Kreyer (Fach) / Session 8 (Lektion)

“You know that linguistics is fun, and you know that linguistics makes you a better thinker. What you might not know is that linguistics makes you a better person!” – Implicatures in advertising

Diese Lektion wurde von RedoX erstellt.

Lektion lernen

Diese Lektion ist leider nicht zum lernen freigegeben.

zurück  |  weiter 1 / 1

• Semantic - pragmatic distinction Distinction between inferences which can be derived wholly from the meaning of what is said and inferences which derive, if only in part, from such nonsemantic considerations as speaker and listener beliefs, and conversational principles and the context of utterance
• What will a general theory of how people understand language will include? 1. A theory of sentence meaning (semantic theory) - 2. A theory of language use (pragmatic theory) - It is assumed that pragmatic theory is dependent on semantic theory, for conversational implicatures we draw on hearing a sentence depend in part on the literal meaning of that sentence - In classical semantic theory it is assumed that the semantic description of any sentence must account for (at least some of) the entailments of that sentence. The status of conventional implicatures proper within semantic theory is somewhat uncertain. - John Jones married Mary Morris again → John Jones used to be married to Mary Morris – follows from the meaning of again
• What can inferences from semantic possibilities be devided into? NACHARBEITEN!!!! IST NICHT KOMPLETT !!! - Valid and invalid inferences derived from semantic possibilities - → Ordinary people do not distinguish between valid and invalid inferences and then suggest an alternative approach to the theory of how people interpret sentences. - Validity / Invalidity - Ordinary people tend to recognize valid inferences for what they are; the problem is that they tend not to recognize invalid inferences for what they are.
• What do we more likely to keep in mind? The implicature or the message? - Harris and Monao review a variety of cued-recall experiments showing that people do not relaibly make a distnction between what is actually said and what is implied by what is said. - Thus, subjects in one experiment more frequently recalled the pragmatic implication of a sentence like: (44) The angry rioter threw the rock at a window → ( The window was broken ) more often than they recalled (44) itself. - In our normal mode of using language we are, as listeners, concerned with the “gist” of what others say to us. - We have learned that we are expected to draw inferences (valid and invalid inferences alike) as part of our language competence and we somehow acquire the pragmatic conventions governing such inferencing – speech act felicity conventions, politeness conventions, and conversational maxims – along the way.
• What is the verbal complement system? constructions in which clauses and infinitive constructions occur as subjects or objects of verbs    --> (53) You know that vivaline removes warts instantly                                                                   In this sentence the clause that vivaline removes warts instantly functions as the object of know. As we noted (53) conventionally implicates that vivaline removes warts instantly Verbs that work like know: discover, find out, keep, stay - these are words that conventionally implicate things.
• I believe we must conclude that language is not simply a vehicle of communication in advertising but can be and sometimes is the very substance of advertising. a
• What is a conventional implicature? Conventional implicature is an implicature that is part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression. Implicature is associated with words (know, but, find out, it is because of etc.)  Conventional implicatures are also associated with certain constructions. E.g. wh- questions "Who killed Caesar" --> Caesar is dead, somebody killed him (who, what, where, how etc.) - example "What's great about Chuck Wagon dog food?" --> implicature that this dog food is great. 
• Two classes of conventional implicature 1. Those associated with words (e.g. know, keep, find out, even, still etc.)  2. Those associated with questions.  Implications in advertisement are not defended, they are simply assumed to be true. 
• Are conventional implicatures on propositions are used in everyday language? Are they questioned? Yes they are used in everyday language.  No they are not questioned.  (1) Mary wants to keep John happy  (2) John is happy A says (1) to B. A beliefs that B beliefs that (2) is true. A is responsible for the truth value of (2). B can challenge (2) if he doesnt believe A. 
• What is more salient? An assertion or a conventional implicature? an assertion (something that can be questioned. Opposite of pre-supposition) 
• What is tricky about wh- questions being presented to viewers / audience? When Wh-questions are directed at viewers, they cannot, of course be interpreted as information questions. Instead, they must be interpreted as rhetorical questions. In some cases, rhetorical WH-questions do not carry the expected conventional implicature.  (1) After all, who knows more about the taste of meat than Alpo?  1 is not intended to conventionally implicate  (2) Someone knows more about the taste of meat than alpo.  instead 1 conversationally (not conventionally! semantics/pragmatics) (3) (3) No one knows more about the taste of meat than alpo 
• What is the difference between conventional and conversational implicature? Conventional implicature is semantic --> implicatures deriving from meaning of word  Converastional implicature is pragmatic --> Though the word doesnt suggest it we "know" what is meant (who knows more - there must be somebody knowing more = semantic. WRONG - instead; who knows more - nobody = pragmatic RIGHT) 
• What maxim do most of the conversational implicatures turn on? The Maxim of Relevance 
• What maximes exist in how are they described? Maxim of Strength Maxim of Relevance  Maxim of Evidence
• Are consumers more likely to go with the Maxim of Strenth or Maxim of Relevance? Maxim or Relevance
• What is more effectiv in regards to advertisement? Implicature or assertion? In general, consumers will be more vulnerable to claims made indirectly than to asserted claims, whether the device (inference type) employed to convey the indirectly conveyed claims are valid or not. 
• Do we tend to challenge implications? Conventionally or conversationally ones? No.  We tend not to challenge conventionally or conversationally implicated propositions, for example, because we assume that the speaker has evidence not only for what he asserts but also for what he conventionally implicates. (Maxim of Evidence) Moreover, I think we also recognize that people employ words and constructions with which conventional implicatures are associated not to fool each other but facilitate conversation. Much the same is true for theoretically implicated and conversationally implicated material. 
• Should advertisers be held responsible not only for what they assert but also for what is conventionally implicated by what they say? What about theoretical implicatures and conversational implicatures? Yes.  Open question because its hard to find out what is conversationally or theoretically infered from by the viewer / consumer. 

zurück  |  weiter 1 / 1