Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Pragmatics in understanding what is said

R W Gibbs1, J F Moise

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz 95064, USA. gibbs@cats.ucsc.edu

Cognition
|January 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary

People understand that what is said goes beyond minimal meaning, incorporating pragmatic enrichment. This research shows pragmatics significantly shapes both what speakers say and communicate in context.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Treatment of chronic influenzal meningitis; heparin as an adjuvant.

The Journal-lancet·2010
Same author

Interpreting what speakers say and implicate.

Brain and language·1999
Same author

Speakers' intuitions and pragmatic theory.

Cognition·1999
Same author

Why many concepts are metaphorical.

Cognition·1996
Same author

Television violence viewing and aggression in females.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·1996
Same author

What proverb understanding reveals about how people think.

Psychological bulletin·1995

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Science
  • Linguistics
  • Psychology

Background:

  • A key debate in cognitive science concerns whether linguistic utterances underdetermine their implied meanings.
  • Scholars following Grice suggest pragmatics plays a limited role in determining literal meaning ('what is said').
  • This contrasts with the idea that pragmatics heavily influences conversational implicature.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate laypeople's intuitions regarding the distinction between 'what is said' and 'what is implicated'.
  • To test whether speakers' literal meaning is perceived as minimal or pragmatically enriched.
  • To examine the role of context in differentiating literal meaning from communicated meaning.

Main Methods:

  • Four experiments were conducted to gather data on intuitive judgments.
  • Participants were presented with various indicative utterances, such as 'Jane has three children'.
  • Intuitions about the semantic content versus pragmatic enrichment were analyzed.

Main Results:

  • Participants did not equate the minimal meaning (at least three children) with what is said.
  • Evidence suggests that enriched pragmatics significantly influences the understanding of 'what is said' (exactly three children).
  • A clear distinction was recognized between 'what is said' and 'what is implicated' in specific contexts.

Conclusions:

  • Laypeople's intuitions support theories where pragmatics plays a substantial role in utterance interpretation.
  • The findings challenge views that attribute a minimal role to pragmatics in determining literal meaning.
  • Pragmatic enrichment is crucial for understanding both literal meaning and communicated messages in context.

Related Experiment Videos