Introduction to Pragmatics
(Einführung in die Pragmatik – Einzelansicht)
Summer 2015
Tuesdays 2:30--4:00pm @ 2321.HS 3H
INSTRUCTOR
Todor Koev ([email protected])
Introduction
 Native speakers have sharp intuitions about the way different
ways expressions are semantically related to one another.
 These intuitions can be elucidated by applying various
empirical tests.
 We will classify some of the implication relations /
inferences () between sentences.
Implication relations
 When we speak, listeners draw all sorts of inferences from
what we say.
 Such inferences can have a different feel to them.
(1) Today’s class is going to be intense.
 Something is going to be intense.
 I am talking about the current class.
 Not all classes are intense.
 I am speaking English.
…
 Task: Try to understand how those inferences differ from
each other.
Entailment
 The most basic type of inference is that of entailment ().
(2) Mario owns a red Ferrari.
a.  Mario owns a red Ferrari.
b.  Mario owns a Ferrari.
c.  Someone owns a red Ferrari.
d.  …
 Entailment is about the literal meaning of what is said.
 “entailment” ≈ “literal meaning”, “asserted content”, “truthconditional content”, “at-issue content”, ...
 The study of entailment and truth conditions is the task of
semantics and/or logic.
Entailment 2
 Entailments are lexically triggered, i.e., are due to the
meaning of certain words.
 All red Ferraris are Ferraris, so we can infer (3).
(3) Mario owns a red Ferrari.
 Mario owns a Ferrari.
 Non-animals cannot be cats, so we can infer (4).
(4) I didn’t inherit an animal.
 I didn’t inherit a cat.
Entailment 3
 Definition (entailment): A  B iff whenever A is true, B is
true as well.
 Q: Are the following pairs of sentences instances of
entailment?
(5)
a. Kevin believes that Mindy is pregnant.
b. Mindy is pregnant.
(6)
a. It is snowing outside.
b. It is cold outside.
(7)
a. Berlin is the capital of Germany.
b. Grass is green.
Presupposition
 Certain facts need to hold true / be taken for granted / treated
as uncontroversial in order for the sentence to make sense.
 Those facts can be thought of as inferences that necessarily
hold in order for the sentence to be assigned a truth value
(true or false).
 Such inferences are called presuppositions ().
(8)
The present Queen of France lives in Paris.
 France has a Queen.
 But why not call this inference an entailment?
Presupposition 2
 The S(entence) family test: Presuppositions are not canceled
by negating (9a), modalizing (9b)-(9c), or questioning (9d) the
sentence.
(9)
The present Queen of France lives in Paris.
a. The present Queen of France doesn’t live in Paris.
b. The present Queen of France might live in Paris.
c. If the present Queen of France lives in Paris, then we
can visit her there.
d. Does the present Queen of France live in Paris?
France has a Queen.
 Definition (presupposition): A  B iff A and all members of
its family imply B.
Presupposition vs. entailment
 Unlike presuppositions, entailments do not survive
embedding under operators!
(10) Mario owns a red Ferrari.
 Someone owns a red Ferrari.
(11) a.
b.
c.
d.
Mario doesn’t own a red Ferrari.
Mario might own a red Ferrari.
If Mario owns a red Ferrari, I want one too.
Does Mario own a red Ferrari?
 Someone owns a red Ferrari.
Presupposition or entailment?
(12)
That John was assaulted scared Mary.
 John was assaulted.
(13)
John didn’t manage to get the job.
 It was kind of hard for John to get the job.
(14)
John didn’t manage to get the job.
 John didn’t get the job.
Presupposition triggers
 Certain lexical items or syntactic constructions give rise to
presuppositions.
 Such elements are called presupposition triggers.
 Examples of presupposition triggers:
o Definite descriptions (the man, my lazy poodle,…)
(15)
Is the mathematician who proved Goldbach’s
Conjecture a woman?
 Somebody proved Goldbach’s Conjecture.
o Factive predicates (regret, be happy that,…)
(16)
Do you regret selling pot on the street?
 You sell pot on the street.
o Aspectual verbs (stop, start,…)
(17)
Have you stopped beating your husband?
 You have beaten your husband in the past.
o Clefts (it was X who…)
(18)
It was Jesus who set me free.
 Somebody set me free.
 Both entailments and presuppositions are lexically triggered!
Conversational implicature
 Utterances often give rise to meanings that are richer/stronger
than what is literally said.
 Such inferences are called (conversational) implicatures ().
 Examples:
(19) There are two pens on the table.
 No more than two pens are on the table.
(20) You can have chicken or beef.
 You can’t have both.
Conversational implicature 2
(21) Some of the students passed.
 Not all of the students passed.
 These inferences are not entailed: they can be blocked.
(22) It’s false that there are two pens on the table.
 No more than two pens are on the table.
 Definition (conversational implicature):
A  (“conversationally implicates”) B iff
o A implies B,
o A does not entail B, and
o one can reason that a speaker who says A must believe B.
Properties of implicatures
 Unlike entailments and presuppositions, implicatures are not
lexically triggered:
o E.g., some doesn’t mean “not all”.
 Implicatures are “weak” inferences, they can be defeated by
the speaker in the same breath.
 So, implicatures are defeasible.
 An inference from A to B is defeasible if one can assert A and
deny B without contradicting oneself.
Properties of implicature 2
 (23a) implicates (23b), and (24a) implicates (24b).
 Yet, (24) cancels the implicature of (23a), and (26) cancels the
implicature of (25a).
(23)
a. Joan likes some of her presents.
b.  Joan doesn’t like all of her presents.
(24)
Joan likes some of her presents, and (in fact) she likes all
of her presents.
(25)
a. Mary used to swim a mile daily.
b.  Mary no longer swims a mile daily.
(26)
Mary used to swim a mile daily, and she still does.
Summary
lexically triggered can be blocked defeasible



entailment



presupposition



implicature
For next time
 Please read: “Implication relations” (uploaded on
Lehrmaterialien)
 Assignment #1 will be posted on Lehrmaterialien by
Wednesday (tomorrow). You will have one week to complete
it. Please email a pdf file of your assignment to your TA by
April 29, 2015.