Term
|
Definition
| means that the word is underspecified for some feature; e.g. uncle (cf. Chinese); to eat (cf. German); cousin; to carry |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| if the limits of its possible denotations cannot be precisely defined; typically the limit or boundary on possible reference is also context dependent (e.g. tall, expensive). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| if it has more than one distinct sense, only one of which is (normally) relevant in any particular context. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
zeugma; punning; clash or incompatibility
of two possible meanings in a specific context |
|
|
Term
| ANTAGONISM provides evidence for |
|
Definition
| distinct senses; it is a feature of both polysemy and homonymy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A clash or incompatibility of senses for a single word in sentences containing a co-ordinate structure, like those in (5), is often referred to using the Greek term ZEUGMA (pronounced ['zugmə]). The odd or humorous nature of these kinds of sentences provides evidence that two distinct senses are involved; that is, evidence for a real lexical ambiguity.
(5) a. Mary and her visa expired on the same day.39
b. He carried a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men.40 c. On his fishing trip, he caught three trout and a cold.41 |
|
|
Term
| Other tests for ambiguity: |
|
Definition
a. IDENTITY UNDER ELLIPSIS
b. INDEPENDENT TRUTH CONDITIONS
c. SENSE RELATIONS TEST |
|
|
Term
IDENTITY UNDER ELLIPSIS
(test for ambiguity) |
|
Definition
| where a word with two distinct senses is “deleted” under identity in a coordinate structure, the same sense must be understood in each conjunct; “crossed” readings are not allowed. |
|
|
Term
INDEPENDENT TRUTH CONDITIONS
(test for ambiguity) |
|
Definition
| e.g. test of contradiction: “X but not X” could be true. |
|
|
Term
SENSE RELATIONS TEST
(test for ambiguity) |
|
Definition
| distinct senses will have different sets of synonyms, antonyms, etc; this is generally not the case with vagueness. (Cruse warns that this test is not always reliable) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
two distinct lexemes with the same pronunciation
If a word is ambiguous, we then need to ask: are the two senses actually two different words, which just happen to sound the same? If so, the word is HOMONYMOUS |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Some general guidelines for distinguishing polysemy vs. homonymy: |
|
Definition
a. COMPONENT OF MEANING
b. FIGURATIVE
c. PRIMARY SENSE
d. ETYMOLOGY |
|
|
Term
COMPONENT OF MEANING
(polysemy vs. homonymy) |
|
Definition
| two senses of a polysemous word generally share at least one salient feature or component of meaning (e.g. foot), whereas this need not be true for homonyms; |
|
|
Term
FIGURATIVE
(polysemy vs. homonymy) |
|
Definition
| if one sense seems to be a figurative extension of the other, the word is probably polysemous |
|
|
Term
PRIMARY SENSE
(polysemy vs. homonymy) |
|
Definition
a. for polysemous words, one sense can often be identified as the primary sense, with other senses being analyzable as secondary or figurative extensions of the primary sense (e.g.
run). For homonymous words, neither sense is likely to be “primary” in this way. |
|
|
Term
ETYMOLOGY (historical source)
(polysemy vs. homonymy) |
|
Definition
| is not directly relevant for synchronic linguistic analysis. However, there is often a correlation between etymology and the criteria listed above, because figurative extension is a common factor in semantic change over time. |
|
|
Term
| What type of words have two or more ESTABLISHED senses? |
|
Definition
Polysemous words
Hearers must disambiguate (choose the intended sense) based on context etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If no established sense seems plausible in a particular context, the hearer may conclude that the speaker intends an innovative, non-established sense; the process of creating non-established senses when needed is called COERCION. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Grice used the term IMPLICATURE for intended but unspoken meaning, i.e., aspects of utterance meaning which are not part of the sentence meaning. |
|
|
Term
| What are figurative meanings triggered by? |
|
Definition
| context (pragmatic factors) |
|
|
Term
| Are figurative meanings fully conventionalized? |
|
Definition
No.
Figurative meanings are not (fully) conventionalized, so they are not entered in the dictionary as separate senses. |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between figurative meanings and the literal sense? |
|
Definition
Figurative meanings are generally antagonistic to literal sense:
#The White House needs a coat of paint but refuses to ask Congress for the money. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Entailment is a type of inference. We say that proposition p “entails” proposition q if p being true makes it certain that q is true as well. |
|
|
Term
| What happens when you deny an entailment? |
|
Definition
It leads to a paradox:
a. #John killed the Mayor but the Mayor did not die.
b. #John is a bachelor but he is happily married. |
|
|
Term
| What happens when you assert the entailment? |
|
Definition
Asserting the entailed component leads to redundancy (or PLEONASM):
a. #It’s a dog and it’s an animal.
b. ??Kick it with one of your feet.
c. ??He was murdered illegally. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between an entailment and selectional restrictions? |
|
Definition
Selectional restrictions hold even in non-assertive environments:
a. #Did John drink his sandwich?
b. #John didn’t drink his sandwich; maybe he doesn’t like liverwurst. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
substituting one word for the other creates sentences which are semantically equivalent (each entails the other)
The phrases my mother-in-law and the mother of my spouse seem to be perfect synonyms (i.e., identical in sense). |
|
|
Term
| ANTONYMS: COMPLEMENTARY PAIRS |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[‘A’ entails ‘not B’ and vice versa]
open/shut, alive/dead, male/female, on/off, etc. |
|
|
Term
| What is the defining property of simple antonyms? |
|
Definition
The defining property of simple antonyms is that replacing one member of the pair with the other, as in (5), produces sentences which are CONTRADICTORY.
(5) a. The switch is on.
b. The switch is off.
c. ??The switch is neither on nor off. |
|
|
Term
GRADABLE ANTONYMS
(or: scalar opposites, contraries) |
|
Definition
big/small; hot/cold
A defining property of gradable (or scalar) antonyms is that replacing one member of such a pair with the other produces sentences which are CONTRARY, as illustrated in (10a-b).
(10) a. My youngest son-in-law is extremely diligent.
b. My youngest son-in-law is extremely lazy.
c. My youngest son-in-law is neither extremely diligent nor extremely lazy. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The two members of a converse pair express the same basic relation, with the positions of the two arguments reversed. If we replace one member of a converse pair with the other, and also reverse the order of the arguments, as in (13–14), we produce sentences which are semantically equivalent (paraphrases).
(13) a. Michael is my advisor.
b. I am Michael’s advisee. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Two words (normally verbs) are called REVERSES if they “denote motion or change in opposite directions... [I]n addition... they should differ only in respect of directionality” (Cruse 1986:226). Examples include push/pull, come/go, fill/empty, heat/cool, strengthen/weaken, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When two words stand in a generic-specific relationship, we refer to the more specific term (e.g. moose) as the HYPONYM. |
|
|
Term
SUPERORDINATE
(or HYPERONYM) |
|
Definition
| When two words stand in a generic-specific relationship, we refer to the more generic term (i.e. mammal) as the SUPERORDINATE or HYPERONYM. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
TAXONOMY is a special type of hyponymy, a classifying relation.
X is a TAXONYM of Y if it is natural to say "An X is a kind/type of Y."
(18) a. A beagle is a kind of dog.
b. Gold is a type of metal.
c. ?A stallion is a kind of horse.
d. ??Sunday is a kind of day of the week. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
TAXONOMIC SISTERS are taxonyms which share the same superordinate term, such as squirrel and mouse which are both hyponyms of rodent.
Taxonomic sisters must be incompatible, in the sense defined above; for example, a single animal cannot be both a squirrel and a mouse. But that property alone does not distinguish taxonomy from other types of hyponymy.
Taxonomic sisters occur naturally in sentences like the following:
(19) a. A beagle is a kind of dog, and so is a Great Dane.
b. Gold is a type of metal, and copper is another type of metal. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A MERONYMY is a pair of words expressing a part-whole relationship. The word naming the part is called the meronym. For example, hand, brain and eye are all meronyms of body; door, roof and kitchen are all meronyms of house; etc. |
|
|
Term
| CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE |
|
Definition
a part of the meaning which is not “said” (i.e., not contained in the literal meaning of the words), but which the speaker intends for the hearer to understand.
If what is said (the literal meaning) appears to be uncooperative (irrelevant, uninformative, needlessly obscure, etc.), the hearer must “calculate” the unspoken but intended meaning, taking into account the context in which the conversation takes place. |
|
|
Term
| Two types of conversational implicature: |
|
Definition
1. PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
2. GENERALIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE |
|
|
Term
PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
(two types of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
| one which depends on particular features of the context; triggered by violation (apparent or real) of maxims |
|
|
Term
GENERALIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
(two types of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
a. one which does not depend on
particular features of the context, but is instead typically associated with the type of expression that is used; typically motivated by assumption that speaker is obeying the maxims; does not require a violation |
|
|
Term
| Characteristic features of conversational implicature: |
|
Definition
a. DEFEASIBLE
b. SUSPENDABLE
c. REINFORCEABLE
d. CALCULABLE |
|
|
Term
DEFEASIBLE (cancellable)
(Characteristic features of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
cancellable by adding an additional premise (e.g., it can be negated without giving rise to anomaly or contradiction, as in 4a);
(4) a. John has most of the originals; in fact, he has all of them. |
|
|
Term
SUSPENDABLE
(Characteristic features of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
the speaker may explicitly choose not to commit to the truth or falsehood of the inference, without giving rise to anomaly or contradiction. This is illustrated in (4b).
(4) b. John has most of the originals, if not all of them. |
|
|
Term
REINFORCEABLE
(Characteristic features of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
the implicature can be overtly stated without creating a sense of anomalous redundancy
(4)c. John has most of the originals, but not all of them. |
|
|
Term
CALCULABLE
(Characteristic features of conversational implicature) |
|
Definition
| capable of being worked out; not part of the conventional meaning of the linguistic expression. |
|
|
Term
| CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURE is an implicature that is: |
|
Definition
1. part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and
2. not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression.
(this is like the difference between 'and' and 'but') |
|
|
Term
| What is the core property of conventional implicatures? |
|
Definition
| They do not change the conditions under which the sentence will be true, but rather the conditions under which the sentence can be appropriately used. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
same thing as CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURE.
Which is: an implicature that is:
1. part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and
2. not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression. |
|
|
Term
| Diagnostic properties of use-conditional meaning: |
|
Definition
a. NOT "AT ISSUE"
b. SCOPE
c. ESTABLISHED FACT |
|
|
Term
NOT "AT ISSUE"
(diagnostic properties of use-conditional meaning) |
|
Definition
| Not part of the “at-issue” content, so cannot be the basis for challenging the truth of the statement as a whole; |
|
|
Term
SCOPE
(diagnostic properties of use-conditional meaning) |
|
Definition
| take scope over the whole sentence; cannot be negated, questioned, etc. |
|
|
Term
ESTABLISHED FACT
(diagnostic properties of use-conditional meaning) |
|
Definition
| treated as established fact by speaker, but not assumed to be part of common ground. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Italicized words. The words that are referred to as objects of study. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Words written in plain font. Words which are used in their normal sense. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The study of meaning or the study of the relationship between linguistic form and meaning. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a speech event by a particular speaker in a specific context |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Refers to the semantic content of the sentence: the meaning which derives from the words themselves; regardless of the context. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Refer to the semantic content plus any pragmatic meaning created by the specific way in which the sentence gets used.
“The totality of what the speaker intends to convey by making the utterance.” Cruse. |
|
|
Term
| PRINCIPLE OF COMPOSITIONALITY |
|
Definition
| The meaning of a complex expression is predictable from the meanings of the words it contains and the way they are combined. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Words like ouch and oops which reflect the speaker’s feelings or attitudes at the time of speaking. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When people describe what they feel. i.e. "I just felt a sudden sharp pain." |
|
|
Term
| The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning: |
|
Definition
a. INDEPENDENCE
b. NON-DISPLACEABILITY
c. IMMUNITY
d. SCALABILITY
e. DESCRIPTIVE INEFFABILITY |
|
|
Term
INDEPENDENCE
(The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning) |
|
Definition
Expressive meaning does not share the truth value of a sentence.
For example, the addressee might agree with the descriptive meaning of “That jerk Peterson is the only real economist on this committee” without agreeing that he is a jerk. |
|
|
Term
NON-DISPLACEABILITY
(The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning) |
|
Definition
| When a person uses an expressive word like ouch, it must normally express pain that is felt by the speaker in the moment of speaking. It cannot be displaced to another moment in time like descriptive word or expression can be (Last month I felt a sharp pain in my chest). |
|
|
Term
IMMUNITY
(The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning) |
|
Definition
| Expressive meaning cannot be negated, questioned or challenged. (*ouch? *not ouch) |
|
|
Term
SCALABILITY
(The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning) |
|
Definition
| Expressive meaning can be intensified through repetition or by the use of intonational features such as pitch, length or loudness. |
|
|
Term
DESCRIPTIVE INEFFABILITY
(The diagnostics used to distinguish expressive vs descriptive meaning) |
|
Definition
| INEFFABILITY means “expressibility.” The EFFABLITY HYPOTHESIS claims that “Whatever can be meant can be said.” Descriptive ineffability means that expressive meaning often cannot be adequately stated in terms of descriptive meaning. For many expressives there is no descriptive paraphrase available. ie raka, ouch, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Those aspects of meaning which do not depend on the context of use, the kind of meaning we might look up in a dictionary. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A meaning that does depend on context / time of utterance / etc.
The denotation of a content word is the set of all things in the current universe of discourse which the word could be used to describe…The denotation of a content word depends on the situation or universe of discourse in which it is used. |
|
|
Term
| Questions to ask for sense vs. denotation. |
|
Definition
Are they synonyms? paraphrases? Yes = Same sense
Same referent? Yes = Same denotation.
Same sense? Yes = Same denotation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the speaker’s use of words to “point to” something in the world. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An expression (normally some kind of NP) which a speaker uses to refer to something. |
|
|
Term
| Types of referring expressions: |
|
Definition
a. RIGID DESIGNATORS
b. INDEXICALS (ie deictics)
c. ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS
d. DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS (definite NP)
e. INDEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS |
|
|
Term
RIGID DESIGNATORS
(Types of referring expressions) |
|
Definition
| Those with constant reference: proper names, names of species, etc. |
|
|
Term
INDEXICALS (ie deictics)
(Types of referring expressions) |
|
Definition
| something that refers to something in the speech situation itself. |
|
|
Term
ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS
(Types of referring expressions) |
|
Definition
| Pronouns with variable reference. |
|
|
Term
DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS (definite NPs)
(Types of referring expressions) |
|
Definition
| 1. Can be used in contexts where the hearer is able to identify a unique reference (this book) or can also be used generically, without referring to any specific individual (the stronger or faster man) |
|
|
Term
INDEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS
(Types of referring expressions) |
|
Definition
may be used to refer to a specific individual (a) or they may be non-specific (b)
a. My sister has just married a cowboy.
b. My sister would never marry a cowboy.
c. My sister wants to marry a cowboy. (ambiguous and likely non-referring). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| QUANTIFIERS – NPs containing every, most, some, all, none, no, etc. |
|
|
Term
| When is a proposition said to be "true"? |
|
Definition
| A proposition is said to be “true” when it CORRESPONDS to the actual state of the currently relevant situation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROPOSITIONS are:
a. what is ASSERTED by a declarative sentence;
b. something that a person can believe;
c. something that can be true or false. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ANALYTIC sentences are sentences which automatically express true propositions in any context, by virtue of the meanings of their constituent words and their arrangement. - Cruse (2000:31) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a priori. “Always true”
i.e. “The sun is not visible at night.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| SYNTHETIC sentences are those which express true propositions in some (conceivable) contexts … and false in others…” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| relating to or derived by reasoning from observed facts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“It depends” It depends on the facts of the world.
i.e. “All dogs are brown” This is not true, but the meanings of the words aren’t self-contradictory. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
are necessarily false (e.g., self-contradictory) “Never true.”
i.e. “My sister is a happily married bachelor.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One sentence expresses more than one proposition, which have different truth conditions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One interpretation could be true under the same circumstances while at the same time that the other is false. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One word can have more than one meaning. “Interest – free checking” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Ambiguity that arises through syntactic structure. “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas.” |
|
|
Term
| Logical Notation Form: All men are mortal |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Logical Notation Form: Some unicorns are ticklish |
|
Definition
| ∃x[UNICORN(x) ˄ TICKLISH(x)] |
|
|
Term
| Logical Notation Form: No man is an island |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
¬
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
˄
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
˅
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
XOR
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
→
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
↔
What does this mean in logical notation? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
It defines one of the valid ways of deriving an inference from a conditional statement. It says that if we know that p q is true, and in addition we know or assume that p is true, it is valid to infer that q is true.
Premise 1: If John is Estonian he will like this book. (pq)
Premise 2: John is Estonian. (p)
------
Conclusion: He will like this book (q) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
‘method of rejecting/denying’. It says that if we know that p q is true, and in addition we know or assume that q is false, it is valid to infer that p is also false.
Premise 1: If dolphins are fish, they are cold-blooded (pq)
Premise 2: Dolphins are not cold-blooded. (~q)
---
Conclusion: Dolphins are not fish (~p) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
an invalid pattern of inference. The inference is invalid, because the conclusion is false even though both premises are true:
Premise 1: If crocodiles are fish, they are cold-blooded.
Premise 2: Crocodiles are not fish.
---
Crocodiles are not cold-blooded [false] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When the conclusion is true but invalid.
Premise 1: If crocodiles are mammals, they are warm-blooded.
Premise 2: Crocodiles are not mammals.
--
Conclusion: Crocodiles are not warm-blooded [true but invalid.] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
((p ˅q) ˄ (~p))
Premise 1: Dolphins are either fish or mammals (p ˅q)
Premise2: Dolphins are not fish. (~p)
--
Conclusion: Dolphins are mammals (q) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
((p→q) ˄ (q→r)) → (p→r)
Premise 1: If Mickey is a rodent, he is a mammal. (p→q)
Premise 2: If Mickey is a mammal, he is warm-blooded. (q→r)
—————————
Conclusion: If Mickey is a rodent, he is warm-blooded. (p→r) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The element of meaning which determines what kind of property, event or relationship is being described. |
|
|
Term
| Proposition p entails proposition q iff: |
|
Definition
a. whenever p is true, it is logically necessary that q must also be true;
b. whenever q is false, it is logically necessary that p must also be false;
c. these relations follow directly from the meanings of p and q, and do not depend on the context of the utterance. |
|
|
Term
| When can two sentences be considered synonymous? |
|
Definition
| Two sentences are said to be synonymous, or PARAPHRASES of each other, if the propositions that they express mutually entail each other. |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between contrary propositions? |
|
Definition
| “Contrary propositions may not be simultaneously true, although they may be simultaneously false.” |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between contradictory propositions? |
|
Definition
| “Contradictory propositions must have opposite truth values in every circumstance.” |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between independent propositions? |
|
Definition
| (no truth value dependency between the two propositions) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| information which is linguistically encoded as being part of the common ground at the time of utterance. Presuppositions are “triggered” by a specific word or grammatical construction, and (unlike entailments) are preserved when the statement containing the trigger is negated, questioned, or expressed as a conditional clause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| everything that both the speaker and hearer know or believe, and know that they have in common. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A presupposition that is not part of the common ground at the time of speaking may be ACCOMMODATED by the hearer, i.e., accepted as if it were already known, provided it is consistent/compatible with all other information in the common ground. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (i.e. if B is not part of the common ground and cannot be accommodated) causes the utterance to be pragmatically inappropriate or “infelicitous”. |
|
|
Term
| PRESUPPOSITION vs. ENTAILMENT |
|
Definition
Do a negation test.
Entailment: In any situation for which (a) is true, (b) must be true is well; and in any situation for which (b) is false, (a) must also be false. Moreover, this relationship follows directly from the meaning of the two sentences, and does not depend on the situation or context in which they are used. If p entails q, then any speaker who states that p is true (e.g. I broke your jar) is committed to believing that q (e.g. your jar broke) is also true. However, a speaker who asks whether
a. I broke your Ming dynasty jar.
b. Your Ming dynasty jar broke.
Presupposition –
Whether the proposition is put in the form of a negation or a question, the common ground remains:
a. The vice president regrets that he falsified his dental records.
b. The vice president doesn’t regret that he falsified his dental records.
c. Does the vice president regret that he falsified his dental records? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| action which the speaker intentionally performs by speaking, e.g. assert, request, ask, order, sentence, promise, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
¥ These sentences are not true or false.
¥ To utter one of these sentences is not just to “say” something, but rather to perform a certain kind of action. |
|
|
Term
| Grammatical properties of explicit performative utterances: |
|
Definition
a. PERFORMATIVE VERB
b. SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE
c. FIRST PERSON, ACTIVE VOICE |
|
|
Term
PERFORMATIVE VERB
(Grammatical properties of explicit performative utterances) |
|
Definition
| generally performatives contain a PERFORMATIVE VERB, which can either name or perform the intended action; |
|
|
Term
SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE
(Grammatical properties of explicit performative utterances) |
|
Definition
| performatives always occur in simple present tense, indicative mood, but without habitual interpretation; |
|
|
Term
FIRST PERSON, ACTIVE VOICE
(Grammatical properties of explicit performative utterances) |
|
Definition
| performatives are normally in first person, active voice (but passive voice, non-first person is possible with certain verbs can be modified by the performative adverb hereby. |
|
|
Term
| How can a speech act be considered to be successful? |
|
Definition
| To be successful (NOT true), speech acts require that certain conditions be satisfied, namely FELICITY CONDITIONS. These conditions involve speaker, hearer and action. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. PREPARATORY CONDITIONS
b. SINCERITY CONDITION
c. PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT
d. ESSENTIAL CONDITION |
|
|
Term
PREPARATORY CONDITIONS
(felicity conditions) |
|
Definition
For a promise:
(i) S is able to perform A (ii) H wants S to perform A, and S believes that H wants S to perform A (iii) it is not obvious that S will perform A
For a request:
H is able to perform A |
|
|
Term
SINCERITY CONDITION
(felicity conditions) |
|
Definition
For a promise:
S intends to perform A
For a request:
S wants H to perform A |
|
|
Term
PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT
(felicity conditions) |
|
Definition
For a promise:
predicates a future act by S
For a request:
predicates a future act by H |
|
|
Term
ESSENTIAL CONDITION
(felicity conditions) |
|
Definition
For a promise:
counts as an undertaking by S to do A
For a request:
counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Utterances in which one illocutionary act (the PRIMARY ACT) is performed by way of the performance of another act (the LITERAL ACT). In other words, the grammatical form of what is said does not match the real intended illocutionary force of the utterance. Searle claims that successful indirect speech acts must relate in certain specific ways to the Felicity Conditions for performing the intended (primary) illocutionary act. |
|
|
Term
| Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts: |
|
Definition
a. ASSERTIVES
b. DIRECTIVES
c. COMMISSIVES
d. EXPRESSIVES
e. DECLARATIONS |
|
|
Term
ASSERTIVES
(Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts) |
|
Definition
| These commit the speaker to something being the case; can be true or false. E.g.: stating, claiming, telling, insisting, suggesting, boasting, concluding, asserting, or swearing that something is the case. |
|
|
Term
DIRECTIVES
(Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts) |
|
Definition
| These try to make the addressee perform an action: e.f. asking, ordering, requesting, inviting, advising, begging, commanding, daring, or challenging someone to do something. |
|
|
Term
COMMISSIVES
(Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts) |
|
Definition
| These commit the speaker to doing something in the future, or to refrain from doing something. E.g.: promising, pledging, vowing, ?offering. |
|
|
Term
EXPRESSIVES
(Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts) |
|
Definition
| These express the attitude of the speaker about a state or even presumed to be true; e.g; thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating, condoling. |
|
|
Term
DECLARATIONS
(Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts) |
|
Definition
| These bring into existence the state of affairs to which they refer; e.g.: firing, baptizing, bidding, sentence, excommunicating, ?blessing, ?forgiving. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made.
"Men’s words are bullets, that their enemies take up and make use of against them." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect; an extravagant statement.
John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated (such as "crown" for "royalty")
Acts 15:21 “For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole, the whole for a part, the specific for the general, the general for the specific, or the material for the thing made from it. Considered by some to be a form of METONYMY.
Gen. 42:38 “If harm should befall him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite.
Acts 20:12 “And they took the lad away alive, and were not a little comforted.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
statements that imply the opposite of their literal meaning.
1 Corinthians 4:10 “We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong!” |
|
|
Term
| THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE (from Grice) |
|
Definition
| Make your conversation such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. |
|
|
Term
| The Maxims of Conversation (from Grice): |
|
Definition
a. QUALITY
b. QUANTITY
c. RELATION
d. MANNER |
|
|
Term
QUALITY
(the maxims of conversation) |
|
Definition
Try to make your contribution one that is true:
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. |
|
|
Term
QUANTITY
(the maxims of conversation) |
|
Definition
Enough but not too much.
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. |
|
|
Term
RELATION
(the maxims of conversation) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
MANNER
(the maxims of conversation) |
|
Definition
Be perspicuous
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly. |
|
|
