Advertisement

Pragmatics and Biolinguistics

  • Antonino Pennisi
  • Alessandra Falzone
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 12)

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss the possible applications of pragmatics to biolinguistic issues. In particular, it notes that pragmatics as a discipline is related to the absolute variability of cultural content and can be considered foreign to biolinguistics. On the contrary, as a living form of linguistic performativity – with its generation rules and stabilization of inferences that occur when speech is being produced – pragmatics becomes an essential element of biolinguistics. In particular, it highlights that there are already many pragmatic naturalistic studies that perfectly match the Darwinian approach as they reveal pre-linguistic and linguistic behaviour very similar in humans and non-human animals.

Keywords

Nonhuman Animal Pragmatic Theory Cognitive Intentionality Conventional Implicature Performative Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Mutairi, F. R. (2014). The minimalist program the nature and plausibility of Chomsky’s biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, K., & Jaczcolt, K. M. (2012). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us. Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bianchi, C. (2009). Pragmatica cognitiva. I meccanismi della comunicazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  6. Brogaard, B. (2012). Context and content: Pragmatics in two-dimensional semantics. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 113–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1355–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of pronominal clitics and propositional attitudes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carston, R. (2012). Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In K. Allan & K.M. Jaczcolt (eds) The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 469-492.Google Scholar
  11. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1997). Why animals don’t have language. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 19, 173–210.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (1982). A note on the creative aspect of language use. The Philosophical Review, 91(3), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1999). Stemmer, B. (ed.). An on-line interview with Noam Chomsky: On the nature of pragmatics and related issues. Brain and Language, 68(3), 393–401.Google Scholar
  15. Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummings, L. (2014). Pragmatic disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Agostino, M. (1981). La linguistica chomskiana da problema a mistero. Le forme e la storia, 2(3), 483–519.Google Scholar
  18. Drach, M. (1981). The creative aspect of Chomsky’s use of the notion of creativity. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire. On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Enfield, N. J. (2009). Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engel, A. K., Friston, K. J., & Kragic, D. (2016). The pragmatic turn. Toward action-oriented views in cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fabietti, U. (2002). Identità etnica. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  23. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Ginzburg, C. (1979). Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario. In A. Gargani (Ed.), Crisi della ragione. Nuovi modelli nel rapporto tra sapere e attività umane. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1979). Communications and evolution of society. Boston: Beacon press.Google Scholar
  26. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practice. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativism (pp. 242–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haug, M. (2012). Conversational interaction. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 251–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haug, M., & Jaczcolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 87–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., et al. (2014). The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 401.Google Scholar
  31. Idan, A., & Kantorovich, A. (1985). Towards an evolutionary pragmatics of science. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 16(1), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for ‘fast mapping’. Science, 304, 1682–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kecskés, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 599–516). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kempson, R. (2012). The syntax/pragmatics interface. In Allan & Jaczcolt (2012), 529–548.Google Scholar
  35. Kuper, A. (1999). Culture: The anthropologists’ account. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication. Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(1), 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Uncommon ground. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2), 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Mey, J. (2015). On social pragmatics: its origin and early development. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 1, 209–211.Google Scholar
  41. Mey, J. (in press). Why we need the pragmemes. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Origgi, G. (2001). Interpretare il linguaggio o interpretare gli altri: una o due teorie? Sistemi intelligenti, 13(1), 171–188.Google Scholar
  43. Origgi, G., & Sperber, D. (2000). Evolution, communication and the proper function of language. InEvolution and the human mind: Language, modularity and social cognition (pp. 140–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennisi, A. (2012a). Può esistere una dicotomia natura-cultura nei processi evolutivi del linguaggio? RIFL, Num.Sp., 192–202.Google Scholar
  45. Poiani, A. (2012). Pragmatic evolution: Applications of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Recanati, F. (2012). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan & Jaczcolt (2012), 135–150.Google Scholar
  47. Remotti, F. (2011). Cultura: Dalla complessità all’impoverimento. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  48. Ruse, M. (2012). Can Darwinism offer existential reassurance at times of personal or social crisis? In A. Poiani (Ed.), Pragmatic evolution: Applications of evolutionary theory (pp. 313–325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2010). Animal communication: insights from linguistic pragmatics. Animal Behaviour, 79(1), e1–e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sperber, D. & Origgi, G. (2009). A pragmatic perspective on the evolution of language. In Larson et al (Eds.), 2010, 124–132.Google Scholar
  53. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, R. K. (1995). Natural and relational concepts in animals. Comparative approaches to cognitive science, 175, 224.Google Scholar
  56. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Traugott, E. C. (2012). Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinberger, E. D. (2002). A theory of pragmatic information and its application to the quasi-species model of biological evolution. Biosystems, 66(3), 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zuberbühler, K. (2005). The phylogenetic roots of language. Evidence from primate. Communication and Cognition, 14(3), 126–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonino Pennisi
    • 1
  • Alessandra Falzone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations