«Indicators and procedures : nevertheless and but1 DIANE BLAKEMORE University of Salford (Received August ; revised January ...»
If this is right, then examples like (B) cannot be analysed by treating but nevertheless as a complex expression in the same way as surprisingly well. In fact, this is what my analyses of these expressions would predict. For while but requires the elimination of the proposition which contradicts a proposition communicated by the utterance it introduces, nevertheless simply requires the presence of the contradictory proposition in the context. It would seem that if the speaker’s intention in producing an utterance prefaced by nevertheless is to encourage the hearer to weigh the evidence for his answer to a question against the evidence for a contrary answer, then she would not want to ﬁrst use an expression which encodes the information that this answer is to be eliminated. For clearly, if this answer has been eliminated, then there can be no comparison.
Now, we have been assuming that the proposition contradicted and eliminated by the use of but in an example like (B) is identical to that proposition whose contradiction is supported by the utterance prefaced by nevertheless. That is, we have been assuming that but encodes the information that it is the proposition in () which should be eliminated.
() We should appoint her to the position.
In fact, it seems that the proposition that is contradicted and eliminated by but might be something like the one in ().
() This is the only evidence relevant to the question.
If () were true, then there would be no question about the truth of (). However, the use of but indicates that the relevance of the utterance it prefaces, namely (), is relevant by virtue of contradicting and eliminating ().
() Nevertheless she’s not really what the department needs at the moment.
And indeed, as we have seen, the use of nevertheless in an example like () indicates that the relevance of the utterance it prefaces lies in its role in establishing that there is evidence for a diﬀerent answer, and hence that there a question about the truth of ().
. C Clearly, there needs to be much more detailed investigation of co-occurring discourse connectives before we can fully understand how the procedures they encode interact. The aim of this paper has been to improve on the theoretical foundation for this work by trying to say more exactly what kind of information procedural information is, and hence showing more clearly how the distinction between conceptual and procedural encoding provides a cognitive basis for the distinction between saying and indicating. The comparison between nevertheless and but has demonstrated that the notion of procedural meaning is considerably more complex than the one suggested by my earlier work. However, it is complex in a way which is consistent with the cognitive theory of communication it derives from. In fact, it is quite possible that the further investigation of other types of phenomena will show that the notion of a constraint on relevance has to be made more complex in order to capture all the ways in which linguistic meaning can constrain the inferential procedures involved in utterance interpretation.
REFERENCESAustin, J. L. (). How to do things with words. Oxford : Clarendon.
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. (). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Bach, K. (). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy ..
Banﬁeld, A. (). Unspeakable sentences : narration and representation in the language of ﬁction. Boston : Routledge.
Bar-Lev, Z. & Palacas, A. (). Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua .
Blakemore, D. L. (). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford : Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. L. (). Denial and contrast : a Relevance theoretic analysis of ‘ but ’.
Linguistics and Philosophy . –.
Blakemore, D. L. (). Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society . –.
Blakemore, D. L. (). The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature ..
Blakemore, D. L. (). Are apposition markers discourse markers ? Journal of Linguistics .
Blakemore, D. L. (). Non-truth conditional meaning. Linguistische Berichte . –.
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (). The interpretation of and-conjunctions. In Iten, C. & Neelman, A. (eds.), University College Working Papers in Linguistics . London : UCL. –.
Blass, R. (). Relevance relations in discourse : a study with special reference to Sissala.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Blass, R. (). Are there logical relations in a text ? Lingua ./. –.
Carston, R. (). Implicature, explicature and truth theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R.
(ed.), Mental representations : the interface between language and reality. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press. –.
Carston, R. (). Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua ./. –.
Carston, R. (). The semantics\pragmatics distinction : a view from Relevance Theory. In
Turner, K. (ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from diﬀerent points of view. Amsterdam :
Carston, R. (forthcoming). Thoughts and utterances : the pragmatics of explicit communication.
Oxford : Blackwell.
Clark, B. (). Relevance Theory and the semantics of non-declaratives. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.
Clark, B. (). Relevance and pseudo-imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy . –.
Gazdar, G. (). Pragmatics : implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York :
Grice, H. P. (). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
Hobbs, J. (). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science . –.
Haegeman, L. (). The interpretation of the particle da in West Flemish. Lingua ./.
Higashimori, I. (). A Relevance theoretic analysis of even, sae\sura\mo\temo\ddemo\ datte\made. English Literature Review (Kyoto Women’s University) . –.
Ifantidou-Trouki, E. (). Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua ./. –.
Itani, R. (). The Japanese sentence-ﬁnal particle ‘ ka’ : a relevance theoretic approach.
Lingua ./. –.
Kitis, E. (). Connectives and ideology. Paper delivered at the th International Symposium on Critical Discourse Analysis : Language, Social Life and Critical Thought. University of Athens, – December .
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. (). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes . –.
Palmer, F. (). Mood and modality. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Recanati, F. (). Meaning and force. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Rieber, S. (). Conventional implicatures as tacit performatives. Linguistics and Philosophy .. –.
Rouchota, V. (a). The semantics and pragmatics of the subjunctive in Modern Greek – a Relevance theoretic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.
Rouchota, V. (b). Na-interrogatives in Modern Greek : their interpretation and relevance.
In Philippaki-Warburton, I. et al. (eds.), Themes in Greek linguistics : papers from the First International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. –.
Rouchota, V. (c). The subjunctive in Modern Greek : dividing the labour between semantics and pragmatics. Journal of Modern Greek Studies . –.
Searle, J. (). Speech Acta. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (). Relevance : communication and cognition. Oxford : Blackwell.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (). Mood and modality. in Dancy, J. Moravcsik, J. & Taylor, C.
(eds.), Human agency : language, duty and value. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
Wilson D. & Sperber, D. (). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua . –.
Urmson, J. (). Parenthetical verbs. In Flew, A. (ed.), Essays in conceptual analysis. London :
Author’s address : European Studies Research Institute, School of Modern Languages, The University of Salford, Salford M WT, U.K.
E-mail : D.Blakemore!mod-lang.salford.ac.uk