Advertisement

On the Tension Between Semantics and Pragmatics

  • Alessandro Capone
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 22)

Abstract

In this chapter, I offer my reflections on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. I argue that semantics – the relatively stable and context-invariant meanings of language – is necessarily amplified by pragmatics, which is a way of transcending the possibilities of semantics. Pragmatic layers, especially if they meet the cognitive needs of language users and represent culturally salient concepts, tend to become semanticized. The situation is complicated by the postulation of explicatures which, I argue, are not cancellable and mimic the semantic resources of a language. Like entailments, they are not cancellable, but they share the features of all types of pragmatic inferences in that they are calculable. I propose that explicatures are loci of the tension between semantics and pragmatics, and given the lack of cancellability, they are strong candidates for inferences that tend to become semanticized. In this chapter, I see the tension between pragmatics and semantics exemplified by situations where an excessive weight is placed on semantics (legal documents, such as laws), and situations where an excessive burden is placed on pragmatics (pidgins like Tok Pisin). In this chapter, I also argue that the principles of language use tend to become semanticised in the form of discourse rules and I consider the praxis of language games, arguing that discourse rules, unlike principles, have the advantage of being teachable and of also favoring the involvement of speakers in the communicative praxis (Lo Piparo 2010).

References

  1. Allan, Keith (2010). Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics. Equinox. Google Scholar
  2. Allan, Keith, Burridge, Kate (1991). Euphemism and Dysphemism , OUP.Google Scholar
  3. Ariel, Mira (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge, CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, Kent (2001). Semantically speaking. In I. Kenesei, R. M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse. A festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 146–170.Google Scholar
  5. Burton-Roberts, Noel (2005). Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics and encoding. (Review article of Carston 2002). Journal of Linguistics 41, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton-Roberts, Noel (2010). Cancellation and intention. Soria, B. and Romero, E. (Eds.) Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, 138–155.Google Scholar
  7. Capone, Alessandro (1998). Modality and discourse. Doctoral dissertation in linguistics, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, Alessandro (2000). Dilemmas and excogitations: an essay on clitics, modality and discourse. Messina, Armando Siciliano.Google Scholar
  9. Capone, Alessandro (2006). On Grice’s circle. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 645–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capone, Alessandro (2009). Are explicatures cancellable? Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6/1, 55–83.Google Scholar
  11. Capone, Alessandro. 2010. Introduction to Pragmemes. In Pragmemes, special issue of JP 42/11, 2861–2869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capone, Alessandro. 2013a. Explicatures are NOT cancellable. In A. Capone et al, eds. Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 131–151. Cham, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capone, Alessandro (2013b). Rethinking semantic minimalism. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M. (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy. Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Capone, Alessandro (2013). The pragmatics of pronominal clitics and propositional attitudes. Intercultural Pragmatics 10/3, 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and utterances. Oxford, Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carston, Robyn (2010). Explicit communication and ‘free’ enrichment. In B. Soria and E. Romero, eds. Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Carston, Robyn (2013). Legal texts and canons of construction. A view from current pragmatic theory. In M. Freeman, F. Smith, eds. Law and language: current legal issues. Oxford, OUP, 8–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowley, Terry (2008). Pidgin and Creole morphology. In S. Kouwenberg, J.V. Singler, eds. The handbook of Pidgin and Creole studies. Oxford, Blackwell, 74–97.Google Scholar
  19. Dascal, Marcelo (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dascal, Marcelo, Wróblewski, J. (1988). Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in the law. Law and Philosophy 7, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, Wayne (2012). Meaning, impliciture and linguistic variability. Intercultural Pragmatics 9–2, 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Mauro, Tullio (1965). Introduzione alla semantica. Bari, Laterza.Google Scholar
  23. Grice, H. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, L. (2009). Implicature, truth and meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 1, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn, L. (2011). Etymology and taboo. Talk presented at ISLE2 (International Society for the Linguistics of English), June 2011.Google Scholar
  26. Huang, Yan (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora. A study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge, CUP. (Republished in 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jakobson, Roman (1960). Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 350–377.Google Scholar
  28. Jucker, Andreas (1953). Pragmatics in the history of linguistic thought. In Jaszczolt, K., Allan, K. ,eds. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge, CUP, 495–512.Google Scholar
  29. Karmiloff-Smith A. (1992). Beyond Modularity. A developmental perspective on cognitive science Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kecskes, Istvan (2012). Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and dialogue 2/2, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Labov, William, Waletzky, Joshua (1967). Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In: Helm, J. (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 12–44.Google Scholar
  32. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Leonardi, Paolo (2013). Language adds to context. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M., eds. Perspectives on language use and pragmatics (277–290). Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lo Piparo, Franco (2010). Gramsci and Wittgenstein. An intriguing connection. In Capone, A., ed. Perspectives on language use and pragmatics. Muenchen, Lincom, 285–320.Google Scholar
  36. Mazzone, Marco (2009). La metafora è speciale? Tra teoria della pertinenza e teoria concettuale”, in C. Bazzanella (a cura di), La forza cognitiva della metafora, Paradigmi XXVII/1, 41–54.Google Scholar
  37. Mey, Jacob L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Mühlhäusler, Peter, Dutton, Thomas, Romaine, Susanne (2003). Tok Pisin texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicolle, Steve (1998). A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 9/1, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perconti, Pietro (2003). Leggere le menti. Milano, Mondadori.Google Scholar
  41. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar
  42. Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London, Methuen.Google Scholar
  43. Traugott, Elisabeth Closs (2004). Historical pragmatics. In L. Horn, G. Ward, eds. The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell, 538–561.Google Scholar
  44. Traugott, Elisabeth Closs (2012). Pragmatics and language change. In Jaszczolt, K. & Allan, K., eds.. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge, Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ullmann, Stephen (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford:Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Volterra, V., Caselli, M.C., Capirci, O. & Pizzuto, E. (2004). Gesture and the emergence and development of language. In : M. Tomasello & D, eds. (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Wierzbicka, Anna (2006). English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, Deirdre, Sperber Dan (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge, CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Wong, Jock (2010). The ‘triple articulation’ of language. In Capone, A. (Ed.), Pragmemes, Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 42/11, 2932–2944.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Capone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations