Abstract
More and more linguists claim that postulating encoding and inferencing alone is not enough to account for the interpretation of all utterances. Although copious evidence for that claim has been collected and classified, among these the phenomenon of free enrichment has been described, there are doubts as to the quality of the explanations offered. In this paper, I propose to account for some types of that data in a more rigorous way by postulating a cognitive mechanism of selective use of language, in addition to encoding and inferencing, and by testing quantitative implications of that model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. the research done by Bronisław Malinowski.
- 2.
In some situations the encoded content of the lexeme grass may serve to select spinach in others, e.g. in the garden by a vegetable bed where both grass and spinach grow, it cannot.
- 3.
Finally, sets of possible lexical items which assess the value of a given parameter may be correlated with the potential values of that parameter in a given situation. Cf. Zielinska 2007b, 2013. For instance, if the audience in my lectures typically fluctuates between 50–100 students, and in view of the common lexemes denoting the number of people being {all/everyone, some, few, none/nobody}, when only 5 students come to my lecture one day, I may ask “Is there an influenza epidemic and that’s why no one has come to my lecture today?” In this situation the phrase no one, expressing the smallest value among the lexemes that could be used in this situation, selects the smallest number of students ever present in my lecture.
- 4.
Each mechanism may be used more than once.
- 5.
Negation is preferably in this Polish sentence, but not mandatory.
Bibliography
Atlas, Jay, Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logivasl form. In Cole, Peter, ed. Radical pragmatics. (1–51). New York, Academic Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. (1967). Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1–34.
Capone, Alessandro. 2009. Are explictures cancellable? Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1) 55–83.
Capone, Alessandro. 2012. Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition 20 (3).
Capone, Alessandro. 2010. On the social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(2):377–391.
Capone, Alessandro. 2013. Explicatures are not cancellable. Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, Springer.
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna. 2005. Default semantics. OUP.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, CUP.
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunge, Mario. 2003. Emergentism and Convergence. Ontario: Ontario University Press.
Neale, 2007. HEAVY HANDS, MAGIC, AND SCENE-READING TRAPS STEPHEN NEALE. EUJAP VOL. 3 No. 2 2007 Original scientific paper UDk: 1:81 165. file:///C:/Users/Dorota/Downloads/EUJAP_6_neale.pdf.
François Recanati, IsidoraStojanovic, Neftali Villanueva. 2010. Context-Dependence, Perspective and Relativity, Goettingen: Walter de Gruyter
Kaplan, David 1979. On the logic of Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 81–98
Walczak, George. (to appear in Ratio) Entailments are cancellable.
Wulf, Stephanie. 2003. A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8:2 (2003), 245–282.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2016a. Linguistic research in the empirical paradigm as outlined by Mario. Bunge, SpringerPlus
Zielinska, Dorota. 2016b. A model of categorization and compositionality (sense determination) in the light of a procedural model of language (based on selection and the communicative field) in ed. Capone, A: Pragmemes and theories of language use.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2016c. Philosophy and teaching reading to home-schoolers: phonics vs. whole words.Asian Academic Research Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. ISSN: 2278-859X, vol.3, issue 6, pp. 204–224.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2014. Procedurální model jazykaLingvistika z pohledu teorie modelů. empirickýchvěd.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2013. Utterance and sentence meanings from the perspective of the theory of empirical models. Foundations of philosophical Pragmatics. Red. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, Marco Carapezza, Springer, pp. 469–521.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2010. Prepositions and the explicature from the perspective of the selective mode of language use. Perspectives on language, use and pragmatics pod redakcją A. Capone. (Lincom Europa, Monachium), 181–210
Zielinska, Dorota. 2007a. The selective mode of language use and the quantized communicative field. Journal of Pragmatics. 39, 813–830.
Zielinska, Dorota. 2007b. Polish-English contrastive study of the order of noun phrase premodifiers. Tom pokonferencyjny: 4 Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham 2007. (on-line http ://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/conference 2007/zielinska.htm)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zielińska, D. (2019). The Field Model of Language and Free Enrichment. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00972-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00973-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)