the explicit/implicit dimension

223 Pages·2009·1.43 MB·English

B
e
h
r
e
n
s
&
F Oslo Studies in Language
a
b 1 / 2009
r
ic
iu
s
-
H
a
n
s
e
n
(
e
d
s
.)
Bergljot Behrens
& Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.)
Structuring information in discourse:
the explicit/implicit dimension
OsloStudiesinLanguage
Generaleditors: AtleGrønnandDagHaug
Editorialboard
International:
HenningAndersen,LosAngeles(historicallinguistics)
ÖstenDahl,Stockholm(typology)
LauraJanda,Tromsø/UNCChapelHill(Slaviclinguistics,cognitivelinguistics)
ArnimvonStechow,Tübingen(semanticsandsyntax)
National:
JohannaBarðdal,Bergen(constructiongrammar)
ØysteinVangsnes,Tromsø(Norwegian,dialectsyntax)
Local:
CeciliaAlvstad,ILOS(Spanish,translatology)
HansOlavEnger,ILN(Norwegian,cognitivelinguistics)
RuthE.VatvedtFjeld,ILN(Norwegian,lexicography)
JanTerjeFaarlund,CSMN,ILN(Norwegian,syntax)
CathrineFabricius-Hansen,ILOS(German,contrastivelinguistics)
CarstenHansen,CSMN,IFIKK(philosophyoflanguage)
ChristophHarbsmeier,IKOS(Chinese,lexicography)
HildeHasselgård,ILOS(English,corpuslinguistics)
HansPetterHelland,ILOS(French,syntax)
KristianEmilKristoffersen,ILN(cognitivelinguistics)
HelgeLødrup,ILN(syntax)
GunvorMejdell,IKOS(Arabic,sociolinguistics)
LjiljanaSaric,ILOS(Slaviclinguistics)
BenteAilinSvendsen,ILN(secondlanguageacquisition)
B
e
h
r
e
n
s
&
F Oslo Studies in Language
a
b 1 / 2009
r
i
c
i
u
s
-
H
a
n
s
e
n
(
e
d
s
.)
Bergljot Behrens
& Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.)
Structuring information in discourse:
the explicit/implicit dimension
OsloStudiesinLanguage,volume1,2009.
BergljotBehrensandCathrineFabricius-Hansen(eds.):
StructuringInformationinDiscourse: theExplicit/ImplicitDimension
Oslo,UniversityofOslo
ISSN1890-9639
©2009theauthors
LayoutanddesignbyLarsBungum,AtleGrønn,DagHaugandKarineStjernholm
SetinLATEX fontsGentiumBookBasicandLinuxLibertinebyLarsBungum
CoverdesignbyUniPubpublishinghouse
PrintedbyUniPubfromcamera-readycopysuppliedbytheeditors
hhttttpp::////wwwwww..jjoouurrnnaallss..uuiioo..nnoo//oossllaa
TC
11 IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn 1
BergljotBehrensandCathrineFabricius-Hansen,UniversityofOslo
22 OOnntthheeFFuunnccttiioonnaallIInnddeeppeennddeenncceeooffEExxpplliiccaattuurreessaannddIImmpplliiccaattuurreess 17
ThorsteinFretheim,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology
33 CCrroossss--LLiinngguuiissttiiccEEvviiddeenncceeaannddtthheeLLiicceennssiinnggooffIImmpplliicciittAArrgguummeennttss 33
GergelyPethőandEvaKardos,UniversityofDebrecen
44 AAMMoorrpphheemmee--bbaasseeddMMooddeellooffNNoonnsseenntteennttiiaallUUtttteerraanncceePPrroodduuccttiioonn 63
ShinjiIdo,TohokuUniversity/UniversityofSydney
55 TThheeRReeaall,,tthheeAAppppaarreenntt,,aannddWWhhaattiisseeiiggeennttlliicchh 77
RegineEckardt,UniversityofGöttingen
66 SSeellffIInntteennssiiffiiccaattiioonnaannddFFooccuussIInntteerrpprreettaattiioonn 109
KjellJohanSæbø,UniversityofOslo
77 AAddvveerrbbiiaallddoocchhaannddtthheeNNoottiioonnooffCCoonnttrraasstt 131
ElenaKaragjosova,UniversityofOslo
88 AAFFoorrmmaallAAnnaallyyssiissoofftthheeFFrreenncchhTTeemmppoorraallCCoonnnneeccttiivveeaalloorrss 149
MyriamBras,AnneLeDraoulecandNicholasAsher,Universityof
Toulouse
99 DDiissccoouurrsseeSSttrruuccttuurree:: SSwwiinnggssaannddRRoouunnddaabboouuttss 171
BonnieWebber,UniversityofEdinburghandRashmiPrasad,University
ofPennsylvania
1100 OOppttiimmaallIInntteerrpprreettaattiioonnaassaannAAlltteerrnnaattiivveettooGGrriicceeaannPPrraaggmmaattiiccss 191
HenkZeevat,UniversityofAmsterdam
v

Behrens&Fabricius-Hansen(eds.)Structuringinformationindiscourse:
theexplicit/implicitdimension,OsloStudiesinLanguage1(1),2009.1-15.(ISSN1890-9639)
hhttttpp::////wwwwww..jjoouurrnnaallss..uuiioo..nnoo//oossllaa

BERGLJOT BEHRENS 
CATHRINE FABRICIUS–HANSEN
UniversityofOslo
[1]    
The present thematic issue comprises a selection of nine refereed and revised
papers,mostofwhichwerepresentedattheSPRIKconferenceExplicitversusIm-
plicit InformationinText. InformationStructureacrossLanguages in Oslo, 8-10 June
2006.11 The bipartite title of the conference reflects the main objectives of the
organizingresearchprojectSPRIK22 (‘SPRåkIKontrast/LanguagesinContrast’),
which is directed towards text-oriented, corpus-based contrastive studies (Nor-
wegian,English,French,German)oftheinterplaybetweenexplicit(linguistically
encoded)informationandimplicitinformation,ontheonehand,andtheinterac-
tion of local, sentence-internal information structure and more global informa-
tion structuring and weighting, including so-called discourse structure, on the
other. Nine explicitly contrastive and partly translation-oriented papers pre-
sentedattheconferencewereselectedforaspecialissueofthejournalLanguages
inContrast (BBeehhrreennsseettaall.. 22000077). The present issue of OSLa is more theoretically
oriented,focussingonthesystem(s)orproceduresthatcanaccountforthestruc-
tureofcomplexdiscourse. Whiletheoreticalstudiesandempiricalstudiessome-
timescompeteinthescientificcommunity, andresearcherschangefromapre-
occupationwiththeorytoapreoccupationwithdata,themajorityofthepapers
inthepresentpublicationcombinedataandtheoryveryclosely. Withafewex-
ceptions the papers are monolingually oriented, but taken together they cover
a variety of object languages: English, German, Norwegian, French, Hungarian,
Turkish,Japanese,andMongolian.
Thecontributionscomprise
(i) ThreekeynotepapersbyRegineE,KjellJohanSandBonnieW
,andan‘unofficial’keynotepaperbyHenkZ. Thepapersdemon-
strateorargueforsomewhatdifferenttheoreticalapproachestotheinter-
action of lexically encoded meaning, contextual information, information
[1] Seehhttttpp::////wwwwww..hhff..uuiioo..nnoo//ffoorrsskknniinnggsspprroossjjeekktteerr//sspprriikk//eenngglliisshh//aaccttiivviittiieess//ccoonnff..hhttmmll
[2] Seehhttttpp::////wwwwww..hhff..uuiioo..nnoo//ffoorrsskknniinnggsspprroossjjeekktteerr//sspprriikk//. TheSPRIKprojectattheFacultyof
Humanitites,UniversityofOslo,wasfundedbytheNorwegianResearchCouncil(NFR)underproject
number158447/530(2003-2008).
[2] 
structure and/or discourse structure: Formal (Dynamic) Semantics com-
binedwithFocusTheoryàlaRooth(Eckardt, Sæbø), OptimalityTheoretic
Pragmatics(Zeevat,Sæbø),andDiscourse-levelLexicalizedTreeAdjoining
Grammar(D-LTAG)(Webber).
(ii) Fivecasestudiesthatarethematically, theoreticallyand/ormethodologi-
callyrelatedtooneormoreofthekeynotepaperslistedin(i). Thesecase
studiesalsowidentheperspectivesomewhat: onepaperpresentingauni-
fiedcontext-dependentsemanticsfortheconjunctadverbdoch(ElenaK
);oneconcernedwiththeinterplaybetweenconnectives/particles
anddiscourse/rhetoricalrelations(MyriamBetal.,);onepaperaddress-
ing the division of labor between syntax, semantics and pragmatics as far
asthelicensingandinterpretationofimplicitobjectsisconcerned(Gergely
PandEvaK);onerelevance-theoreticallyorientedpaperdemon-
stratinglexicalrelationswhichformaveryimportantbasisforquestioning
the explicature-implicature distinction (Thorstein F); and one pa-
peroutliningamodelfornon-sententialutteranceproduction(ShinjiI).
The general research questions addressed in this volume are highly relevant in
thepresentlinguisticdebate,centeringoninterfacesbetweendifferentlevelsof
description. Whereinouraccountoftherelationbetweenlanguageandmeaning
do the constraints on interpretation belong? In accounting for the meaning of
texts,howmuchandwhatkindofmeaningdoweattachtothelinguisticsignals
themselves? What do these signals encode that contributes to the construction
andresolutionofcontext-dependentmeaning? Toputthequestionsdifferently,
howmuchdolanguageusersbasetheirinterpretationsonworldknowledgeand
generalpragmaticprinciples,suchasforexampletheRelevanceTheoreticprin-
cipleoflookingforoptimalrelevance/cognitiveeffectsatthelowestcost,orthe
OptimalityTheoreticinstructiontoassesstherelativeweightofaseriesofbasic
pragmatic principles to arrive at the best interpretation? Pure pragmatic rea-
soningisclearlynecessaryforthelanguageusertoinferintendedmeanings,but
whilesomeadherentsofpragmaticstendtoattachmostoftheinterpretationpro-
cedurestogeneralpragmaticprinciples(seethecriticaldiscussioninPethőand
Kardosinthepresentvolume),severalofthecontributionsinthepresentvolume
demonstratetheessentialroleoflinguistic,text-structuringcluesinacomposi-
tionalsystemofarrivingatthefullmeaningofcomplexdiscourse.
[2]  
Thisbookdealswiththechallengesofaccountingforthesystemsthatdirectthe
retrieval of contextual information in the interpretation of coherent discourse.
Discourse – written text or a sequence of spoken utterances – is coherent when
OSLavolume1(1),2009
 [3]
asingleutteranceorexpression(sententialornon-sentential)isnotonlyinter-
pretedatfacevalue,byandofitself,butmakessenseasameaningfulcontribution
tothelinguisticandnon-linguisticcontextitappearsin.
Atonelevelthismeansthatwelookforthefactorsthatdeterminetheexpres-
sion’scontributiontowhatthediscourserefersto. Atanotherlevelweareafter
thefactorsthatdetermineitsillocution,i.e. whattheexpressionmaybemeant
todointhecontext–whethertoadd, challengeormodifyinformation, byway
ofrepresentinganopinion,underliningaviewpoint,creatingacontrastetc. For
bothlevelsofinterpretation,discoursemustbestructured. Thequestionforthe
linguistisnotonlywhatthatstructureisbutwhatthefactorsarethatdetermine
thestructures.
[3]      

Whenwesaysomething,weoftentakeitforgrantedthatwhatwemeanbywhat
wesaywillnotonlybeavailabletothelistenerbutthatwhatthelistenertakesus
tomeanonthebasisofwhatwesayisinfactwhatwemean. Thatis,weexpect
thelinguisticcodewehavemadeuseoftobesufficienttoexpressourintended
meaning. However,aslinguists,weknowthatalotofwhataspeakercommuni-
catesbywhats/hesaysisnotexplicitlystated. Well-knownexamplesareellipsis,
oromittedwordsorphrasesthataresomehowrecoverablefromgeneralrulesof
syntax,suchastheimpliedobjectargumentinthesecondconjunctin((11)).
(1) Thekingpickedupthewineanddrank.
An utterance of ((11)) will be understood by all reasonable listeners to mean that
thekingdrank(atleastsomeof)thewinethatisreferredtointhefirstconjunct.
Althoughthisisonlyapieceof informationgivenbytheutterance,most
linguistsagreethatitmakesuppartofthetruthconditions(semanticcontent)of
theutterance.
The same listeners will also agree that the utterance in ((11)) implies that the
king picked up a glass or some other container that can hold wine and that is
meant for drinking, and that the wine he drank was in that glass/bowl or bot-
tle/flask. Thisisalsoinformationthatisnotstatedexplicitly. Yetthedifferent
piecesofimplicitinformationretrievedfromtheutteranceof((11)),onemightar-
gue,areretrievedonthebasisofdifferentinterpretationprinciples: Firstofall,
theobjectoftheverbdrinkmaybepostulatedasanunderspecifiedargumentin
the syntactic structure of the second conjunct, determined by the selection re-
strictionsfortheverb. Simplifyingsomewhat,wemaysaythattheunderspecified
argument lacks intrinsic reference and is therefore assumed to be an anaphor,
whose reference must be resolved in context. Although everyone would agree
OSLavolume1(1),2009
[4] 
that the king drank (some of) the wine, not all linguists would agree that the
abovedescriptionofhowthatmeaningcomesaboutisacorrectdescription. The
pragmatic principle guiding the resolution of the anaphor, furthermore, is also
amatterofdebate: onalinguisticallybasedview,aprincipleofnon-intervening
eventsmaybestatedforeventsexpressedinaVPconjunction,whichmeansthat
theimpliedobjectofthedrinkingeventshouldfinditsantecedentinthefirstcon-
junct(DiscourseRepresentationTheoretic(DRT)approach). Onanotherviewthe
anaphorisresolvedastheresultofageneralsearchforrelevance(theRelevance
Theoretic(RT)approach).
Theotherinformationisretrievedonthebasisofthelisteners’generalknowl-
edgeaboutwinecontainersandtheimpossibilityofpickingupaliquidwhichis
not in a container of some sort. Typically, the exact reference of this kind of
knowledge-basedinformationremainsvagueorloosewithoutfurthercontextual
cluesormorespecificknowledgeabouttheactualstateofaffairs. Therestricted
context given in ((11)) contributes to narrowing the reference of “wine” down to
“wineinsomecontainer”. Awidercontextmightnarrowitdownevenfurther.
The distinction between the types of implicit information in ((11)) is generally
statedasadifferencebetweenlinguisticallymotivatedinformationandgeneral
world knowledge as a basis for inferences drawn as to the meaning of an utter-
ance. This distinction is often hard to draw, and different theories of language
draw the line differently. The problem of accounting for systems of “filling in”
material“missing”intheexpressiontoarriveattheunderlyingpropositionisof
centralconcerntolinguistictheory.
GGrriiccee(11997755)madetheimportantdistinctionbetweeninformationthatmakes
uppartofthetruthconditionsofanutteranceand“cancellable”meaningsdrawn
fromtheutterance,whichthespeakercannotbeheldresponsiblefor,andcorre-
latedthedivisionwithadistinctionbetweenwhatissaidandwhatisimplicated.
LLeevviinnssoonn(22000000)explicatesthisviewinsayingthatthe“said”canbetakentobe
truth-conditionalcontent,theoutputofsemanticinterpretation(theproposition
expressed), while the “implicated” can be taken to include all the processes of
pragmaticinference.
Ifthisisthedistinctiontobedrawn,theninformationinferredfromtheut-
teranceshouldnotmakeuppartofthetruthconditionsoftheutterance,bydef-
inition.
Suchaview,accordingtoabroadrangeoflinguistsandlanguagephilosophers
today,isclearlymistaken. Thequestion,therefore,is:Whatcanbesaidtobe‘said’
onthebasisofanutteranceorpieceofdiscourse?
Answerstothisquestionaresoughtinvariousways,aswasillustratedbyour
analysisof((11)).
Thefirstproblemistodeterminethegroundsforwhichanobjectargument
shouldbepostulatedinthesyntaxoftheutterance. Thisisatheoreticalmatter.
OSLavolume1(1),2009