Composing Utterance Meaning: An Interface Between Pragmatics and Psychology

1
Composing Utterance Meaning An Interface
Between Pragmatics and Psychology

• Anna Sysoeva and Kasia Jaszczolt
• University of Cambridge

2

• In search for Primary Meaning what is said,
  explicature, impliciture, meaning merger

3

• In search for Primary Meaning what is said,
  explicature, impliciture, meaning merger
• Contextualism

4

• In search for Primary Meaning what is said,
  explicature, impliciture, meaning merger
• Contextualism
• Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraint

5

• In search for Primary Meaning what is said,
  explicature, impliciture, meaning merger
• Contextualism
• Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraint
• Experimental evidence from English and Russian
  our pilot study

6

• In search for Primary Meaning what is said,
  explicature, impliciture, meaning merger
• Contextualism
• Primary Meaning and the syntactic constraint
• Experimental evidence from English and Russian a
  pilot study
• Truth-conditional analysis and psychological
  reality

7

• (1) Mary hasnt eaten. (minimal proposition)
• (2) Mary hasnt eaten breakfast yet. (what is
  said)
• Modulation a top-down pragmatically controlled
  process (Recanati, e.g. 2004, 2005)

8
Contextualism

• Contextualism ascribes to modulation a form of
  necessity which makes it ineliminable. Without
  contextual modulation, no proposition could be
  expressed Recanati (2005 179-180).
• there is no level of meaning which is both (i)
  propositional (truth-evaluable) and (ii)
  minimalist (that is, unaffected by top-down
  factors). Recanati (2004 90)

9
Our View

• There is a top-down process of pragmatic
  inference that interacts with the aspects of
  meaning provided by the sentence and the aspects
  of meaning provided by cultural and social
  assumptions ( cf. contextualism).
• Not all utterances make use of this pragmatic
  process of modulation (vs. contextualism)

10

• The object of study of the truth-conditional
  theory of utterance meaning is the Primary
  Meaning intended by the Model Speaker and
  recovered by the Model Addressee.
• This Primary Meaning need not obey the syntactic
  constraint, i.e. need not be dependent on the
  syntactic representation of the uttered sentence.

11
In Search for Primary Meaning

• What is said
• What is said results from fleshing out the
  meaning of the sentence (which is like a semantic
  skeleton) so as to make it propositional.
• Recanati (2004 6)

12

• Explicature
• An assumption communicated by an utterance U is
  explicit if and only if it is a development of a
  logical form encoded by U.
• Sperber and Wilson (1986/95 182).

13

• Middle level of impliciture, going beyond what
  is said (Bach 1994, 2001, 2004, 2005) shares
  the same constraint of the sentences syntactic
  form as the skeleton

14

• Default Semantics
• (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007)
• Stage I Processing of the truth-conditional
  content
• compositional merger representation
• Sources of information about meaning
• Combination of word meaning and sentence
  structure (WS)
• Cognitive defaults (CD)
• Social-cultural defaults (SCD1)
• Conscious pragmatic inference (CPI1)

15

• Stage II Processing of implicatures
• Sources of information about meaning
• Social-cultural defaults2 (SCD2)
• 2. Conscious pragmatic inference2 (CPI2)

16

• Merger representation has to satisfy the
  methodological requirement of compositionality

17
Principle of compositionality for the meaning
merger

• The meaning of the act of communication is a
  function of the meaning of the words the
  sentence structure cognitive, social and
  cultural assumptions, and conscious pragmatic
  inference.

18

• Mary hasnt eaten.
• Mary hasnt eaten breakfast yet.
• Mary is hungry.

19
Do we need the syntactic form constraint?

• Intuitively available what is said, automatically
  processed (Recanati, e.g. 2004) x
• Explicature ad hoc concept construction
  (Carston, e.g. 2002) x
• Meaning merger (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005) x

20

• The boundary between the primary meaning
  (salient meaning, meaning merger) and secondary
  meaning (implicatures) has to be psychologically
  real and empirically testable, but need not
  necessarily obey the syntactic constraint.

21
Experimental Evidence

• Pilot Study

22
Aim of the experiment

• Testing intuitions about primary meaning (PM)

23
Research questions

• Does the PM that is available to peoples
  intuitions have to rely on the structural content
  of the uttered sentence?

24
Research questions

• Does the PM that is available to peoples
  intuitions have to rely on the structural content
  of the uttered sentence?
• Hypothesis NO

25
Research questions

• What factors influence the type of intuitive
  truth conditions, their degree of closeness to
  the logical form (LF) of the uttered sentence?

26
Research questions

• What factors influence the type of intuitive
  truth conditions, their degree of closeness to
  the logical form (LF) of the uttered sentence?
• degree of directness of culture
• degree of directness of the speech act (SA)
• addressee's gender

27
Degree of directness of culture

• Performing speech acts (SAs) Russians use more
  direct strategies than speakers of British
  English (Sysoeva 2005, Wierzbicka 1992).

28
Degree of directness of culture

• Performing speech acts (SAs) Russians use more
  direct strategies than speakers of British
  English (Sysoeva 2005, Wierzbicka 1992).
• Does the cultural preference for using more/less
  direct strategies have an effect on how often PM
  is represented by LF or by proposition
  functionally independent of LF?

29
Degree of directness of culture (2)

• Hypotheses
• Both (developed) LFs and functionally independent
  propositions (FIPs) may function as PMs in both
  cultures (despite differences in directness).

30
Degree of directness of culture

• Hypotheses
• For Russians PM is more frequently close to
  literal meaning of the uttered sentence than for
  British people.

31
Degree of directness of culture

• Hypotheses
• For Russians PM is more frequently close to the
  LF of the uttered sentence than for British
  people.
• Its chilly in here
• British culture request to close the window (in
  a suitable context)
• Russian culture statement

32
Degree of directness of SA

• Object of study requests
• Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) classification of
  request strategies on a universally valid scale
  of indirectness
• direct
• conventionally indirect
• non-conventionally indirect
• Does the degree of directness of the strategy
  have an effect on the type of PM?

33
Design

• Questionnaire 14 story contexts containing
  utterances relying on request strategies with
  different degrees of directness. Continuum from
  most direct to most indirect strategies.

34
Request strategies in the questionnaire

• Direct requests

35
Request strategies in the questionnaire

• Direct requests
• Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF
  indicating devices

36
Strategies of request performance

• Direct requests
• Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF
  indicating devices
• mood derivable
• Michael Hi George! How did your conference
  presentation go?
• George It went very well. I got a lot of
  positive feedback.
• Michael Congratulations! Im sorry I couldnt be
  there. Please, send me a copy of your talk. Im
  very interested in your topic.

37
Strategies of request performance

• Direct requests
• Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF
  indicating devices
• mood derivable
• IF is explicitly named (explicit performative)
• Mr Smith I am happy to tell you that weve
  decided to make you a job offer, Mr White.
• Mr White Thank you, Mr Smith. But Im not really
  sure
• Mr Smith Please, dont decide straight away, Mr
  White. Im asking you to think about it first.

38
Strategies of request performance

• Direct requests
• Illocutionary force (IF) is derivable from IF
  indicating devices
• IF is derivable from semantic meaning of the
  locution
• Melanie Are you really going to drive in this
  weather, John?
• John Dont worry, Melanie. Ive driven in worse
  conditions.
• Melanie Ok. But you should be careful. Im very
  worried.

39
Strategies of request performance

• Conventionally indirect requests
• Kate Will you see Jenny today?
• Vicky Yes, Ill see her during lunch break.
• Kate Can you give this book to her?

40
Strategies of request performance

• Non-conventionally indirect requests (IF is
  derivable from speakers intention in a
  particular context)
• Andrew Struggling with maths, Mary?
• Mary Yes, Im not sure Ill manage to solve this
  problem by myself. I heard youre good at maths,
  Andrew.

41
Task formulation

• Please read the dialogues given below. For each
  underlined sentence, write down the speakers
  main meaning in the space provided as clearly as
  you can.
• Free choice questionnaire A better way testing
  peoples intuitions than forced choice
  questionnaires.

42
Participants

• 20 British male undergraduates
• 20 British female undergraduates
• 20 Russian male undergraduates
• 20 Russian female undergraduates

43
Variable under study

• Type of proposition that is identified by native
  speakers as primary communicated meaning

44
Variable under study

• Type of PM
• (D)LF - (developed) logical form inferable on
  the basis of semantic content of the uttered
  sentence which may be developed to better reflect
  speakers intentions
• Jenny Is this ring made of silver?
• Shop-assistant Yes.
• Jenny Show me size N, please.
• PM Jenny is asking the shop assistant to show
  her a ring of size N.

45
Variable under study

• Type of PM
• (D)LF
• FIP(s) proposition(s) functionally independent
  from the LF with its developments
• Andrew Struggling with maths, Mary?
• Mary Yes, Im not sure Ill manage to solve this
  problem by myself. I heard youre good at maths,
  Andrew.
• Response Andrew, please help me do the maths
  problem.

46
Variable under study

• Type of PM
• (D)LF
• FIP(s)
• (D)LF FIP(s)

47
(D)LFFIP or FIP(D)LF?

• (D)LFFIP
• Jane Hi Mary! I didnt see you at the first
  lecture.
• Mary I forgot to set my alarm clock again. Do
  you have your notes with you?
• PM Mary is asking if Jane has the lecture notes
  from the lecture she has missed, presumably so
  that she can borrow them to copy them up.

• FIP(D)LF
• James Do you want me to open the window?
• Jessie Well, its quite chilly in here actually.
• PM Jessie doesnt want James to open the window
  as she thinks it is cold.

48
Variable under study

• Type of PM
• (D)LF
• FIP(s)
• (D)LF FIP(s)
• (D)LF/FIP
• (D)LF/FIP FIP(s)
• Kate Will you see Jenny today?
• Vicky Yes, Ill see her during lunch break.
• Kate Can you give this book to her?
• PM Can you give this book to her when you see
  her?

49
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.

50
Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
on LF.
51
Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
on LF.
52
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.

53
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.
• Hypothesis 2 Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may
  function as PMs in both cultures (despite
  differences in directness).

54
Hypothesis 2 Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may
function as PMs in both cultures.
55
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.
• Hypothesis 2 Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may
  function as PMs in both cultures (despite
  differences in directness).

56
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.
• Hypothesis 2 Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may
  function as PMs in both cultures (despite
  differences in directness).
• Hypothesis 3 Less FIP(s) and more (D)LF(s)
  enter into PM in Russian as compared to British
  English.

57
Hypothesis 3 Russians interpret PM as closer to
literal meaning than British people.
58
Results

• Hypothesis 1 Intuitive PM does not have to rely
  on the LF.
• Hypothesis 2 Both (D)LFs and FIP(s) may
  function as PMs in both cultures (despite
  differences in directness).
• Hypothesis 3 Less FIP(s) and more (D)LF(s)
  enter into PM Russian as compared to British
  English.

59
Differences between direct and indirect SAs
60

• All the strategies elicited majority implicature
  responses

61

• Distinct preference for FIP(s) in indirect SAs
  more than 80 of indirect SAs give rise to
  FIP(s).

62

• Direct SAs are interpreted more heterogeneously.
  FIP(s) still have majority (53), but the
  preference for FIP(s) is not as strong as in
  indirect SAs.
• 89 of all the DLF(s) recovered is constituted by
  answers to direct SAs.

63
Direct SAs give rise to FIP(s) because

• Implicature interpretation appears to be most
  relevant in some situations for some informants.
  PM emerges out of the merger of output of grammar
  with information that comes from other sources
  context, default assumptions.
• Michael Hi George! How did your conference
  presentation go?
• George It went very well. I got a lot of
  positive feedback.
• Michael Congratulations! Im sorry I couldnt be
  there. Please, send me a copy of your talk. Im
  very interested in your topic.
• PM I want to sound like I am interested in your
  presentation (or am genuinely interested) even
  though I wasnt there.
• Some situations gave rise to default
  interpretations
• Jenny Is this ring made of silver?
• Shop-assistant Yes.
• Jenny Show me size N, please.
• PM Id like to try on size N.

64
Variability of responses between people

• Non-conventionally indirect requests (hints) gave
  rise to most unambiguous interpretations (most
  people recovered the same implicated content).
• Andrew Struggling with maths, Mary?
• Mary Yes, Im not sure Ill manage to solve this
  problem by myself. I heard youre good at maths,
  Andrew.
• PM The speaker is asking Andrew for help with
  her Maths.

• By contrast, interpretation of direct SAs
  (especially derivable from semantic meaning of
  locution) varied between people.
• Melanie Are you really going to drive in this
  weather, John?
• John Dont worry, Melanie. Ive driven in worse
  conditions.
• Melanie Ok. But you should be careful. Im very
  worried.
• PMs warning, request, expression of worry,
  statement, expression of fear to go in the car
  with John, expression of disapproval, order,
  advice

65
(No Transcript)
66
Conclusions

• Syntactic constraint does not have to determine
  the representation of PM.

67
Conclusions

• Syntactic constraint does not have to determine
  the representation of PM.
• Psychologically real notion of what is said has
  to do with the most relevant information conveyed
  by the utterance. It may be the content of the
  uttered sentence, the enriched content or the
  implicature.

68
Conclusions

• Syntactic constraint does not have to determine
  the representation of PM.
• Psychologically real notion of what is said has
  to do with the most relevant information conveyed
  by the utterance. It may be the content of the
  uttered sentence, the enriched content or the
  implicature.
• Particularised implicatures are often the most
  salient meanings.

69
Conclusions

• Syntactic constraint does not have to determine
  the representation of PM.
• Psychologically real notion of what is said has
  to do with the most relevant information conveyed
  by the utterance. It may be the content of the
  uttered sentence, the enriched content or the
  implicature.
• Particularised implicatures are often the most
  salient meanings.
• Merger representation in Default Semantics is a
  psychologically plausible alternative to more
  traditional approaches in which a boundary is set
  between the level of enriched logical form and
  the level of implicit content (Carston 2002,
  Recanati 2004).

70
Other experiments on interpretation of speakers
meaning

• We suggest that, when given an instruction such
  as select the paraphrase that best reflected
  what each sentence said, subjects () try to
  work out the overall communicative intention
  behind the utterance
• Nicolle and Clark (1999 351)

71
Other experiments on intepretation of speakers
meaning

• My final results () support Nicolle and
  Clarks Relevance-based hypothesis by which the
  most salient relevant utterance
  interpretation arrives from our real-world
  assumptions.
• In Availability terms, my results indicated
  that a level of implicature was more available
  than explicature as corresponding with
  common-sense, KJ what is said.
• Pitts (2005 9-10)

72
Select Bibliography

• Bach, K. 1994. Semantic slack What is said and
  more. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.). Foundations
  of Speech Act Theory Philosophical and
  Linguistic Perspectives. London Routledge.
  267-291.
• Bach, K. 2001. You dont say? Synthese 128.
  15-44.
• Bach, K. 2004. Minding the gap. In C. Bianchi
  (ed.). The
• Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford CSLI
  Publications. 27-43.
• Bach, K. 2005. Context ex Machina. In Z. G.
  Szabó (ed.). Semantics
• versus Pragmatics. Oxford Clarendon Press.
  15-44.
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. 1989. The
  CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.
  House, G. Kasper (eds), Cross-cultural
  pragmatics Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ
  Ablex. 273-294.
• Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances The
  Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford
  Blackwell.
• Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics
  Foundations of a

73

• Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication.
  Oxford Oxford University Press.
• Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. Meaning merger Pragmatic
  inference, defaults, and compositionality.
  Intercultural Pragmatics 3.2. 195-212.
• Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006. Defaults in semantics and
  pragmatics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford
  Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http//plato.stanford.
  edu/contents.html
• Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007 The syntax-pragmatics
  merger Default Semantics for belief reports.
  Pragmatics and Cognition 15. 41-64.
• Nicolle, S. B. Clark. 1999. Experimental
  pragmatics and what is said A response to Gibbs
  and Moise. Cognition 69. 337-354.
• Noveck, I. A. D. Sperber (eds). 2004.
  Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke Palgrave
  Macmillan.
• Pitts, A. 2005. Assessing the evidence for
  intuitions about what is said. Ms, University of
  Cambridge.

74

• Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and contextualism
  Some varieties. In G. Preyer and G. Peter
  (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy Knowledge,
  Meaning, and Truth. Oxford Clarendon Press.
  171-196.
• Sperber, D. D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance
  Communication and Cognition. Oxford Blackwell.
  Second edition.
• Sysoeva, A. V. 2005. The saying / implicating
  distinction a study with reference to
  advertising in Russian and English. MPhil
  dissertation. Cambridge University of Cambridge.
• Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, Culture, and
  Cognition Universal Human Concepts in
  Culture-specific Configurations. Oxford Oxford
  University Press.