Contexto, conocimiento compartido y acomodación. A propósito de la interpretación de las tautologías

  1. Victoria Escandell-Vidal 1
  2. Elena Vilinbakhova 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
  2. 2 Saint Pertersburg State University, Rusia
Revista:
Boletín de filología: (Universidad de Chile)

ISSN: 0067-9674,  0718-9303

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 57

Número: 1

Páginas: 345-394

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Boletín de filología: (Universidad de Chile)

Resumen

This paper explores the advantages of a dynamic notion of context in which not only shared knowledge, but also accommodation of assumptions has a central role. To this end, we analyze the interpretation of tautologies: according to the literature, their interpretation is based on prior knowledge. By contrast, our hypothesis is that shared knowledge is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the felicitous uses of a tautology. To support our view, we conducted a corpus study and an interpretation questionnaire with two experimental tasks. The results align with our predictions

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allott, Nicholas Elwyn. 2007. Pragmatics and Rationality. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, Universidad de Londres, en linea: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/1444091/1/U591393.pdf [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Allott, Nicholas Elwyn. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2013. Strategic Conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 6 (2):1-62.
  • Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2017. Context Selection in Relevance Theory. En Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman y Christopher Laenzlinger (coord.). Formal Models in the Study of Language, pp. 221–242. Cham: Springer.
  • Beaver, David y Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. En Gillian Ramchand y Charles Reiss (coord.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pp. 533–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017
  • Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2017. The Role of Context in Semantics: A Relevance Theory Perspective. En Sarah-Jane Conrad y Klaus Petrus (coord.) Meaning, Context and Methodology, pp. 91-114. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501504327-006/ MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS.
  • Breitholtz, Ellen. 2020. Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: the use of common sense reasoning in conversation. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
  • Bulhof, Johannes y Steven Gimbel. 2001. Deep Tautologies. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(2): 279–91. DOI: 10.1075/PC.9.2.06BUL.
  • Bulhof, Johannes y Steven Gimbel. 2004. A Tautology Is a Tautology (or Is It?). Journal of Pragmatics 36 (5) : 1003- 1005. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00003-1.
  • Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, Universidad de Massachusetts, Amherst.
  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Anaylsis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.
  • Domaneschi, Filippo, Elena Carrea, Carlo Penco, y Alberto Greco. 2014. The Cognitive Load of Presupposition Triggers: Mandatory and Optional Repairs in Presupposition Failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29 (1): 136-146. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.830185.
  • Douven, Igor. 2021. Abduction. En Edward N. Zalta (coord.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University, en linea: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ abduction/ [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Douven, Igor. 2022. The Art of Abduction. Cambridge: MIT press.
  • Douven, Igor y Jonah N. Schupbach. 2015. Probabilistic Alternatives to Bayesianism: The Case of Explanationism. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 459. DOI: 10.3389/ FPSYG.2015.00459.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2020. Tautologías Nominales y Conocimiento Compartido. En Susana Rodríguez Rosique y Jordi M. Antolí Martínez (coord.). El Conocimiento Compartido, pp. 63–82. DOI: 10.1515/9783110711172-003/HTML.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria y Elena Vilinbakhova. 2018. Coordinated tautologies in Spanish and Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (3): 315–348. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2018- 0009.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria y Elena Vilinbakhova. 2019. Negated tautologies and copular contradictions. International Review of Pragmatics 11 (2): 153–199. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1163/18773109- 01102100.
  • Fetzer, Anita. 2017. Context. En Yan Huang (coord.). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 259-278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Finkbeiner, Rita, Jörg Meibauer y Petra B. Schumacher (coord.). 2012. What Is a Context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.
  • Fintel, Kai von. 2008. What Is Presupposition Accommodation, Again? Philosophical Perspectives 22: 137-170.
  • Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Motor Oil Is Motor Oil. An Account of English Nominal Tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 12(2): 215-20. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90080-X.
  • Gaul, Brett. 2019. Affirming the Consequent. En Robert Arp, Steven Barbone y Michael Bruce (coord.). Bad Arguments: 50 Common Fallacies and How to Avoid Them, pp. 42–45. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781119165811.CH2.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. y Nancy S. McCarrell 1990. Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 125–145.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2010. Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as Bounded Rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3): 528–54. doi: 10.1111/J.1756- 8765.2010.01094.X.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd y Henry Brighton. 2009. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (1): 107-43. DOI: 10.1111/J.1756- 8765.2008.01006.X.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd y Peter M. Todd. 1999. Fast and Frugal Heuristics: The Adaptive Toolbox. En Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd y la ABC Research Group (autores). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, pp. 3-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein y Vered Heruti. 2020. Whether Verbal or Visual, Affirmative or Negative, Tautologies are Not Tautologies. Metaphor and Symbol, 35 (2): 97-121. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2020.1784509
  • Goldstein, Daniel G. y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2002. Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic. Psychological Review 109 (1): 75–90. DOI: 10.1037/0033- 295X.109.1.75.
  • Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hertwig, Ralph y Stefan M. Herzog. 2009. Fast and Frugal Heuristics: Tools of Social Rationality. Social Cognition 27 (5): 661-698. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.661.
  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 2008. Abduction in Natural Language Understanding. En Laurence R. Horn y Gregory Ward (coord.). The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 724-741. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark E. Stickel, Douglas E. Appelt y Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63 (1–2): 68-142. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4.
  • Hommel, Bernhard. 2020. Pseudo-Mechanistic Explanations in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4): 1294–1305. DOI: 10.1111/TOPS.12448.
  • Jasinskaja, Katja. 2010. Corrective contrast in Russian, in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language 2 (2): 433–466.
  • Jasinskaja, Katja y Elena Karagjosova. 2021. Rhetorical Relations. En Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann y Thomas Ede Zimmermann (coord.). The Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem061. En linea: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/346089248_Rhetorical_Relations [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Jasinskaja, Katja y Henk Zeevat. 2009. Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, English, German. En: Arndt Riester y Torgrim Solstad (coord.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, pp. 231-246. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
  • Kissine, Mikhail y Myrto Pantazi. 2021. Pragmatic Accommodation. En Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann y Thomas Ede Zimmermann (coord.). The Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem140. En linea: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/346690130_Pragmatic_Accommodation [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Landis, Richard J. y Gary G., Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
  • Lapata, Mirella y Frank Keller. 2005. Web-based Models for Natural Language Processing. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 2:1: 1-31.
  • Lascarides, Alex y Nicolas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 437-493.
  • Lazareva, Victoria. 2012. Binominative tautologies with proper nouns (based on material from Bulgarian, Russian and Italian languages). En Ivelina Savova y Velka Popova (coord.). 40 godini Shumenski universitet 1971-2011, pp. 70-78. Shumen: Episkop Konstantin Preslavski.
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339-359.
  • Lipton, Peter. 2000. Inference to the Best Explanation. En William Herbert Newton-Smith (coord.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, pp. 184-193. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lombrozo, Tania y Nicholas Z. Gwynne. 2014. Explanation and Inference: Mechanistic and Functional Explanations Guide Property Generalization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 700. DOI: 10.3389/FNHUM.2014.00700.
  • Luan, Shenghua, Jochen Reb y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2019. Ecological Rationality: Fastand-Frugal Heuristics for Managerial Decision Making under Uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal 62 (6): 1735-1759. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2018.0172.
  • McHugh, Mary L. 2012. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica 22 (3): 276-282. DOI: 10.11613/bm.2012.031.
  • Mann, William C. y Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281.
  • Meibauer, Jörg. 2008. Tautology as presumptive meaning. Pragmatics and Cognition 16: 439-470.
  • Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences 34 (6): 768–776.
  • Miki, Etsuzo. 1996. Evocation and Tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (5): 635-648.
  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular clauses. En Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn y Paul Portner (coord.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2, pp. 1805-1829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, MIT.
  • Mohammadian, Mousa. 2021. Abduction − the Context of Discovery + Underdetermination = Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 198 (5): 4205-4228. DOI: 10.1007/s11229- 019-02337-z.
  • Müller, Misha-Laura. 2018. Accommodation: A Cognitive Heuristic for Background Information. Anglophonia 25. DOI: 10.4000/ANGLOPHONIA.1491. En linea: https:// journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/1491 [Consulta 06/04/22].
  • Neth, Hansjörg y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2015. Heuristics: Tools for an Uncertain World. En Robert Scott y Stephan Kosslyn (coord.). Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 1–18. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118900772. ETRDS0394.
  • Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601–638.
  • Prüst, Hub, Remko Scha y Martin van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics & Philosophy 17: 261–327.
  • Raab, Markus y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2015. The Power of Simplicity: A Fast-and-Frugal Heuristics Approach to Performance Science. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1672. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01672.
  • Recanati, François, Isidora Stojanovic y Neftalí Villanueva (coord.). 2010. ContextDependence, Perspective and Relativity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1-69. DOI: 10.3765/sp.5.6.
  • Sakai, Tomohiro. 2012. Contextualizing Tautologies: From Radical Pragmatics to Meaning Eliminativism. English Linguistics 29 (1): 38–68. DOI: 10.9793/ELSJ.29.1_38.
  • Sassoon, Galit. 2013. A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics 30: 335-380.
  • de Saussure, Louis. 2013. Background Relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 178–189. DOI: 10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2013.08.009.
  • Scha, Remko y Livia Polanyi. 1988. An augmented context free grammar for discourse. En Denes Vargha (coord.). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 573–577. Budapest: John von Neumann Society for Computing Sciences.
  • Schurz, Gerhard. 2008. Patterns of Abduction. Synthese 164 (2): 201-234. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4.
  • Schwabe, Kerstin. 2000. Coordinative Ellipsis and Information Structure. En Kerstin Schwabe y Ning Zhang (coord.). Ellipsis in Conjunction, pp. 247-269. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99–118. DOI: 10.2307/1884852.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 1979. Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 30(1): 363–96. DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV.PS.30.020179.002051.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 2000. Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow. Mind & Society 1: 25–39.
  • Simons, Mandy. 2005. Presupposition and Relevance. En Zoltán Szabo (coord.). Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 329-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Snider, Todd. 2015. Using Tautologies and Contradictions. En Eva Csipak y Hedde Zeijlstra (coord.). Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 19, pp. 610-627. Göttingen: LinG.
  • Sperber, Dan y Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. En Peter Cole (coord.) Syntax and Semantics 9, pp. 316-332. New York: Academic Press.
  • Stojanovic, Isidora. 2015. Evaluative Adjectives and Evaluative Uses of Ordinary Adjectives. En Daisuke Bekki y Eric McCready (coord.). Proceedings of LENLS-12: Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics. Tokyo. En linea: https://www.academia. edu/17113947/Evaluative_Adjectives_and_Evaluative_Uses_of_Ordinary_Adjectives [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 21 (2): 155–175
  • Umbach, Carla. 2016. Evaluative propositions and subjective judgments. En Cécile Meier y Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink (coord.). Subjective Meaning, pp. 127-168. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena. 2016. Coordinated tautologies in Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2: 61–74. DOI:10.31857/s0373658x0000981-8.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena y Victoria Escandell-Vidal. 2020. Interpreting Nominal Tautologies: Dimensions of Knowledge and Genericity. Journal of Pragmatics 160: 97-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.014.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena y Victoria Escandell-Vidal. 2021. Tautologies with Proper Names in Discourse: Rhetorical Relations and Interpretation. Language and Communication 76:79–99. DOI: 10.1016/j. langcom.2020.10.007.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena, Victoria Escandell-Vidal y Natalia Zevakhina. 2022. Tautologies, inferential processes and constraints on evoked knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 55-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.001
  • Vogel, Jonathan. 2018. Inference to the best explanation. En Edward Craig (coord.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Abington: Taylor and Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-P025-1. En linea: https://www.rep.routledge. com/articles/thematic/inference-to-the-best-explanation/v-1. [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Wharton, Tim. 2010. Context. En Louise Cummings (coord.). The Pragmatics Encyclopedia, pp. 74-75. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Wee, Lionel. 2006. Proper Names and the Theory of Metaphor. Journal of Linguistics 42 (2): 355-371.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. Boys Will Be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’. Language 63 (1) : 95-114. DOI: 10.2307/415385.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Wilson, Deirdre y Dan Sperber. 2004. La Teoría de La Relevancia. Revista de Investigación Lingüística VII: 237-286.
  • Yus Ramos, Francisco. 2003. Cooperación y Relevancia: Dos Aproximaciones Pragmáticas a La Interpretación. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. En linea: http://rua.ua.es/dspace/ handle/10045/4315 [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Zeevat, Henk. 2011. Rhetorical relations. En Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Von Heusinger y Paul Portner (coord.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning, pp. 946–970. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet