Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:04:17.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of the pragmatics of non-descriptive definition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Noel Burton-Roberts
Noel Burton-Roberts
Affiliation:
School of English, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a sequel to ‘Thematic predicates and the pragmatics of non-descriptive definition’ (Burton-Roberts, 1986, henceforth PNDD) and is best read in conjunction with it. I discuss a variety of issues arising out of the explanation there given of a phenomenon I called ‘non-descriptive definition’. In explaining non-descriptive definition, we need to explain how a definition-requesting question (e.g. What is a dandy?, (2) below) can be appropriately responded to by the utterance of a sentence that does not constitute a definition and, canonically at least, would actually presuppose knowledge of the meaning of the word to be defined (e.g. Max is a dandy?, (3) below). The explanation given depends on analysing such responses as having the predicate rather than the subject as theme. On the assumption that subject is unmarked theme, such responses thus have marked thematic structure. On the further assumption of a relation of pragmatic equivalence between an utterance with marked thematic structure and some unmarked counterpart, such responses may be straightforwardly related to strict literal ANSWERS to their definition-requesting questions; that is, they can be related to DEFINITIONS – non-descriptive in the first instance (see (4) below), and (explicit) descriptive definitions in the second (see (5) below).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , September 1986 , pp. 311 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Allerton, D. (1978). The notion of givenness and its relations to presupposition and to theme. Lingua 44. 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J. (1978). The syntax of free relatives in English. LIn 9. 331–391.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1985). Utterance, relevance, and problems with text grammar (Review article of Werth (1984)). Australian Journal of Linguistics. 5. 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1986). Thematic predicates and the pragmatics of non-descriptive definition. JL 22. 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (ms). The real difference between a three valued logic and a logic with truth gaps. Paper delivered at the Spring meeting, LAGB, Norwich, 1986.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg & Jakobovits (eds). 183–216.Google Scholar
Cooper, D. (1974). Presupposition. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dahl, O. (1975). Review of Sgall et al. JL 11. 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In Daneš, F. (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. & Katriel, T. (1979). Digression: a study in conversational coherence. Poetics and the theory of literature 4. 4.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czeckoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In Daneš, F. (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1979). In defense of the truth value gap. In Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (eds.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme: Part 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Pelican.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics).Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Hull, R. (1973). Logical presuppositions of questions and answers. In Franck, D. & Petofi, J. (eds.), Präsuppositionen in der Linguistik und der Philosophie. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. O. & Schieflelin, B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 335–384.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 1 and 2. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 97–113.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1981). Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (1979). Syntax and semantics, volume 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics: an analysis of sentence topics. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajicova, E. & Benešova, E. (1973). Topic, focus, and generative semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: an alternative to presuppositional theories. In Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (eds).Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds) (1971). Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. (1977). Foundations of syntactic theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1971). Identifying reference and truth value. In Steinberg and Jakobovits (eds.). 86–99.Google Scholar
Taglicht, J. (1984). Message and emphasis. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1975). Topics, sentence accent, and ellipsis: a proposal for their formal treatment. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: CUP. 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, P. (1984). Focus, coherence, and emphasis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar