No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis consists of four essays and an introduction dedicated to two main topics: indexicality and presupposition. The first essay is concerned with an alleged problem for the standard treatment of indexicals on which their linguistic meanings are functions from context to content (so-called characters). Since most indexicals have their content settled, on an occasion of use, by the speaker’s intentions, some authors have argued that this standard picture is inadequate. By demonstrating that intentions can be seen as a parameter of the kind of context that characters operate on, these arguments are rejected. In addition, it is argued that a more recent, variable-based framework is naturally interpreted as an intention-sensitive semantics. The second essay is devoted to the phenomenon of descriptive uses of indexicals on which such an expression seems to contribute, not its standard reference as determined by its character, but a property to the interpretation. An argument that singular readings of the cases in question are incoherent is shown to be incorrect, and an approach to descriptive readings is developed on which they arise from e-type uses akin to other well known cases. Further, descriptive readings of the relevant kind are seen to arise only in the presence of adverbs of quantification, and all sentences in which such an adverb takes scope over an indexical are claimed to be ambiguous between a referential and an e-type (descriptive) reading. The third essay discusses a version of the variable analysis of pronouns on which their descriptive meanings are relegated to the so-called phi-features – person, gender and number. In turn, the phi-features are here seen as triggering semantic presuppositions that place constraints on the definedness of pronouns, and ultimately of sentences in which they appear. It is argued that the descriptive information contributed by the phi-features diverges radically from presuppositional information of both semantic and pragmatic varieties on several dimensions of comparison, and instead the main role of the phi-features is seen to be that of guiding hearers’ attempts to ascertain the speaker’s intentions. The fourth essay addresses an issue concerning the treatment of presuppositions in dynamic semantics. Representing a semantic treatment of pragmatic presuppositions, the dynamic framework is shown to incorrectly regard conversational infelicity as sufficient for semantic undefinedness, given the standard way of defining truth in terms of context change. Further, it is shown that a proposal for a solution fail to make correct predictions for epistemic modals. A novel framework is developed on which context change potentials act on contexts that have more structure than the contexts usually countenanced by dynamic semantics, and it is shown that this framework derives truth from context change while making correct predictions for both presuppositions and modals.

The purposes of this investigation were to identify, via the Pragmatic Protocol, the incidence of pragmatic disorders within public school articulation and language caseloads and a control group of normal students and to specify the pragmatic areas, i.e., utterance propositional, and/or illocutionary/perlocutionary act categories in which deficits occur.

How does cultural and linguistic background influence communication style? This topic is examined through the [I + verb] belief construct before the expression of an opinion. Since opinions carry inherent notions of speaker belief, these constructions may at first appear superfluous. However, [I + verb] forms may actually fulfill various pragmatic functions depending on prosodic variation. Unfortunately, there is little congruent data on universality vs. cross-linguistic variability of pragmatic-prosodic mappings (prosodic variation as a cue to pragmatic interpretation) of [I + verb] belief constructs before an opinion. Thus, a Proof of Concept perception test was first implemented, followed by a production task investigating the effect of sociolinguistic background on a speaker's frequency of usage for various [I + verb] forms in expressing opinions, and how this relates to perceived speaker confidence. Usage of various forms and functions of this construct was analyzed and compared between native Mandarin (CHI) and English (US) speakers, as well as EFL Mandarin speakers. The Proof of Concept task supported hypotheses overall, suggesting a possible universal pragmatic-prosodic mapping for [I + verb]. In addition, while as predicted sociolinguistic background did not have a significant effect on universality of pragmatic-prosodic mapping in terms of confidence rating, it did have an observable effect on semantic interpretation of 'speaker confidence', thus indicating that sociolinguistic background may play a role in influencing these interpretations. Results from the production task supported predictions that frequency of functional [I + verb] usage corresponded to culturally specific attitudes of each culture. Based on confidence rating calculations for each [I + verb] variation from pragmatic-prosodic mapping of the perception task, it was determined that Native US individuals were most confident in expressing self-opinions but least confident in expressing opinions of others whilst Native CHI individuals were most confident in expressing opinions of others and least confident in expressing self-opinion, with the EFL group in the US more closely mirroring the Native US group and the EFL group in China more closely mirroring the Native CHI group. Additionally, going against theories of previous research, Time immersed in a new L2 environment and L2 proficiency did not significantly influence performance. Through investigating pragmatic-prosodic mappings of [I + verb] forms vs. functions, this study aimed to demonstrate the bi-directional link between language, thought and culture. By understanding and familiarizing oneself with the root of pragmatic differences, there is hope to better understand the cause of cross-cultural miscommunications between native and foreign speakers in conversation and to minimize any such discrepancies in pragmatic knowledge and sociocultural norms.

This work presents an analysis of punctuation use in computer-mediated communication (CMC); in particular, the present study aims to describe the pragmatic functions of nonstandard punctuation on Twitter, providing a corpus-driven overview of the distribution and frequency of nonstandard punctuation use, and an analysis of sampled tweets at the individual tweet level to estimate noise levels in the overall corpus. A survey was also conducted which aimed to identify user understanding of the affective content of nonstandard punctuation strings and to identify any possible effects of character repetition. Survey results indicate that linguistic content was the strongest indicator of affective understanding, type of punctuation (i.e., ?, !, and combinations thereof) was a weaker indicator of some affective content, and repetition was not found to be significant. The study argues that certain string types, possibly defined by punctuation type and not count, have large indexical fields of pragmatic meaning available to them, which are bounded by context. In light of these observations, the study also proposes distinctions/categories of punctuation strings and their associated pragmatic meanings.

Communication refers to the conveyance of intended messages so that the listeners' attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors are changed. Communication through a language system may be thought of as the integration of the three components of content (semantics), form (syntax), and use (language in context or pragmatics). The corning together of content, form, and use in signs, words, phrases, and discourse is the essence of language development. The synergism of content/form/use makes up language competence, or knowledge. When children speak and understand a message, they have a plan that is knowledge of language and they use that plan for the behavior involved in speaking or understanding messages, (Bates, 1976; Bloom and Lahey, 1978).