Is the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction a Stipulative Distinction?

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3, 885 - 904, 01.07.2020

Mustafa Polat

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.736037

Cited By: 1

Öz

In linguistics and philosophy, the division of labor in the study of language is commonly schematized by the basic triad that consists of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics each of which typically stands for complementary yet distinct aspects of the language- formal or natural- in question. These aspects, at face value, provide us a methodological convenience by schematically representing the structure of a language with respect to diverse linguistic roles and their explanatory significance. Although endorsing the basic triad offers some methodological convenience for the analysis of languages, the viability of the basic triad has, in recent years, been frequently challenged with the question of how to ground the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. Hence, it has become significant to answer the question of how far the semantics-pragmatics distinction in its connection with the basic triad is theoretically warranted considering the assumptions on which it rests. If the distinction cannot be grounded, it seems to have no substantial significance other than its methodological convenience as stipulative categories in a stipulative schema. In this paper, I discuss these underlying assumptions to the effect that the semantics-pragmatics distinction is a stipulative one rather than a well-grounded distinction

Anahtar Kelimeler

the basic triad, the semantics-pragmatics distinction, deflationarism, philosophy of language, philosophy of linguistics

Anlambilim-Edimbilim Ayrımı Keyfi bir Ayrım mıdır?

Öz

Dilbilim ve felsefede; dil çalışmasındaki iş bölümü, genellikle her biri tipik olarak söz konusu dilin -formel veya doğal- tamamlayıcı fakat farklı yönlerini temsil eden sözdizim, anlambilim ve edimbilim temel üçlüsü üzerinden şematize edilir. Bu yönler, görünürde, söz konusu dilin yapısını bu dildeki farklı dilsel roller ve bunların açıklayıcılık işlevleri üzerinden şematik olarak temsil ederek bize metodolojik bir kolaylık sağlarlar. Böylelikle, temel üçlü genellikle doğal ve formel dillerin şematik bir şekilde nasıl tahlil edileceğini veya edilmesi gerektiğini göstermek için öne sürülür. Temel üçlüyü kabul etmek dillerin tahlili için bazı metodolojik kolaylıklar sunsa dahi temel üçlünün geçerliliği anlambilim-edimbilim ayrımının nasıl temellendirileceği sorusuyla son yıllarda sıklıkla zorlanmıştır. Bundan dolayı, dayandığı varsayımlar düşünüldüğünde bu ayrımın temel üçlü ile ilişkisinde teorik olarak ne kadar desteklenebileceği cevaplamaya değer olmuştur. Eğer ki ayrım temellendirilemezse, bu ayrım keyfi bir şematik gösterimdeki keyfi bir ayrım olarak sunduğu metodolojik kolaylıktan başka bir önem taşımaz. Bu makalede; temel üçlünün altında yatan varsayımları, anlambilim-edimbilim ayrımının sağlam temellendirilmiş bir ayrım olmaktansa keyfi bir ayrım olduğu mealinde tartışacağım.

Anahtar Kelimeler

anlambilim, edimbilim, temel üçlü, dil felsefesi, dilbilim felsefesi

Kaynakça

• Ariel, M. (2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bach, K. (1997). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Pragmatik (pp. 33-50). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Bach, K. (1999a). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327-366.
• Bach, K. (1999b). The semantics pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In K.Turner (Ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 65-84). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Bach, K. & Bezuidenhout, A. (2002). Distinguishing semantics and pragmatics. In J. K. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier (Eds.), Meaning and truth – investigations in philosophical semantics (pp. 284-310). New York: Seven Bridges Press.
• Bach, K. (2004a). Minding the gap. In C. Bianchi (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp. 27-43). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Bach, K. (2004b). Pragmatics and the philosophy of language. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 463-487). New Jersey: Blackwell.
• Bach, K. (2005). Context ex machina. In Z. G. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp.15-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bach, K. (2006). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,73(2), 435-442.
• Bach, K. (2007). Literal meaning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(2), 487-492.
• Bach, K. (2012). Context dependence (such as it is). In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), The Continuum companion to the philosophy of language. New York: Continuum International.
• Bianchi, C. (2004). Semantics and pragmatics: the distinction reloaded. The semantics-pragmatics distinction (pp.1-11). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Caplan, B. (2003). Putting things in contexts. Philosophical Review, 112(2), 191-214.
• Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2003). Context shifting arguments. Philosophical perspectives, 17, 25-50.
• Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Radical and moderate pragmatics: Does meaning determine truth conditions? In Z. G. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp.45-71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself: The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2008). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
• Carnap, R. (1937). The logical syntax of language. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
• Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to semantics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Carnap, R. (1988). Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Carston, R. (1999). The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 85-125). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Carston, Robyn (2008a). Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 321-345.
• Carston, R. (2008b). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
• Dever, J. (2013). The revenge of the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 104-144.
• Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
• Gauker, C. (2012). Semantics and pragmatics. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp.18-28). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Gillon, B. S. (2008). On the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 373-384.
• Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377-388.
• Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Horn, L. R., & Ward, G. L. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Semantics and pragmatics: The boundary issue. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.1-37).
• Jaszczolt, K. (2019). Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 15-24.
• Kaplan, D. (1978). Dthat. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 221-243.
• Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Katsos, N. (2008). The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: The case of scalar implicature. Synthese, 165(3), 385-401.
• King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp.112-164). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Ohman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79-100). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Montague, R. (1970). Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthese, 22(1-2), 68-94.
• Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, et al (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 1-59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Nemo, F. (1999). The pragmatics of signs, the semantics of relevance, and the semantic/pragmatic interface. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 343-417). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Peregrin, J. (1999). The pragmatization of semantics. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 419-442). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Recanati, F. (2002a). Pragmatics and Semantics. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 442-462). New Jersey: Blackwell.
• Recanati, F. (2002b). What is said and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. In C. Bianchi (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp. 45-64). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
• Searle, J. (1971). The philosophy of language. London: Oxford University Press.
• Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207-224.
• Searle, J. R. (1980). The background of meaning. In Speech act theory and pragmatics (pp. 221-232). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535-558.
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol.142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Stalnaker, R. (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese, 22(1-2), 272-289.
• Stalnaker, R. (1981). Logical semiotic. In E. Agazzi (Ed.), Modern logic: A survey (pp. 439- 456). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Corp.
• Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stojanovic, I. (2008). The semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 317-319.
• Stojanovic, I. (2014). Prepragmatics: widening the semantics-pragmatics boundary. Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning, 311-326.
• Szabó, Z. G. (Ed.). (2005). Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Szabó, Z. G. (2006). The distinction between semantics and pragmatics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 361-390). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). New Jersey: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
• Wittgenstein, L. (2013). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Abingdon: Routledge.