Acceptable analyticities, i.e. contradictions or tautologies, constitute problematic evidence for the idea that language includes a deductive system. In recent discussion, two accounts have been presented in the literature to explain the available evidence. According to one of the accounts, grammatical analyticities are accessible to the system but a pragmatic strengthening repair mechanism can apply and prevent the structures from being actually interpreted as contradictions or tautologies. The proposed data, however, leaves it open whether other versions of the meaning modulation operation are required. Novel evidence we present argues that a loosening version of the repair mechanism must be available. Our observation concerns acceptable lexical contradictions that cannot be rescued if only a strengthening version of the pragmatic strategy is available.
This paper presents an investigation into the impact of teaching pragmatic competence to translation students who translate from English (L2) to Persian (L1). For the experiment, the participants were requested to identify implicit discourse markers in a source text and to transfer them into the target text. This investigation used Think Aloud Protocols (TAP) to monitor students’ inferential translation processes. The results of this study pinpointed the challenging role of pragmatic competence for translation students. Translation performance in an experimental group of participants exposed to a period of pragmatic classroom instruction was compared to that of a control group which did not receive this training. Finally, the data analysis indicated that pragmatic teaching improved the translation students’ pragmatic competence in the experimental group through identifying both implicit and explicit discourse markers in the source text. This was clearly lacking in a number of students’ translations in the control group.
The following text is a review of Wittgenstein and the Creativity of Language, edited by Sebastian Sunday Grève and Jakub Mácha (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. ISBN 978-1-137-47253-3. xxi + 314 pages). Wittgenstein and the Creativity of Language is a collection of eleven essays investigating the creative potential of language within Wittgensteinian philosophy language. The essays are grouped into five sections, and cover a whole range of issues including language creativity, conceptions of art, ethics, metaphysics, but also Wittgenstein’s comments on Gödel’s proof, and Alfred Loos’s influence on Wittgenstein.
This paper develops an account of metaphor and its cognitive value. The motivation for this account lies in two considerations: 1) there is a problem, the proposition problem, that plagues many accounts of metaphor and its cognitive value, and 2) a recent criticism of Grice’s program and its semantic-pragmatic distinction by Lepore and Stone (2015) is grounded on the assumption that its account of metaphor is saddled with the proposition problem. Thus there is a need for an account of metaphor that explains its cognitive value without raising the proposition problem, and if successful, we also remove a criticism of Grice’s program. The proposed account of metaphor is one according to which, in uttering a metaphor, the speaker conversationally implicates a metaphorical perspective. This account of metaphor’s cognitive value is grounded in an understanding of metaphorical perspective as itself non-propositional.
The paper focuses on the institutional background of the publishing practices of Polish scholars, with special emphasis on publications in English. The University of Silesia in Katowice represents a Polish Higher Education Institution which places significant emphasis on international publications. On the basis of two data collection instruments, a report on point-winning publications (2017–2020) and a survey conducted among 197 faculty members, the author portrays the publication-related situation of the university and its most important determinants. Besides the facts pertaining to the distribution of point-winning publications among disciplines and languages, the article address such important issues as the authors’ strategies employed in the preparation of English language manuscripts, language-related issues articulated by the reviewers, and reasons for not publishing in English. A connection is made between the institutional context in which scholarly texts are composed and the strategic choices made by the authors in the process of manuscript drafting.
Our purpose in this paper is to present the findings of a study aimed at investigating how second language (L2) student-writers construct their identities as academic authors in tertiary education. We consider the restraints institutionalized text production can place on the constitution of writer identity, and call for pedagogical approaches to writing to take on board our findings to better help students in the process of finding their unique authorial voice. While the specific socio-cultural and institutional contexts within which people write limit possibilities for their self-representation, we argue that student writers should be encouraged to bring their own life histories and sense of the self to their texts. The study follows the notion of writer voice as proposed by Lehman (2018). She proposes categorising writer voice into three main types: individual, collective and depersonalized. As these three aspects of voice are predominantly cued through metadiscourse features we employed a three-dimensional analytic rubric designed by Lehman (2018) in order to identify and analyze the potential of individual voice in the facilitation and enhancement of academic writing in a second language (see Lehman, 2018).
This article focuses on the utilisation of but in English at turn-final placement regarding provisions for what follows next, where the token is not a display of a traditional sense of content-level contrasts. The production of final buts in this article is a point of expansion relevance and emergent as a means of intersubjectively creating another opportunity space to deal with the ongoing disaffiliation or lack of resources. My observations particularly unpack the contextual properties of final buts. First, a but-turn is designed not strictly to show a partial agreement and back down from the original statement. It can be more plausibly argued that the but-turn indicates which resource of interaction is (or is not) requested at that specific moment to accomplish the ongoing agenda. Second, a projected action of reworking can be formulated in collaborative completion with a co-participant explicating the account to the but-turn.
No other interdisciplinary issue has inspired a greater debate than the pragmatics-rhetoric border. This paper explores the pragmatics-rhetoric boundary issues and the possibility of marrying pragmatics to rhetoric for pragma-rhetoric. It first addresses the twenty ‘puzzles’ or predicaments the past studies of pragmatics and rhetoric have met with. It is held that similarities between the two disciplines make ‘pragma-rhetoric’ possible and their differences serve as the conditions for their inter-complementarity. Then we discuss some misunderstandings about pragma-rhetoric integration. Due to the alikeness of speech acts, pragmatic acts and rhetoric acts, we forward ‘pragma-rhetorical act’ (PRA) for an umbrella term in the emerging ‘pragma-rhetoric’. Finally we formulate the academic tasks and features of the interdiscipline, with a ‘standard paradigm’ and two ‘sub-paradigms’ of pragma-rhetorical research.
In this paper, we argue that the successful integration of expressive acts of communication into an inferential theory of pragmatics faces a major challenge. Most post-Gricean pragmatic theories have worked to develop accounts of the interpretive processes at work in the communication of propositions; the challenge, therefore, is how expressive acts be integrated when their content is, as it appears to be, non-propositional. Following previous research (Wharton, 2009), we link the affective effects produced as a result of such acts to descriptive ineffability and procedurality, and argue that they activate experiential heuristics through which they find relevance. Our approach stands at least partially within the development of recent approaches to emotion as evaluative devices (appraisal theory) and we suggest that certain cognitive effects arise in communication thanks to affective effects, which then act as attention attractors and boosters for optimally relevant cognitive effects. We show that, sometimes, affect can win out over the non-affective side of cognition and also that at least some poetic artefacts may activate ‘pure affective effects’, which can be relevant in their own right, i.e. relevant without cognitive effects.
The present paper explores the current nexus between Cognitive Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), focusing on theories of conceptual positioning, distancing and perspective-taking in discourse space. It assesses the strengths, limitations, and prospects for further operationalization of positioning as a valid methodology in CDA, and political discourse studies in particular. In the first part, I review the cognitive models of positioning that have made the most significant contribution to CDA. Discussing Deictic Space Theory and Text World Theory, among others, I argue that these models reveal further theoretical potential which has not been exploited yet. While they offer a comprehensive and plausible account of how representations and ideologically charged worldviews are established, they fail to deliver a pragmatic explanation of how addressees are made to establish a worldview, in the service of speaker’s goals. The second part of the paper outlines Proximization Theory, a discursive model of crisis and conflict construction in political discourse. I argue that, unlike the other models, it fully captures the complex geopolitical and ideological positioning in political discourse space, providing a viable handle on the dynamics of conflict between the opposing ideologies of the space.