Pragmatics
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rug/reader.action?docID=1600484 Gunter Senft
Jannette bosma laten weten afwezigheid pragmatiek
Eerste college informatie krijgen
Tweede college input van studenten en assignment ingeleverd
Wat is pragmatiek?
“But pragmatics isn’t about forms, it’s about the use of forms: although we know words mean
formally (their semantics), knowing what the speakers mean by using them (their pragmatics) isn’t so
obvious.” Grundy, Doing Pragmatics, 2020, p. 1-2
“daar moet je pragmatisch mee omgaan!”
Doelgericht, utilitaristisch
Op een praktische, realistische wijze
Gericht op de functie
Speaker meaning and sentence meaning > bijv bij sarcasm is deze meaning verschillend.
Week 1
Read chapter 1
Pragmatics is about explaining how we produce and understand such everyday but
apparently rather peculiar uses of language.
1.1 Checking understanding
1.2 Properties of everyday language
1.2.1 Appropriateness
1.2.2 Non-literal or indirect meaning
1.2.3 Inference : a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. We
need to draw inferences to come to conclusions as to what the speaker is
intending to convey. “wil je met me eten vanavond? “ “ik ga al met m’n moeder
eten” > inference hij kan niet samen eten, doel: optimaal gebruiken (optimality)
1.2.4 Indeterminacy : not exactly known, established, or defined
1.2.5 Context
1.2.6 Relevance
1.2.7 Accommodation : as we try to determine what people mean by what they say, we
usually need to accept or accommodate, a good deal of information which we feel is
known to both the speaker and ourselves.
1.2.8 Reflexivity : Frequently one part of what we say provides some sort of comment on
how our utterance fits into the discourse as a whole or on how the speaker wants to
be understood.
1.2.9 Misfires : pragmatic misfires are important because they tell us that there are
expected norms for talk by showing us the effect of not achieved the norm.
1.3 Deixis, speech acts, implicature
Three very problematical properties of demonstratives.
Deixis
, The first of these is to do with an indeterminacy that can only be resolved when we look at
the context, and particularly at three aspects of that context, who the speaker is and where
and when the sentence is uttered.
The property of a small set of words like I, here and now to pick out an aspect of the context
in which they are uttered is called deixis.
Utterances as speech acts
what is most appropriately for the utterance counts as doing. “im here now” at a hospital,
or at home?
Implicature
The context and from considering what inference ought to be drawn to make the utterance
maximally relevant. Here: London / Britain. (the hospital context, the meeting context, the
kids larking about context)
Pragmatiek week 1 seminar 1
Sentence meaning vs speaker meaning (betekins van
zin ipv spreker) > verzoek tot toestemming vs verzoek
tot actie (als hetzelfde? Optimaal gebruik van taal)
Utterances (uitingen ipv zinnen)
Intentions (intentie als motor van beterkenis)
Inference (inferentie redenen)
Pragmatiek week 1 seminar 2
The preferred speaker meaning van de beller is het doel om te spreken met
de vader met de utterance.
The inference the child draws from the question is giving permission to the
caller.
The context of the strip is a phone call.
Heck is a meta pragmatic marker, onnodig maar geeft verduidelijking aan de
zin.
Asking for permission ipv imperatief> geef me je vader aan de telefoon”.
Week 2 seminar 2
Donald dickens
Language – reality
- a word points to an object
- a sentence to a state of affairs
Noam Chomsky
Thought- language
- A word points to a concept
- A sentence to thought
Ludwig Wittgenstein
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rug/reader.action?docID=1600484 Gunter Senft
Jannette bosma laten weten afwezigheid pragmatiek
Eerste college informatie krijgen
Tweede college input van studenten en assignment ingeleverd
Wat is pragmatiek?
“But pragmatics isn’t about forms, it’s about the use of forms: although we know words mean
formally (their semantics), knowing what the speakers mean by using them (their pragmatics) isn’t so
obvious.” Grundy, Doing Pragmatics, 2020, p. 1-2
“daar moet je pragmatisch mee omgaan!”
Doelgericht, utilitaristisch
Op een praktische, realistische wijze
Gericht op de functie
Speaker meaning and sentence meaning > bijv bij sarcasm is deze meaning verschillend.
Week 1
Read chapter 1
Pragmatics is about explaining how we produce and understand such everyday but
apparently rather peculiar uses of language.
1.1 Checking understanding
1.2 Properties of everyday language
1.2.1 Appropriateness
1.2.2 Non-literal or indirect meaning
1.2.3 Inference : a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. We
need to draw inferences to come to conclusions as to what the speaker is
intending to convey. “wil je met me eten vanavond? “ “ik ga al met m’n moeder
eten” > inference hij kan niet samen eten, doel: optimaal gebruiken (optimality)
1.2.4 Indeterminacy : not exactly known, established, or defined
1.2.5 Context
1.2.6 Relevance
1.2.7 Accommodation : as we try to determine what people mean by what they say, we
usually need to accept or accommodate, a good deal of information which we feel is
known to both the speaker and ourselves.
1.2.8 Reflexivity : Frequently one part of what we say provides some sort of comment on
how our utterance fits into the discourse as a whole or on how the speaker wants to
be understood.
1.2.9 Misfires : pragmatic misfires are important because they tell us that there are
expected norms for talk by showing us the effect of not achieved the norm.
1.3 Deixis, speech acts, implicature
Three very problematical properties of demonstratives.
Deixis
, The first of these is to do with an indeterminacy that can only be resolved when we look at
the context, and particularly at three aspects of that context, who the speaker is and where
and when the sentence is uttered.
The property of a small set of words like I, here and now to pick out an aspect of the context
in which they are uttered is called deixis.
Utterances as speech acts
what is most appropriately for the utterance counts as doing. “im here now” at a hospital,
or at home?
Implicature
The context and from considering what inference ought to be drawn to make the utterance
maximally relevant. Here: London / Britain. (the hospital context, the meeting context, the
kids larking about context)
Pragmatiek week 1 seminar 1
Sentence meaning vs speaker meaning (betekins van
zin ipv spreker) > verzoek tot toestemming vs verzoek
tot actie (als hetzelfde? Optimaal gebruik van taal)
Utterances (uitingen ipv zinnen)
Intentions (intentie als motor van beterkenis)
Inference (inferentie redenen)
Pragmatiek week 1 seminar 2
The preferred speaker meaning van de beller is het doel om te spreken met
de vader met de utterance.
The inference the child draws from the question is giving permission to the
caller.
The context of the strip is a phone call.
Heck is a meta pragmatic marker, onnodig maar geeft verduidelijking aan de
zin.
Asking for permission ipv imperatief> geef me je vader aan de telefoon”.
Week 2 seminar 2
Donald dickens
Language – reality
- a word points to an object
- a sentence to a state of affairs
Noam Chomsky
Thought- language
- A word points to a concept
- A sentence to thought
Ludwig Wittgenstein
