Abstract
Dominant accounts of “speaker meaning” in post-Gricean contextualist pragmatics tend to focus on single utterances, making the theoretical assumption that the object of pragmatic analysis is restricted to cases where speakers and hearers agree on utterance meanings, leaving instances of misunderstandings out of their scope. However, we know that divergences in understandings between interlocutors do often arise, and that when they do, speakers can engage in a local process of meaning negotiation. In this paper, we take insights from interactional pragmatics to offer an empirically informed view on speaker meaning that incorporates both speakers’ and hearers’ perspectives, alongside a formalization of how to model speaker meanings in such a way that we can account for both understandings – the canonical cases – and misunderstandings, but critically, also the process of interactionally negotiating meanings between interlocutors. We highlight that utterance-level theories of meaning provide only a partial representation of speaker meaning as it is understood in interaction, and show that inferences about a given utterance at any given time are formally connected to prior and future inferences of participants. Our proposed model thus provides a more fine-grained account of how speakers converge on speaker meanings in real time, showing how such meanings are often subject to a joint endeavor of complex inferential work.
About the authors
Chi-Hé Elder is Lecturer in Linguistics in the School of Politics, Philosophy and Language and Communication Studies at the University of East Anglia. Her research interests lie in the relationship between post-Gricean pragmatics and interactional pragmatics, with a particular focus on the role of miscommunication in discourse.
Michael Haugh is Professor of Linguistics in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. His research interests lie in pragmatics, conversation analysis, and intercultural communication, with a particular focus on the role of language in social interaction.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was supported in part by the Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship scheme.
References
Ariel, Mira. 2002. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8). 1003–1044.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1). 119–154.10.1075/prag.9.1.07aruSearch in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5. 231–260.10.1515/IP.2008.012Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2078–2105.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2013. Conceptualizing “interaction” in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 12–26.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. Forthcoming. Communicating and relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190210199.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. & David Good. 2002. Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In Anita Fetzer & Christine Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 121–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.103.06aruSearch in Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Savas L. Tsochatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 267–291. London/New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2006. The top ten misconceptions about implicature. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honour of Laurence R. Horn, 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.80.03bacSearch in Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1986. Discourse and behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-2040-9Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics 5. 198–212.10.1093/applin/5.3.196Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Chiang, Shiao-Yun. 2009. Mutual understanding as a procedural achievement in intercultural interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3). 367–394.10.1515/IPRG.2009.019Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23(3). 567–598.10.1080/01638539709545003Search in Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2012. Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10). 1303–1312.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.005Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne A. 1998. Implicature. Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511663796Search in Google Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé. Forthcoming. Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophical insights into pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Foster, Pauline & Amy Snyder Ohta. 2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26(3). 402–430.10.1093/applin/ami014Search in Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matt Purver, Gregory James Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfred Meyer-Viol & Patrick G.T. Healey. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1). 199–233.10.5087/dad.2011.109Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3). 377–388. Reprinted 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 213–223. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 9, 41–58. Reprinted 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 41–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1987. Retrospective epilogue. Published 1989 in Studies in the way of words, 339–385. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1). 84–110.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008a. Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the uncovered meat sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2). 201–229.10.1515/IP.2008.011Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008b. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 45–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2012. On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgewood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2). 161–194.10.1515/ip-2012-0011Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 41–56.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240078Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2017a. Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Piotr Cap & Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 281–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.276.13hauSearch in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2017b. Prompting offers of assistance in interactions. Pragmatics and Society 8(2). 183–207.10.1075/ps.8.2.02hauSearch in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Kasia M. Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. R. 2004. Implicature. In Laurence. R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631225485.2005.00003.xSearch in Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott & Sally Jackson. 1983. Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50(4). 285–304.10.1080/03637758309390171Search in Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2013. Two types of implicature: Material and behavioural. Mind and Language 28(5). 638–660.10.1111/mila.12037Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia, M. Eleni Savva & Michael Haugh. 2016. The individual and the social path of interpretation: The case of incomplete disjunctive questions. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, 251–283. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_9Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 79–96. New York: Irvington Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385–406.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication - socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1. 50–73.10.1075/ps.1.1.04kecSearch in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue 2(2). 283–297.10.1075/ld.2.2.06kecSearch in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speakers utterance. In María de Ponte & Kepa Korta (eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198714217.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, Robert E. Sanders & Anita Pomerantz. 2018. The basic interactional competence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics 124. 88–105.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.019Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1). 71–84.10.1515/IP.2007.004Search in Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1970. On generating data in communication research. The Journal of Communication 20. 241–269.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1970.tb00883.xSearch in Google Scholar
Long, Michael H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4. 126–141.10.1093/applin/4.2.126Search in Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2015. Direct off-record requests - Hinting in family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 31–35.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006Search in Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning 44. 493–527.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.xSearch in Google Scholar
Recanati, Francois. 2010. Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Robles, Jessica S. 2017. Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction. Pragmatics 27(1). 57–86.10.1075/prag.27.1.03robSearch in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 1987. Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 112–122.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2015. A tale of two intentions: Intending what an utterance means and intending what an utterance achieves. Pragmatics and Society 6(4). 475–501.10.1075/ps.6.4.01sanSearch in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2017. Overcoming differences and achieving common ground: Why speaker and hearer make the effort and how they go about it. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally, 31–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110546095-003Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Elinor Ochs & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Introduction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond speakers meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(44). 117–149.Search in Google Scholar
Varonis, Evangeline Marlos & Susan M. Gass. 1985. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society 14. 327–343.10.1017/S0047404500011295Search in Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 1985. Towards an analysis of opaque utterances: Hints as a request strategy. Theoretical Linguistics 12(s1). 153–164.10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.153Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
