• Aucun résultat trouvé

LITERAL MEANING — FIGURES

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "LITERAL MEANING — FIGURES"

Copied!
5
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

HAL Id: ijn_00000327

https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000327

Submitted on 2 Feb 2003

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

LITERAL MEANING - FIGURES

François Recanati

To cite this version:

François Recanati. LITERAL MEANING - FIGURES. 2003. �ijn_00000327�

(2)

LITERAL MEANING — FIGURES

Figure 1.1: the standard approach

Figure 1.2: an alternative approach What is communicated CONSCIOUS

---

What is said what is implicated UNCONSCIOUS

sentence meaning contextual ingredients of what is said

What is said what is WHAT IS COMMUNICATED implicated [top level, consciously available]

---

sentence meaning contextual ingredients of what is said SUB-PERSONAL LEVEL

(3)

2 Figure 1.3: comparing the approaches

Figure 3.1: A taxonomy of inferences according to Relevance Theory

Figure 3.2: A revised taxonomy

Minimalism The Availability-based approach sentence meaning sentence meaning

saturation primary pragmatic processes (saturation and optional processes

such as free enrichment) what is saidmin what is saidprag

optional processes secondary pragmatic processes what is communicated what is communicated

Inference

conscious unconscious

explicit effortful

Inference

conscious unconscious

(subpersonal)

explicit spontaneous

reasoning inference

(4)

3

Figure 4.1: the four-level picture

m-nonliteral

p-literal p-nonliteral

(indirect speech acts, conversational implicatures...) sense elaboration sense extension

below threshold above threshold (enrichment)

(figurative uses)

Figure 5.1: nonliteral uses sentence meaning

saturation what is saidmin

other primary pragmatic processes what is saidprag

secondary pragmatic processes what is communicated

(5)

4 Figure 5.2: what is available and what is not

Figure 9.1: abstraction and modulation

Figure 9.2: a single process of abstraction/modulation

contextualised contextualised

senses linguistic meaning senses

(abstraction) (modulation)

THE TRADITIONAL PICTURE:

context

modulation

Past abstraction linguistic contextual

uses meaning sense

MEANING ELIMINATIVISM:

Past uses abstraction/modulation contextual

Context sense

Linguistic meaning

primary unavailable

processes

Primary meaning

(possibly exhibiting internal duality)

secondary external available

processes duality

Secondary meaning

Références

Documents relatifs

Les règles sémantiques du langage permettent donc bien de déterminer la valeur de vérité de n’importe quelle phrase du langage relativement à n’importe quelle situation,

The last question I want to consider is the question whether it is con- stitutive of norms that they can be knowingly violated.I grant that the meaning of a word can be

Interpretation is construed as a two-step procedure: (i) The interpreter accesses the literal interpretations of all constituents in the sentence and uses them to compute

sentence meaning contextual ingredients of what is said SUB-PERSONAL LEVEL.. 2 Figure 1.3: comparing

— It is generally assumed that what is said (the proposition literally expressed by the utterance) departs only minimally from the linguistic meaning of the sentence type ; it

In formal semantics the meaning of a sentence A is defined using the truth condition of the sentence and formalized using possible worlds semantics.. We twist the classical view

The standard response to this sort of cases has been to point out that the sentences used by Jones and Dorsky are the same, and then suggest that when people use the same sentence

, it is just as easy to have the same intuition of same-saying when speakers making de se assertions are using different, non-synonymous sentences, and to truly report them as