Our possible possible worlds
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
After sketching the representationalist roots of ℜeALIS and reviewing the current target system of dynamic pragmatics (Farkas–Roelofsen 2017), we intend to pay a debt concerning the pragmasemantic description of four sentence types. In a previous paper (Alberti et al. 2019b), we proposed a thorough description of the interrogative type; here, we offer a similarly meticulous pragmasemantic characterization of the exclamative and the optative, as well as the imperative and the declarative sentence types. Our ultimate goal with the fine analyses is to contribute to the mapping of the mind-internal possible-world conglomerate which serves as the mental basis for human communicative activity. We also demonstrate how discourse particles bring in new worlds to this mental space. Finally (instead of the previously used addresser perspective), we now take the perspective of the addressee to explore how our “possible possible worlds” grow ever richer due to the perlocutionary operations of the listener.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Alberti, Gábor 2000. Lifelong discourse representation structures. Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics 00–5:13–20.
Alberti, Gábor 2008. Situations and Individuals by Paul D. Elbourne, review article. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55/3–4:427–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.14
Alberti Gábor 2011. ℜeALIS. Interpretálók a világban, világok az interpretálóban. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Alberti, Gábor 2012. Where are possible worlds? II. Pegs, DRSs, worldlets and reification. In Alberti Gábor – Farkas Judit – Kleiber Judit (szerk.) Vonzásban és változásban. Pécs: PTE Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola. 308–323.
Alberti Gábor – Dóla Mónika – Kárpáti Eszter – Kleiber Judit – Szeteli Anna – Viszket Anita 2019a. Kérdéses világaink. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 6/2:11–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.14232/JENY.2019.2.3
Alberti, Gábor – Mónika Dóla – Eszter Kárpáti – Judit Kleiber – Anna Szeteli – Anita Viszket 2019b. Towards a cognitively viable linguistic representation. Argumentum 15:62–80.
Alberti, Gábor – Mónika Dóla – Judit Kleiber 2014. Mood and modality in Hungarian: Discourse Representation Theory meets Cognitive Linguistics. Argumentum 10:172–191.
Alberti, Gábor – Judit Kleiber 2012. Where are possible worlds? (Arguments for ℜeALIS). Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59/1–2:3–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1-2.1
Alberti, Gábor – Judit Kleiber 2014. ℜeALIS: Discourse representation with a radically new ontology. In Ludmila Veselovská – Markéta Janebová (szerk.) Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure. (Olomouc Modern Language Monographs 4) Olomouc: Palacký University. 513–528.
Alberti Gábor – Kleiber Judit – Kárpáti Eszter 2017. Reális (ℜeALIS) kép a másik elméjéről. In Márton Miklós – Molnár Gábor – Tőzsér János (szerk.) Más elmék. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó. 237–268.
Alberti, Gábor – Judit Kleiber – Zsuzsanna Schnell – Veronika Szabó 2016. Intensional profiles and different kinds of human minds. „Case studies” about Hungarian imperative-like sentence types. LingBaW (Linguistics Beyond and Within) 2:6–26.
Alberti, Gábor – Tibor Laczkó (szerk.) 2017. Syntax of Hungarian. Nouns and Noun Phrases. Vol. 2 Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Alberti, Gábor – László Nőthig 2015. ℜeALIS2.1: The implementation of generalized intensional truth tvaluation and expositive speech acts in on-going discourse. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems 8/1–2:85–106.
Alberti Gábor – Szeteli Anna 2018. ℜeALIS: a mi kölcsönös és élethossziglani tudásunk. Iskolakultúra 28/5–6:3–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.17543/ISKKULT.2018.5-6.3
Austin, John Langshaw 1975 [1962]. How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barwise, Jon – John Perry 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Beaver, David Ian 1997. Presupposition. In Johan van Benthem – Alice ter Meulen (szerk.) Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 939–1008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50022-9
Broekhuis, Hans – Evelin Keizer – Marcel den Dikken 2012. Syntax of Dutch – Nouns and Noun Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Ciardelli, Ivano – Jeroen Groenendijk – Floris Roelofsen 2013. Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7/9:459–476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12037
Dowty, David R. – Robert E. Wall – Stanley Peters 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 11) Dordrecht: Reidel.
Elbourne, Paul D. 2005. Situations and Individuals. (Current Studies in Linguistics) Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Farkas, Judit – Magdolna Ohnmacht 2012. Aspect and eventuality structure in a representational dynamic semantics. In Alberti Gábor – Farkas Judit – Kleiber Judit (szerk.) Vonzásban és változásban. Pécs: PTE Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola. 353–379.
Farkas, Donka F. – Floris Roelofsen 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34/2:237–289. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012
Field, Andy P. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. And Sex and Drugs and Rock ‘n’ roll. 4th edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
Fischer, Kerstin 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Kerstin Fischer (szerk.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_002
Gärtner, Hans-Martin – Beáta Gyuris 2012. Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59/4:387–426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.4.1
Givón, Talmy 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6/1:23–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv
Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
Groenendijk, Jeroen – Martin Stokhof 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14/1:39–100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304
Gunlogson, Christine 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22:101–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.06gun
Gyuris Beáta 2013. Megjegyzések a pragmatika tárgyáról és hasznáról. Magyar Nyelv 109/2:162–170.
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Deborah Schiffrin (szerk.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.
Kálmán, László 1990. Deferred information: The semantics of commitment. In László Kálmán – László Pólos (szerk.) Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 125–157.
Kamp, Hans 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk – Theo M. V. Janssen – Martin B. J. Stokhof (szerk.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 277–322.
Kamp, Hans – Josef van Genabith – Uwe Reyle 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Dov M. Gabbay – Franz Guenthner (szerk.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 15. 2. kiad. Berlin: Springer. 125–394.
Kas Bence 2005. Az óhajtó mondatok kategóriája. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 102:136–174.
Kleiber, Judit 2018. Similar intentions with different underlying wishes: Intensional profiles of imperatives in Hungarian. Jezikoslovlje 19/3:365–391.
Kugler Nóra 2012. Az evidencialitás jelölői a magyarban, különös tekintettel az inferenciális evidenciatípusra. Budapest: ELTE.
Lauer, Sven 2013. Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics. PhD disszertáció. Stanford: Stanford University.
Leiss, Judit 2014. Modes of modality in an Un-Cartesian framework. In Sibilla Cantarini – Werner Abraham – Elisabeth Leiss (szerk.) Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between. (Studies in Language Companion Series 165) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 47–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.165.03lei
Maier, Emar 2009. Presupposing acquaintance: A unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy 32/5:429–474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2
Maier, Emar 2016. Attitudes and mental files in Discourse Representation Theory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7/2:473–490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0296-6
Nőthig László – Szeteli Anna 2018. Nagyfelbontású pragmaszemantikai igazságértékelés egy játékprogramban. In Vincze Veronika (szerk.) MSZNY 2018. XIV. Magyar Számítógépes Nyelvészeti Konferencia. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Informatikai Intézet. 456–465.
Oishi, Etsuko 2014. Discursive functions of evidentials and epistemic modals. In Sibilla Cantarini – Werner Abraham – Elisabeth Leiss (szerk.) Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between. (Studies in Language Companion Series 165) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 239–262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.165.14ois
Oishi, Etsuko 2016. Austin’s speech acts and Mey’s pragmemes. In Keith Allan – Alessandro Capone – Istvan Kecskes (szerk.) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology) Berlin: Springer. 335–350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_18
Partee, Barbara H. – Alice Ter Meulen – Robert E. Wall 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 30) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pollard, Carl 2007. Hyperintensions. Előadás. 19th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Trinity College, Dublin. https://tinyurl.com/jeny-pollard-2007
Rákosi Csilla 2020. Foundational Quandaries in Cognitive Linguistics: Uncertainty, Inconsistency, and the Evaluation of Theories. Akadémiai doktori értekezés. MTA-DE-SZTE Elméleti Nyelvészeti Kutatócsoport.
Roberts, Craige 1997. Anaphora in intensional contexts. In Shalom Lappin (szerk.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 215–246.
Sadock, Jerrold – Arnold Zwicky 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (szerk.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–196.
Schirm Anita 2011. A diskurzusjelölők funkciói: a hát, az -e és a vajon elemek története és jelenkori szinkrón státusa alapján. Doktori értekezés. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem. https://tinyurl.com/jeny-schirm-2011
Schult, Carolyn A. 2002. Children’s understanding of the distinction between intentions and desires. Child Development 73/6:1727–1747.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5/1:1–23.
Seligman, Jerry – Lawrence S. Moss 1997. Situation theory. In Johan van Benthem – Alice ter Meulen (szerk.) Handbook of Logic and Language. London: Elsevier. 239–309.
Stalnaker, Robert 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25/5:701–721. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902
Szeteli Anna 2017. Szerint(em). A kifejezés funkcióinak vizsgálata formális interpretációs rendszerben. In Böhm Gábor – Czeferner Dóra – Fedeles Tamás (szerk.) Szemelvények 4. Válogatás a PTE BTK XXXIII. Országos Tudományos Diákköri Konferencián (2017) I–III. helyezést elért hallgatóinak pályaműveiből. Pécs: PPKE BTK. 88–107.
Szeteli Anna 2021. Az inferencialitás és a közvetlen tapasztalat – Beszélői „visszaélések” a szerintem kifejezés tükrében. OTDK dolgozat.
Szeteli, Anna – Mónika Dóla – Gábor Alberti 2019. Pragmasemantic analysis of the Hungarian inferential-evidential expression szerint. Studies in Polish Linguistics Special Issue 1:207–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.19.013.10993
Szeteli Anna – Gocsál Ákos – Alberti Gábor 2019. Szemafor hát! Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 6/1:33–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.14232/jeny.2019.1.2
Szeteli Anna – Kárpáti Eszter 2021. Parancsolsz? Mondattípus, illokúciós aktus, perlokúciós hatás. Kézirat. PTE Nyelvtudományi Tanszék. https://tinyurl.com/jeny-szeteli-karpati-2019
Tulving, Endel 2005. Episodic memory and autonoesis: Uniquely human? In Herbert S. Terrace – Janet Metcalfe (szerk.) The Missing Link in Cognition: Origins of Self-reflective Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161564.003.0001
Wimmer, Heinz – Josef Perner 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13/1:103–128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5