Editorial: Relevance Theory and Intercultural Communication Problems

This editorial to the special issue of RiL dedicated to relevance theory and problems of intercultural communication addresses the general requirements that a theory of communication must meet to be applicable to the analysis of intercultural communication. Then it discusses criticism levelled against Grice’s theory of conversational implicature and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness on the grounds that these theories were not universal enough to be applied to all data. Finally, it offers some remarks on the applicability of relevance theory to intercultural pragmatics

A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Scope Ambiguity in Compositional Vector Space Models

We investigate the extent to which compositional vector space models can be used to account for scope ambiguity in quantified sentences (of the form "Every man loves some woman"). Such sentences containing two quantifiers introduce two readings, a direct scope reading and an inverse scope reading. This ambiguity has been treated in a vector space model using bialgebras by (Hedges and Sadrzadeh, 2016) and (Sadrzadeh, 2016), though without an explanation of the mechanism by which the ambiguity arises. We combine a polarised focussed sequent calculus for the non-associative Lambek calculus NL, as described in (Moortgat and Moot, 2011), with the vector based approach to quantifier scope ambiguity. In particular, we establish a procedure for obtaining a vector space model for quantifier scope ambiguity in a derivational way.Comment: This is a preprint of a paper to appear in: Journal of Language Modelling, 201

Negation 'presupposition' and metarepresentation: a response to Noel Burton-Roberts

Metalinguistic negation (MN) is interesting for at least the following two reasons: (a) it is one instance of the much broader, very widespread and various phenomenon of metarepresentational use in linguistic communication, whose semantic and pragmatic properties are currently being extensively explored by both linguists and philosophers of language; (b) it plays a central role in recent accounts of presupposition-denial cases, such as ‘The king of France is not bald; there is no king of France’. It is this latter employment that discussion of metalinguistic negation has focused on since Horn (1985)'s key article on the subject. While Burton-Roberts (1989a, 1989b) saw the MN account of presupposition-denials as providing strong support for his semantic theory of presupposition, I have offered a multi-layered pragmatic account of these cases, which also involves MN, but maintains the view that the phenomenon of presupposition is pragmatic (Carston 1994, 1996, 1998a)

Negation, 'presupposition' and the semantics/pragmatics distinction

A cognitive pragmatic approach is taken to some long-standing problem cases of negation, the so-called presupposition denial cases. It is argued that a full account of the processes and levels of representation involved in their interpretation typically requires the sequential pragmatic derivation of two different propositions expressed. The first is one in which the presupposition is preserved and, following the rejection of this, the second involves the echoic (metalinguistic) use of material falling in the scope of the negation. The semantic base for these processes is the standard anti-presuppositionalist wide-scope negation. A different view, developed by Burton-Roberts (1989a, b), takes presupposition to be a semantic relation encoded in natural language and so argues for a negation operator that does not cancel presuppositions. This view is shown to be flawed, in that it makes the false prediction that presupposition denial cases are semantic contradictions and it is based on too narrow a view of the role of pragmatic inferencing

Assessing relevance

This paper advances an approach to relevance grounded on patterns of material inference called argumentation schemes, which can account for the reconstruction and the evaluation of relevance relations. In order to account for relevance in different types of dialogical contexts, pursuing also non-cognitive goals, and measuring the scalar strength of relevance, communicative acts are conceived as dialogue moves, whose coherence with the previous ones or the context is represented as the conclusion of steps of material inferences. Such inferences are described using argumentation schemes and are evaluated by considering 1) their defeasibility, and 2) the acceptability of the implicit premises on which they are based. The assessment of both the relevance of an utterance and the strength thereof depends on the evaluation of three interrelated factors: 1) number of inferential steps required; 2) the types of argumentation schemes involved; and 3) the implicit premises required

A pragmatic explanation of the stage level/individual level contrast in combination with locatives

One important difference between stage level predicates (SLPs) and individual level predicates (ILPs) is their behavior with respect to locative modifiers. It is commonly assumed that SLPs but not ILPs combine with locatives. The present study argues against a semantic account for this behavior (as advanced by e.g. Kratzer 1995, Chierchia 1995) and proposes a genuinely pragmatic explanation of the observed stage level/individual level contrast instead. The proposal is spelled out using Blutners (1998, 2000) optimality theoretic version of the Gricean maxims. Building on the observation that the respective locatives are not event-related but frame-setting modifiers, the preference for main predicates that express temporary properties is explained as a side-effect of “synchronizing” the main predicate with the locative frame in the course of finding an optimal interpretation. By emphasizing the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, the proposed solution takes a considerable load off of semantics

Deixis, binding and presupposition

Dynamic semantic accounts of presupposition have proven to quite successful improvements over earlier theories. One great advance has been to link presupposition and anaphora together (van der Sandt 92, Geurts 95), an approach that extends to integrate bridging and other discourse phenomena (Asher and Lascarides 1998a,b). In this extended anaphoric account, presuppositions attach, like assertions, to the discourse context via certain rhetorical relations. These discourse attachments constrain accommodation and help avoid some infelicitous predictions of standard accounts of presupposition. Further, they have interesting and complex interactions with underspecified conditions that are an important feature of the contributions of most presupposition triggers. Deictic uses of definites, on the other hand, seem at first glance to fall outside the purview of an anaphoric theory of presupposition. There seems to be little that a discourse based theory would have to say. I will argue, however, that a discourse based account can capture how these definites function in conversation. In particular such accounts can clarify the interaction between the uses of such deictic definites and various conversational moves. At least some deictic uses of definites generate presuppositions that are bound to the context via a rhetorical function that I'll call unchoring, which if successful entails a type of knowing how. If this anchoring function is accepted, then the acceptors know how to locate the referent of the definite in the present context. I'll concentrate here just on definites that refer to spatial locations, where the intuitions about anchoring are quite clear. But I think that this view extends to other deictic uses of definites and has ramifications for an analysis of de re attitudes as well

Multi-theoretic approaches to understanding the science classroom

Multi-camera on-site video technology and post-lesson video stimulated interviews were used in a purposefully inclusive research design to generate a complex data set amenable to parallel analyses from several complementary theoretical perspectives. The symposium reports the results of parallel analyses employing positioning theory, systemic functional linguistics, distributed cognition and representational analysis of the same nine-lesson sequence in a single science classroom during the teaching of a single topic: States of Matter. Without contesting the coherence and value of a well-constructed mono-theoretic research study, the argument is made that all such studies present an inevitably partial account of a setting as complex as the science classroom: privileging some aspects and ignoring others. In this symposium, the first presentation examined the rationale for multi-theoretic research designs, highlighting the dangers of the circular amplification of those constructs predetermined by the choice of theory and outlining the intended benefits of multi-theoretic designs that offer less partial accounts of classroom practice. The second and third presentations reported the results of analyses of the same lesson sequence on the topic “states of matter” using the analytical perspectives of positioning theory and systemic functional linguistics. The final presentation reported the comparative analysis of student learning of density over the same three lessons from distributed cognition and representational perspectives. The research design promoted a form of reciprocal interrogation, where the analyses provided insights into classroom practice and the comparison of the analyses facilitated the reflexive interrogation of the selected theories, while also optimally anticipating the subsequent synthesis of the interpretive accounts generated by each analysis of the same setting for the purpose of informing instructional advocacy