By Hans-Christian Schmitz
Hans-Christian Schmitz argues speaker has to utter a sentence in a manner that makes the hearer understand no less than these phrases which are enough for figuring out the complete sentence. In spoken language the speaker has to intensify those phrases. Semantics results of accentuation seem as epi-phenomena in their pragmatic functionality. the writer defines a proper version for the translation of incompletely famous sentences and derives a context-sensitive rule of accentuation. the guideline of accentuation is experimentally evaluated.
Read Online or Download Accentuation and Active Interpretation (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Languages and Cognition) PDF
Best linguistics books
''Housing Culture'' is an inter-disciplinary examine of previous homes. It brings jointly contemporary principles in reviews of conventional structure, social and cultural heritage, and social idea, by means of the meanings of conventional structure in western Suffolk, England. the writer employs in an English context a number of the rules of Glassie, Deetz and different writers at the American colonies.
- Wiyot Language
- Reciprocals and Semantic Typology
- The Genius of Language: Observations for Teachers: Six Lectures (With Added Notes) (Foundations of Waldorf Education) by Rudolf Steiner (1995-05-01)
- The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 2: 1066-1476
Additional info for Accentuation and Active Interpretation (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Languages and Cognition)
Kr (Ks (Kr ( p))) ∧ Kr (Ks (Kr (Ks ( p)))). And so on: The speaker knows which knowledge the recipient acquires and the recipient knows in turn which knowledge the speaker acquires, ad inﬁnitum. The discourse participants (speaker and recipient) are aware of each other’s knowledge of p. e. not contradicted – by all discourse participants of a group G, p belongs to the mutual knowledge (that is, the common ground) CG of G. First, all discourse participants i ∈ G know that p: ∀i ∈ G [Ki p], which I abbreviate to EG ( p).
One of the discourse participants asserts the proposition p. Since he observes the conversational maxims, he himself believes that p. Let us assume that the speaker is well-informed and critical, so that the recipient can trust him and can assume that the speaker knows what he is talking about. The recipient therefore learns, ﬁrst, that p and, secondly that the speaker knows that p. Using the notation of Fagin et al. (1995), I write Ki ( p) for “the discourse participant i knows that p”. The index s stands for the speaker and the index r for the recipient.
In order to understand the meaning of the entire sentence, he needs to complete the words that he recognised to an expression that denotes a proposition, that is, he must semantically enrich the recognised words. In order to be able to accomplish this task, he needs appropriate operations. If he has several such operations at his disposal, he may arrive at more than one reconstruction of the incompletely recognised sentence. It is possible that not every reconstruction has the meaning that the speaker intended.