Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:13:21.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Post-Gricean Pragmatics for Intercultural Communication

from Part I - Theoretical Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Kasia M. Jaszczolt
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

The chapter addresses the relation between post-Gricean pragmatics and intercultural pragmatics. As such, it addresses meaning in relation to intentions and inferences and provides an overview of the main developments in this tradition, placing them in the context of the utility they have for understanding cross-cultural communication, and specifically the acquisition of pragmatic competence. Section 1.2 introduces the concept of pragmatic universals and moves to discussing how Grice’s account of cooperative conversational behavior can be viewed as such pragmatic universal principles. After pointing out some problems with Grice’s original account as it is seen from the perspective of several decades, Section 1.3 proceeds to post-Gricean approaches to linguistic communication, focusing not so much on the traditional debates concerning the number and scope of the necessary maxims or principles (covered briefly in Section 1.3.1) but rather on the semantics/pragmatic boundary and the related question of the truth-conditional content that opened up interesting contextualist pursuits (Section 1.3.2). Section 1.4 addresses different versions of contextualism and places them in the context of the debates between minimalists and contextualists. Section 1.5 concludes with comments on the utility of post-Gricean pragmatics for intercultural communication, stressing the significance of pragmatic universals.

Keywords

Post-Griceaninterculturalityintercultural communicationpragmaticssemanticsgricetruthimplicaturecontext
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 11 - 39
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, face work, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2013). Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–62.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Dinneen, D. and Oh, C. K., eds., Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2005). Whatever happened to meaning? A morality tale of Cappelen’s and LePore’s insensitivity to lexical semantics and a defense of Kent Bach, sort of. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, July 10–15.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1994). Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2001). You don’t say?, Synthese, 128, 15–44.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2004). Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2006). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73, 435–442.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2007). Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Burton-Roberts, N., ed., Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 24–44.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. and Zeevat, H. (eds.) (2003). Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2002). The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. M., ed., Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–181.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Postscript (1995) to Carston 1988. In Kasher, A., ed., Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV. London: Routledge, pp. 464–479.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2007). How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 18–48.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (ed.) (1981). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2007). How normative is implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1655–1672.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, C. H. and Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 593–625.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. and Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25, 139–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert. Part 1, §§1–12 trans. as “Begriffsschrift: a formula language of pure thought modelled on that of arithmetic.” In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47–78.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl: Introduction. Breslau: W. Koebner. In Beaney, M., M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 84–91.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I, Preface. Jena: H. Pohle. In Beaney, M., ed. and trans. (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 194–208.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (1998). Scalars. In Ludewig, P. and Geurts, B., eds., Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24, 51–79.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1996). Ambiguity resolution and discourse interpretation. In van Deemter, K. and Peters, S., eds., Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 213–223.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review, 1978. Repr. in Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX. New York: Academic Press. Repr. in H. P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2009). Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 91–113.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1976). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature. In D. Schiffrin, ed. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1988). Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. J., ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–145.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (SALT II Proceedings), 40, 163–192.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, , eds., Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2008). Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intentions, Common Ground, and Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 9–44.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Cancellability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2010). Default semantics. In Heine, and Narrog, , eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012a). Cross-linguistic differences in expressing time and universal principles of utterance interpretation. In Filipović, L. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012b). Semantics/pragmatics boundary disputes. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. III. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Repr. in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, eds. (2019), Semantics Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 368–402.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2018). Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 131–159.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021a). Functional proposition: A new concept for representing discourse meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 200–214.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2021b). Default Semantics. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (online).Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.599–616.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1979). Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity. In C. K. Oh, and D. A. Dinneen, , eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XI. New York: Academic Press, pp. 283–297.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C., ed., Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 77–103.Google Scholar
King, J. C. and Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Szabó, Z. G., ed., Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–164.Google Scholar
Koenig, J. P. (1993). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago Linguistic Society, 27, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation, 140–155.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M., eds., The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp. 61–129.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, F. R., eds., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–115.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J. (2018). Why say it that way? Evasive answers and politeness theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 15, 55–76.Google Scholar
Mauri, K. and van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 377–401.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Parikh, P. (2010). Language and Equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rayo, A. (2013). A plea for semantic localism. Noûs, 47, 647–679.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. Repr. in S. Davis, ed. (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2001). What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2002). Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language, 17, 105–126.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., eds., Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 171–196.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2007). Reply to Carston. In Frápolli, M. J., ed., Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012a). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012b). Compositionality, flexibility, and context dependence. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., and Machery, E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012c). Pragmatic enrichment. In Russell, G. and Graff Fara, D., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2016). Indexical thought: The communication problem. In García-Carpintero, M. and Torre, S., eds., About Oneself: De Se Thought and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–178.Google Scholar
Saul, J. M. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1985). Apparently irrational beliefs. In On Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–63.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language, 12, 67–83.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, D., ed., Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (eds.) (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2002). Making it articulated. Mind and Language, 17, 149–168.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219–261.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, C. (2006). Psychologism. In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. Repr. in Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., eds. (2012), Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–83.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IV. New York: Academic Press, pp 1–36.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×