Non-observance of Maxims in Indonesia Chick Literature with the Special Reference to Ika Natassa’s Architecture of Love

This paper elaborates the non observance of maxim occurred in the emerging popular chick literature written by the leading author of the genre; Ika Natassa. As one of the most-read genres amongst Indonesians literature lovers, the chick lit or in its Indonesian’s derivation is called metropop, has given an exceptional punch line of readership and entrenched a solid interest for beginner readers to start reading literature. Chick Literature or metropop literature depicts the day to day anecdote of urban people mostly women which compelled the feeling of closeness to its readers. The conversations written in this genre brandish the snarky and witty colloquial which in linguistic point of view or particularly in Pragmatic, deserves an assay. The objectives of this paper are to figure out the most dominant types of non observance of maxims committed by the selected characters in the novel and to look over various situations and in what circumstances the selected characters committed the non observance of maxims. This result demonstrates that the most dominant non observance of maxims was flouting the maxim of Quantity, followed by the flouting of maxim of manner, maxim of quality and the least flouting maxim is maxim of relation. This study utilizes qualitative method where the data collection has been analyzed based on the conversational implicature theory.   Keywords: Pragmatics, Implicature Theory, Cooperative Principle Conversational Maxims, Chick Literatur

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)

A solution to Karttunen's Problem

There is a difference between the conditions in which one can felicitously assert a ‘must’-claim versus those in which one can use the corresponding non-modal claim. But it is difficult to pin down just what this difference amounts to. And it is even harder to account for this difference, since assertions of 'Must ϕ' and assertions of ϕ alone seem to have the same basic goal: namely, coming to agreement that [[ϕ]] is true. In this paper I take on this puzzle, known as Karttunen’s Problem. I begin by arguing that a ‘must’-claim is felicitous only if there is a shared argument for its prejacent. I then argue that this generalization, which I call Support, can explain the more familiar generalization that ‘must’-claims are felicitous only if the speaker’s evidence for them is in some sense indirect. Finally, I sketch a pragmatic derivation of Support

Minimalism And The Limits Of Warranted Assertability Maneuvers

Contextualists and pragmatists agree that knowledge-denying sentences are contextually variable, in the sense that a knowledge-denying sentence might semantically express a false proposition in one context and a true proposition in another context, without any change in the properties traditionally viewed as necessary for knowledge. Minimalists deny both pragmatism and contextualism, and maintain that knowledge-denying sentences are not contextually variable. To defend their view from cases like DeRose and Stanley's high stakes bank case, minimalists like Patrick Rysiew, Jessica Brown, and Wayne Davis forward ‘warranted assertability maneuvers.’ The basic idea is that some knowledge-denying sentence seems contextually variable because we mistake what a speaker pragmatically conveys by uttering that sentence for what she literally says by uttering that sentence. In this paper, I raise problems for the warranted assertability maneuvers of Rysiew, Brown, and Davis, and then present a warranted assertability maneuver that should succeed if any warranted assertability maneuver will succeed. I then show how my warranted assertability maneuver fails, and how the problem with my warranted assertability maneuver generalizes to pragmatic responses in general. The upshot of my argument is that, in order to defend their view from cases like DeRose and Stanley's high stakes bank case, minimalists must prioritize the epistemological question whether the subjects in those cases know over linguistic questions about the pragmatics of various knowledge-denying sentences

Scalar Implicatures: a Gricean vs. a Relevance Theory Approach

Griceans have always supported the idea that scalar implicaturesare Quantity-based generalized conversational implicatures (GCI). With the purpose of explaining this phenomenon, they derived their own principles inspired in Grice’s Quantity maxims and concluded that whenever a speaker uses a weak linguistic item of a given scale, no matter the context she is in, she will be implying (a) that she is not in a position to be more informative and that therefore (b) a stronger item of the scale will not hold. For instance, if there is a scale such as and the speaker chooses the weaker element some, she will automatically be implying not all. However, Relevance theorists believe that scalar implicatures are context-based. Thus, they claim that theseimplicaturesdo not depend on any Quantity maxim to arise but on a notion of relevance that considersthe context in which sentences are uttered. So although the speaker chooses the linguistic term somefrom the previously mentioned scale,the context should be taken into account to infer that she is implicating not all. Thepresent paper aims to compare both pragmatic theories’approach to the scalar implicature case. Consequently, I will first explain the main features of each theory: how human verbal communication works, how implicatures are generated and how the information contained in such implicaturesis recovered by hearers according to them. Then, I will introduce scalar implicatures and contrast the Gricean and Relevance Theory approaches (based on the previously explained features of each pragmatic tendency) to such phenomenon. To conclude, I will discuss what experimental pragmatics says about each proposal.The results from the application of each theory’s approach to the case of scalar implicatures indicate that Relevance Theory predicts their generation more accurately. In the same way, experimental pragmatics denies that the Griceansystem for generating scalarimplicatures isthe correct and most efficient one and verifies Relevance Theory’s predictions about it as well as its analysis of scalar implicatures

Corpus Analysis and Lexical Pragmatics: An Overview

Lexical pragmatics studies the processes by which lexically encoded meanings are modified in use; well-studied examples include lexical narrowing, approximation and metaphorical extension. Relevance theorists have been trying to develop a unitary account on which narrowing, approximation and metaphorical extension are all explained in the same way. While there have been several corpus-based studies of metaphor and a few of hyperbole or approximation, there has been no attempt so far to test the unitary account using corpus data. This paper reports the results of a corpus-based investigation of lexical-pragmatic processes, and discusses the theoretical issues and challenges it raises

A CONCEPT OF GENERAL MEANING: SELECTED THEORIES IN COMPARISON TO SELECTED SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC THEORIES

The paper discusses a concept of general meaning with reference to various relevant semantic and pragmatic theories. It includes references to Slavic axiological semantics (e.g. Krzeszowski (1997); Puzynina (1992)), Wierzbicka’s (e.g. 1980, 1987) atomic expressions and classical pragmatics theories, such as speech acts, Gricean theory of conversational implicature, politeness theory and and relevance theory