which consists of phonology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The type of research used is research and development (R & D) with a 4D model. The subjects in this study were experts as validators, fifth grade students for trials and homeroom teachers in elementary schools. Data collection is done by giving a questionnaire to the validator. In this study the researchers concluded that the product of the developed linguistic intelligence assessment instrument was declared feasible to be used based on the results of validation of 86% with very feasible categories. The obstacle in developing the product of this instrument of linguistic intelligence assessment is the lack of knowledge of the school about the importance of linguistic intelligence for students in elementary schools. 

Speech Acts in Discourse Context

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craige Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Language Game ◽  
Illocutionary Force ◽  
Semantic Type ◽  
Discourse Context ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Consensus View ◽  
Grammatical Mood ◽  
The Relationship

This essay sketches an approach to speech acts in which mood does not semantically determine illocutionary force. The conventional content of mood determines the semantic type of the clause in which it occurs, and, given the nature of discourse, that type most naturally lends itself to a particular type of speech act, i.e. one of the three basic types of language game moves—making an assertion (declarative), posing a question (interrogative), or proposing to one’s addressee(s) the adoption of a goal (imperative). There is relative consensus about the semantics of two of these, the declarative and interrogative; and this consensus view is entirely compatible with the present proposal about the relationship between the semantics and pragmatics of grammatical mood. Hence, the proposal is illustrated with the more controversial imperative.

New Work on Speech Acts

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Speech Act Theory ◽  
New Work ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Recent Advances ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Relationship

The essays collected in this book represent recent advances in our understanding of speech acts-actions like asserting, asking, and commanding that speakers perform when producing an utterance. The study of speech acts spans disciplines, and embraces both the theoretical and scientific concerns proper to linguistics and philosophy as well as the normative questions that speech acts raise for our politics, our societies, and our ethical lives generally. It is the goal of this book to reflect the diversity of current thinking on speech acts as well as to bring these conversations together, so that they may better inform one another. Topics explored in this book include the relationship between sentence grammar and speech act potential; the fate of traditional frameworks in speech act theory, such as the content-force distinction and the taxonomy of speech acts; and the ways in which speech act theory can illuminate the dynamics of hostile and harmful speech. The book takes stock of well over a half century of thinking about speech acts, bringing this classicwork in linewith recent developments in semantics and pragmatics, and pointing the way forward to further debate and research.

Communicating Attitudes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Stokke
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Communicative Act ◽  
Conscious Intention

This chapter extends the analysis of insincere language use from the last chapter to non-declarative utterances, including imperative, interrogative, and exclamative utterances. It argues that such utterances communicate information about the speaker’s attitudes. The chapter offers an account of insincerity in the non-declarative realm that is shallow. On this view, a non-declarative utterance is insincere when it is made without a conscious intention to avoid communicating information not matching the speaker’s conscious attitudes. A notion of a communicative act is defined, and the chapter argues that only such acts can be evaluated as insincere or not. A framework for understanding the semantics and pragmatics of non-declarative clause types is sketched and the chapter shows how it explains why non-declaratives cannot be used to lie.

The expectation marker of course in a cross-linguistic perspective

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen ◽  
Karin Aijmer
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
Pragmatic Markers ◽  
Semantic Fields ◽  
Explanatory Account ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Multilingual Corpus ◽  
Core Meaning

The study of of course presented in this article has an applied, a descriptive and a theoretical aim. Since of course proves to be very frequent in English, learners will need to know what meanings the item has and in what pragmatic contexts it is used. It has indeed been shown that some learners tend to use of course in contexts where it is felt by native speakers to be inappropriate. In order to explain such inappropriate uses we need detailed descriptions of the semantics and pragmatics of of course. From a theoretical point of view such multifunctional items raise the question of whether semantic polysemy or pragmatic polysemy is the best explanatory account. It is argued in this paper that empirical cross-linguistic work can contribute to providing answers to all three research questions. First, the study of correspondences and differences between languages with regard to the meanings and uses of pragmatic markers is a necessary step in the explanation of learner problems. Second, the bidirectional approach to equivalents, which involves going back and forth from sources to translations, enables us to show to what extent the equivalents have partially overlapping pragmatic functions. An in-depth comparison of the semantic fields in which the translation equivalents operate is the ultimate goal. Third, the translation method helps to see to what extent a core meaning account is justified. In this paper three languages are brought into the picture, viz. English, Swedish and Dutch. The cross-linguistic data have been gathered from three translation corpora, i.e. the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus, the Oslo Multilingual Corpus and the Namur Triptic Corpus.

Temporal comparisons, historical semantics of interaction and ‘post-war consensus’ in British Parliament: Studying time references in a deliberative environment

2021 ◽  
pp. 0961463X2110212
Author(s):  
Kirill Postoutenko ◽  
Olga Sabelfeld
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Temporal Semantics ◽  
Sociopolitical Environment ◽  
Social Time ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Historical Semantics ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Concepts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post War

This article aims to demonstrate that the transition from the mainstream narrative to the interactional history of concepts promises tangible benefits for scholars of social time in general and temporal comparisons in particular. It is shown that the traditionally close alignment of narration with the production of historical consciousness at various levels hinders the study of time as a semantic variable perpetually contested, amended and upheld across society. Alternatively, the references to time made in public settings, allowing for more or less instant reactions (turn-taking) as well as expression of dissenting opinions (stance-taking), offer a much more representative palette of temporal semantics and pragmatics in a given sociopolitical environment. In a particularly intriguing case, the essentially deliberative venue where contestation is supported by both institutional arrangements and political reasons (British House of Commons) is put to test under circumstances commonly known as ‘the post-war consensus’ – the unspoken convention directing opposing political parties to suspend stance-taking regarding the past actions of the government during WWII, its immediate aftermath and its future prospects. As a reliable indicator of this arrangement, the contestation of temporal comparisons between relevant pasts and futures is tested in oppositions reflecting party allegiances (Conservatives vs. Labour vs. Liberals) and executive functions (government vs. opposition) between 1946 and 1952. It is shown that, notwithstanding the prevalence of non-contested statements aimed at preserving interactional coherence and pragmatic functionality of the setting, the moderately active contestation of the adversary’s temporal comparisons in the House of Commons at that time helped all parties, albeit to a different degree, to shape their own political and institutional roles as well as to delegitimize their respective adversaries.

A properly pragmatist pragmatics

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Catherine Legg
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Separate Study ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Pragmatist Philosophy

Abstract Although most contemporary philosophers of language hold that semantics and pragmatics require separate study, there is surprisingly little agreement on where exactly the line should be drawn between these two areas, and why. In this paper I suggest that this lack of clarity is at least partly caused by a certain historical obfuscation of the roots of the founding three-way distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in Charles Peirce’s pragmatist philosophy of language. I then argue for recovering and revisiting these original roots, taking indexicality as a case-study of how certain questions connected with the distinction which are currently considered complex and difficult may be clarified by a ‘properly pragmatist pragmatics’. Such a view, I shall argue, upends a certain priority usually accorded to semantics over pragmatics, teaching that we do not work out what terms mean in some abstract overall sense and then work out to what use they are being put; rather, we must understand to what use terms are being put in order to understand what they mean.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document