Band 16, Heft 5 -

The semantic-pragmatic interface debate is about how much actual situational context the linguistic signs need in order for them to be meaningful in the communicative process. There is evidence that interlocutors in intercultural interactions rely more Some of the ideas in the paper are based on chapter six in Kecskes (2019). on the compositional meaning of linguistic signs (semantics) than contextually supported meaning (pragmatics) because actual situational context cannot help pragmatic implication and interpretation the way it does in L1 communication. At the same time in pragmatic theory there seems to be an agreement between the neo-Gricean account and the post-Gricean account on the fact that the process of implicature retrieval is context-dependent. But will this L1-based contextualism work in intercultural interactions? Is pragmatics impoverished if interlocutors can only partly rely on pragmatic enrichment coming from context and the target language? The paper argues that in fact pragmatics is invigorated rather than impoverished in intercultural communication. A new type of synchronic events-based pragmatics is co-constructed by interlocutors. Instead of relying on the existing conventions, norms and frames of the target language interlocutors create their own temporary frames, formulas and norms. There is pragmaticization of semantics which is a synchronic, (usually) one-off phenomenon in which coded meaning, sometimes without any specific pragmatic enrichment coming from the target language, obtains temporary pragmatic status. This pragmatic enrichment happens as a result of interlocutors’ blending their dictionary knowledge of the linguistic code (semantics) with their basic interpersonal communicative skills and sometimes unusual, not necessarily target language-based pragmatic strategies that suit them very well in their attempt to achieve their communicative goals.

Pragmatic meanings are not only conveyed through words alone, but also through how words are produced phonetically. The current study investigated phonetic features that characterize the distinction between deferential and non-deferential speech style in Japanese. The Japanese data were then compared to previously published Korean data collected through the same methodology. The results revealed striking similarities between the two languages: Deferential voice is quieter and breathier, and has less fluctuation of pitch and loudness. The common strategy appears to sound calm and soft. Whereas Korean deferential speech was additionally low-pitched, Japanese did not show a consistent relationship between deferential meanings and pitch. The results diverge from the long-held view that Japanese polite speech is high-pitched, and they also deviate from the view that polite speech is universally associated with high pitch. The current findings demonstrate the importance of considering politeness as a complex phenomenon communicated via a number of phonetic cues, rather than a single cue (e. g. pitch). On top of a production study, we performed a perception study which showed that Japanese politeness, just as was shown for Korean politeness previously, can be perceived through vocal cues alone. The results also showed that Japanese female speakers do not necessarily do more to sound polite compared to male speakers, also contrary to previous claims.

Based on corpus data from the Hebrew web corpus HeTenTen, I analyze the discourse argumentative functions of constructions associated with superlative minimum modifiers (e. g. at least ). I adopt Kay’s (1992. At least. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization , 309–331. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum) distinction between three such sub-constructions: Scalar, Rhetorical and Evaluative, but I offer further distinctions within these constructions. Most importantly, despite the differences between them, I argue that all three constructions are used to construct non-optimal, yet sufficient arguments.

This article discusses a neo-Gricean approach to irony, deception and humor developed by Marta Dynel, confronting some of its assumptions and implications with results of experimental research. It is stated that Dynel’s modifications and elaborations of Grice’s original theory of conversation improve its coherence and provide adequate methodological tools for a comprehensive model of irony, deception and humor in multi-party interactions, and also for teasing out subtypes of each of these phenomena. Questions regarding the compatibility of this model with experimental findings concern such issues as the relation of irony and deception to Theory of Mind, and the impact of “humor for humor’s sake” on hearers’ opinions. Although these issues are not addressed in Dynel’s philosophically-oriented framework, they are not necessarily incongruent with her perspective.