Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Semiotics
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Teaching Methods
Teaching Strategies
Reflection: Types of inference in utterance processing
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
136-5
13-5-2022
784
Reflection: Types of inference in utterance processing
One of the key measures of processing effort in relevance theory is the amount of inferential work that is required in order to derive explicatures and implicatures. These inferences are generally characterized as “pragmatic” as opposed to “logical”. Logical inference involves a chain of reasoning in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusions (leading to entailments). Pragmatic inference, on the other hand, results in conclusions that may seem necessary, permissible or reasonable to draw, but their truth is not guaranteed (leading to implicatures, for instance) (Wood 2010). However, the pragmatic inferences that are said to underlie utterance processing by Relevance theorists (as well as neo-Griceans such as Levinson) are nevertheless pseudo-logical, in the sense that they still involve moving from premises (or assumptions) to conclusions. This kind of “logical” inferencing contrasts with the “associative” inferencing we briefly introduced.
Recently, Relevance theorists have proposed a rather useful distinction between intuitive and reflective inference (Mercier and Sperber 2009). An inference is intuitive when a user accepts conclusions without attending to reasons, and so it is a representational process. An inference is reflective when a user derives conclusions from premises through reasoning. The latter thus requires reflection, that is, thinking about one’s thoughts, which is a metarepresentational process, albeit not necessarily a consciously experienced one. This distinction is useful as it sidesteps the problem of calling the kinds of inferential work we normally assume to underlie pragmatic meaning as “pseudo-logical” or even “pragmatic”. One question that remains somewhat open, however, is whether associative inference falls under the broader category of intuitive inference.
It is important to note that in a relevance theory account of utterance processing, it is not assumed that an explicature is always derived first, and then followed by inferences leading to implicatures. It is claimed instead that “explicatures and implicatures (i.e. implicit premises and conclusions) are arrived at by a process of mutual parallel adjustment, with hypotheses about both being considered in order of accessibility” (Wilson and Sperber 2004: 617). In this account of utterance processing, then, “Grice’s circle”, where “what is said seems both to determine and to be determined by implicature” (Levinson 2000: 186), is no longer a problem, because multiple representations of pragmatic meaning can be derived in a parallel rather than in a serial manner. In other words, users can process more than one pragmatic meaning representation at the same time. This is important because pragmatic meaning inevitably involves multiple layers of representations, as we discussed. There has thus been a shift away from the “traditional” Gricean view in pragmatics that what is said is always processed before what is implicated, to the view that in some cases the latter can be “directly” accessed in utterance processing (Gibbs 2002; Holtgraves 1999).
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
