the explicit/implicit dimension PDF
Preview the explicit/implicit dimension
B e h r e n s & F Oslo Studies in Language a b 1 / 2009 r ic iu s - H a n s e n ( e d s .) Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.) Structuring information in discourse: the explicit/implicit dimension OsloStudiesinLanguage Generaleditors: AtleGrønnandDagHaug Editorialboard International: HenningAndersen,LosAngeles(historicallinguistics) ÖstenDahl,Stockholm(typology) LauraJanda,Tromsø/UNCChapelHill(Slaviclinguistics,cognitivelinguistics) ArnimvonStechow,Tübingen(semanticsandsyntax) National: JohannaBarðdal,Bergen(constructiongrammar) ØysteinVangsnes,Tromsø(Norwegian,dialectsyntax) Local: CeciliaAlvstad,ILOS(Spanish,translatology) HansOlavEnger,ILN(Norwegian,cognitivelinguistics) RuthE.VatvedtFjeld,ILN(Norwegian,lexicography) JanTerjeFaarlund,CSMN,ILN(Norwegian,syntax) CathrineFabricius-Hansen,ILOS(German,contrastivelinguistics) CarstenHansen,CSMN,IFIKK(philosophyoflanguage) ChristophHarbsmeier,IKOS(Chinese,lexicography) HildeHasselgård,ILOS(English,corpuslinguistics) HansPetterHelland,ILOS(French,syntax) KristianEmilKristoffersen,ILN(cognitivelinguistics) HelgeLødrup,ILN(syntax) GunvorMejdell,IKOS(Arabic,sociolinguistics) LjiljanaSaric,ILOS(Slaviclinguistics) BenteAilinSvendsen,ILN(secondlanguageacquisition) B e h r e n s & F Oslo Studies in Language a b 1 / 2009 r i c i u s - H a n s e n ( e d s .) Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.) Structuring information in discourse: the explicit/implicit dimension OsloStudiesinLanguage,volume1,2009. BergljotBehrensandCathrineFabricius-Hansen(eds.): StructuringInformationinDiscourse: theExplicit/ImplicitDimension Oslo,UniversityofOslo ISSN1890-9639 ©2009theauthors LayoutanddesignbyLarsBungum,AtleGrønn,DagHaugandKarineStjernholm SetinLATEX fontsGentiumBookBasicandLinuxLibertinebyLarsBungum CoverdesignbyUniPubpublishinghouse PrintedbyUniPubfromcamera-readycopysuppliedbytheeditors hhttttpp::////wwwwww..jjoouurrnnaallss..uuiioo..nnoo//oossllaa TC 11 IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn 1 BergljotBehrensandCathrineFabricius-Hansen,UniversityofOslo 22 OOnntthheeFFuunnccttiioonnaallIInnddeeppeennddeenncceeooffEExxpplliiccaattuurreessaannddIImmpplliiccaattuurreess 17 ThorsteinFretheim,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology 33 CCrroossss--LLiinngguuiissttiiccEEvviiddeenncceeaannddtthheeLLiicceennssiinnggooffIImmpplliicciittAArrgguummeennttss 33 GergelyPethőandEvaKardos,UniversityofDebrecen 44 AAMMoorrpphheemmee--bbaasseeddMMooddeellooffNNoonnsseenntteennttiiaallUUtttteerraanncceePPrroodduuccttiioonn 63 ShinjiIdo,TohokuUniversity/UniversityofSydney 55 TThheeRReeaall,,tthheeAAppppaarreenntt,,aannddWWhhaattiisseeiiggeennttlliicchh 77 RegineEckardt,UniversityofGöttingen 66 SSeellffIInntteennssiiffiiccaattiioonnaannddFFooccuussIInntteerrpprreettaattiioonn 109 KjellJohanSæbø,UniversityofOslo 77 AAddvveerrbbiiaallddoocchhaannddtthheeNNoottiioonnooffCCoonnttrraasstt 131 ElenaKaragjosova,UniversityofOslo 88 AAFFoorrmmaallAAnnaallyyssiissoofftthheeFFrreenncchhTTeemmppoorraallCCoonnnneeccttiivveeaalloorrss 149 MyriamBras,AnneLeDraoulecandNicholasAsher,Universityof Toulouse 99 DDiissccoouurrsseeSSttrruuccttuurree:: SSwwiinnggssaannddRRoouunnddaabboouuttss 171 BonnieWebber,UniversityofEdinburghandRashmiPrasad,University ofPennsylvania 1100 OOppttiimmaallIInntteerrpprreettaattiioonnaassaannAAlltteerrnnaattiivveettooGGrriicceeaannPPrraaggmmaattiiccss 191 HenkZeevat,UniversityofAmsterdam v Behrens&Fabricius-Hansen(eds.)Structuringinformationindiscourse: theexplicit/implicitdimension,OsloStudiesinLanguage1(1),2009.1-15.(ISSN1890-9639) hhttttpp::////wwwwww..jjoouurrnnaallss..uuiioo..nnoo//oossllaa BERGLJOT BEHRENS CATHRINE FABRICIUS–HANSEN UniversityofOslo [1] The present thematic issue comprises a selection of nine refereed and revised papers,mostofwhichwerepresentedattheSPRIKconferenceExplicitversusIm- plicit InformationinText. InformationStructureacrossLanguages in Oslo, 8-10 June 2006.11 The bipartite title of the conference reflects the main objectives of the organizingresearchprojectSPRIK22 (‘SPRåkIKontrast/LanguagesinContrast’), which is directed towards text-oriented, corpus-based contrastive studies (Nor- wegian,English,French,German)oftheinterplaybetweenexplicit(linguistically encoded)informationandimplicitinformation,ontheonehand,andtheinterac- tion of local, sentence-internal information structure and more global informa- tion structuring and weighting, including so-called discourse structure, on the other. Nine explicitly contrastive and partly translation-oriented papers pre- sentedattheconferencewereselectedforaspecialissueofthejournalLanguages inContrast (BBeehhrreennsseettaall.. 22000077). The present issue of OSLa is more theoretically oriented,focussingonthesystem(s)orproceduresthatcanaccountforthestruc- tureofcomplexdiscourse. Whiletheoreticalstudiesandempiricalstudiessome- timescompeteinthescientificcommunity, andresearcherschangefromapre- occupationwiththeorytoapreoccupationwithdata,themajorityofthepapers inthepresentpublicationcombinedataandtheoryveryclosely. Withafewex- ceptions the papers are monolingually oriented, but taken together they cover a variety of object languages: English, German, Norwegian, French, Hungarian, Turkish,Japanese,andMongolian. Thecontributionscomprise (i) ThreekeynotepapersbyRegineE,KjellJohanSandBonnieW ,andan‘unofficial’keynotepaperbyHenkZ. Thepapersdemon- strateorargueforsomewhatdifferenttheoreticalapproachestotheinter- action of lexically encoded meaning, contextual information, information [1] Seehhttttpp::////wwwwww..hhff..uuiioo..nnoo//ffoorrsskknniinnggsspprroossjjeekktteerr//sspprriikk//eenngglliisshh//aaccttiivviittiieess//ccoonnff..hhttmmll [2] Seehhttttpp::////wwwwww..hhff..uuiioo..nnoo//ffoorrsskknniinnggsspprroossjjeekktteerr//sspprriikk//. TheSPRIKprojectattheFacultyof Humanitites,UniversityofOslo,wasfundedbytheNorwegianResearchCouncil(NFR)underproject number158447/530(2003-2008). [2] structure and/or discourse structure: Formal (Dynamic) Semantics com- binedwithFocusTheoryàlaRooth(Eckardt, Sæbø), OptimalityTheoretic Pragmatics(Zeevat,Sæbø),andDiscourse-levelLexicalizedTreeAdjoining Grammar(D-LTAG)(Webber). (ii) Fivecasestudiesthatarethematically, theoreticallyand/ormethodologi- callyrelatedtooneormoreofthekeynotepaperslistedin(i). Thesecase studiesalsowidentheperspectivesomewhat: onepaperpresentingauni- fiedcontext-dependentsemanticsfortheconjunctadverbdoch(ElenaK );oneconcernedwiththeinterplaybetweenconnectives/particles anddiscourse/rhetoricalrelations(MyriamBetal.,);onepaperaddress- ing the division of labor between syntax, semantics and pragmatics as far asthelicensingandinterpretationofimplicitobjectsisconcerned(Gergely PandEvaK);onerelevance-theoreticallyorientedpaperdemon- stratinglexicalrelationswhichformaveryimportantbasisforquestioning the explicature-implicature distinction (Thorstein F); and one pa- peroutliningamodelfornon-sententialutteranceproduction(ShinjiI). The general research questions addressed in this volume are highly relevant in thepresentlinguisticdebate,centeringoninterfacesbetweendifferentlevelsof description. Whereinouraccountoftherelationbetweenlanguageandmeaning do the constraints on interpretation belong? In accounting for the meaning of texts,howmuchandwhatkindofmeaningdoweattachtothelinguisticsignals themselves? What do these signals encode that contributes to the construction andresolutionofcontext-dependentmeaning? Toputthequestionsdifferently, howmuchdolanguageusersbasetheirinterpretationsonworldknowledgeand generalpragmaticprinciples,suchasforexampletheRelevanceTheoreticprin- cipleoflookingforoptimalrelevance/cognitiveeffectsatthelowestcost,orthe OptimalityTheoreticinstructiontoassesstherelativeweightofaseriesofbasic pragmatic principles to arrive at the best interpretation? Pure pragmatic rea- soningisclearlynecessaryforthelanguageusertoinferintendedmeanings,but whilesomeadherentsofpragmaticstendtoattachmostoftheinterpretationpro- cedurestogeneralpragmaticprinciples(seethecriticaldiscussioninPethőand Kardosinthepresentvolume),severalofthecontributionsinthepresentvolume demonstratetheessentialroleoflinguistic,text-structuringcluesinacomposi- tionalsystemofarrivingatthefullmeaningofcomplexdiscourse. [2] Thisbookdealswiththechallengesofaccountingforthesystemsthatdirectthe retrieval of contextual information in the interpretation of coherent discourse. Discourse – written text or a sequence of spoken utterances – is coherent when OSLavolume1(1),2009 [3] asingleutteranceorexpression(sententialornon-sentential)isnotonlyinter- pretedatfacevalue,byandofitself,butmakessenseasameaningfulcontribution tothelinguisticandnon-linguisticcontextitappearsin. Atonelevelthismeansthatwelookforthefactorsthatdeterminetheexpres- sion’scontributiontowhatthediscourserefersto. Atanotherlevelweareafter thefactorsthatdetermineitsillocution,i.e. whattheexpressionmaybemeant todointhecontext–whethertoadd, challengeormodifyinformation, byway ofrepresentinganopinion,underliningaviewpoint,creatingacontrastetc. For bothlevelsofinterpretation,discoursemustbestructured. Thequestionforthe linguistisnotonlywhatthatstructureisbutwhatthefactorsarethatdetermine thestructures. [3] Whenwesaysomething,weoftentakeitforgrantedthatwhatwemeanbywhat wesaywillnotonlybeavailabletothelistenerbutthatwhatthelistenertakesus tomeanonthebasisofwhatwesayisinfactwhatwemean. Thatis,weexpect thelinguisticcodewehavemadeuseoftobesufficienttoexpressourintended meaning. However,aslinguists,weknowthatalotofwhataspeakercommuni- catesbywhats/hesaysisnotexplicitlystated. Well-knownexamplesareellipsis, oromittedwordsorphrasesthataresomehowrecoverablefromgeneralrulesof syntax,suchastheimpliedobjectargumentinthesecondconjunctin((11)). (1) Thekingpickedupthewineanddrank. An utterance of ((11)) will be understood by all reasonable listeners to mean that thekingdrank(atleastsomeof)thewinethatisreferredtointhefirstconjunct. Althoughthisisonlyapieceof informationgivenbytheutterance,most linguistsagreethatitmakesuppartofthetruthconditions(semanticcontent)of theutterance. The same listeners will also agree that the utterance in ((11)) implies that the king picked up a glass or some other container that can hold wine and that is meant for drinking, and that the wine he drank was in that glass/bowl or bot- tle/flask. Thisisalsoinformationthatisnotstatedexplicitly. Yetthedifferent piecesofimplicitinformationretrievedfromtheutteranceof((11)),onemightar- gue,areretrievedonthebasisofdifferentinterpretationprinciples: Firstofall, theobjectoftheverbdrinkmaybepostulatedasanunderspecifiedargumentin the syntactic structure of the second conjunct, determined by the selection re- strictionsfortheverb. Simplifyingsomewhat,wemaysaythattheunderspecified argument lacks intrinsic reference and is therefore assumed to be an anaphor, whose reference must be resolved in context. Although everyone would agree OSLavolume1(1),2009 [4] that the king drank (some of) the wine, not all linguists would agree that the abovedescriptionofhowthatmeaningcomesaboutisacorrectdescription. The pragmatic principle guiding the resolution of the anaphor, furthermore, is also amatterofdebate: onalinguisticallybasedview,aprincipleofnon-intervening eventsmaybestatedforeventsexpressedinaVPconjunction,whichmeansthat theimpliedobjectofthedrinkingeventshouldfinditsantecedentinthefirstcon- junct(DiscourseRepresentationTheoretic(DRT)approach). Onanotherviewthe anaphorisresolvedastheresultofageneralsearchforrelevance(theRelevance Theoretic(RT)approach). Theotherinformationisretrievedonthebasisofthelisteners’generalknowl- edgeaboutwinecontainersandtheimpossibilityofpickingupaliquidwhichis not in a container of some sort. Typically, the exact reference of this kind of knowledge-basedinformationremainsvagueorloosewithoutfurthercontextual cluesormorespecificknowledgeabouttheactualstateofaffairs. Therestricted context given in ((11)) contributes to narrowing the reference of “wine” down to “wineinsomecontainer”. Awidercontextmightnarrowitdownevenfurther. The distinction between the types of implicit information in ((11)) is generally statedasadifferencebetweenlinguisticallymotivatedinformationandgeneral world knowledge as a basis for inferences drawn as to the meaning of an utter- ance. This distinction is often hard to draw, and different theories of language draw the line differently. The problem of accounting for systems of “filling in” material“missing”intheexpressiontoarriveattheunderlyingpropositionisof centralconcerntolinguistictheory. GGrriiccee(11997755)madetheimportantdistinctionbetweeninformationthatmakes uppartofthetruthconditionsofanutteranceand“cancellable”meaningsdrawn fromtheutterance,whichthespeakercannotbeheldresponsiblefor,andcorre- latedthedivisionwithadistinctionbetweenwhatissaidandwhatisimplicated. LLeevviinnssoonn(22000000)explicatesthisviewinsayingthatthe“said”canbetakentobe truth-conditionalcontent,theoutputofsemanticinterpretation(theproposition expressed), while the “implicated” can be taken to include all the processes of pragmaticinference. Ifthisisthedistinctiontobedrawn,theninformationinferredfromtheut- teranceshouldnotmakeuppartofthetruthconditionsoftheutterance,bydef- inition. Suchaview,accordingtoabroadrangeoflinguistsandlanguagephilosophers today,isclearlymistaken. Thequestion,therefore,is:Whatcanbesaidtobe‘said’ onthebasisofanutteranceorpieceofdiscourse? Answerstothisquestionaresoughtinvariousways,aswasillustratedbyour analysisof((11)). Thefirstproblemistodeterminethegroundsforwhichanobjectargument shouldbepostulatedinthesyntaxoftheutterance. Thisisatheoreticalmatter. OSLavolume1(1),2009
Description:The list of books you might like
