Review published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 1:1 (2011) ► pp.105–127
Book review
Is pragmatics the answer to our quest for meaning?
A review of Mira Ariel’s new book Defining Pragmatics
Reviewed by
Published online: 27 May 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.1.07teu
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.1.07teu
In this paper, I aim to explore the contribution (neo-)Gricean pragmatics, as seen by Mira Ariel, can make to the notion of meaning. In her view, the ‘semantic meaning’ of a sentence, seen as the core unit of grammar, can be computed on the basis of the (rule-based) code of a given natural language, revealing the range of meaning(s) this sentence has in isolation. Pragmatic meaning starts with semantic meaning; it is calculated through ‘inferencing’, involving the contextualisation of this sentence and the application of (universal) reasoning. It makes us understand a sentence. This view comes with problems, e.g. the notion of language as ‘code’, the status of rules, the borderline between grammar and pragmatics, the issues of cognition and of the speaker’s intentions (problems of which Ariel is very much aware). As an alternative, I will suggest an approach that bases the interpretation of text segments on discourse evidence shared by the interpretive community, without recourse to people’s minds.
Keywords: pragmatics, meaning, Grice, inferences, grammar, sentence, code, discourse
References (23)
Arens, Hans (ed.). 1984. Aristotle’s Theory of Language and its Tradition: Texts from 500 to 1750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bennett, Maxwell and Hacker, Peter. 2007. “The conceptual presupposition of cognitive neuroscience: A reply to critics.” In Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, mind and language, Daniel Robinson (ed.), 127–162. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brigham, Nancy. 2000. “Machine translation: Its past, the potential and the problem.” Available at: [URL]
Dennett, Daniel. 1998. “Reflections on language and mind.” In Language and Thought, Peter Carruthers and Jill Boucher (eds), 284–294. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fish, Stanley. 1980. “Is there a text in this class?” In Is there a Text in this Class?, Stanley Fish, 302–321. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Harris, Roy. 1990. “On redefining linguistics.” In Redefining Linguistics, Hayley G. Davis and Talbot J. Taylor (eds), 17–68. London: Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen. 1997. “From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking.” In Language and Conceptualization, Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson (eds), 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loux, Michael J. (ed.). 1998. Ockham’s Theory of Terms: Part I of the Summa Logicae. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press.
Orrigi, Gloria and Sperber, Dan. 2010. “A pragmatic perspective on the evolution of language.” In The Evolution of Language: Biolinguistic perspectives, Richard L. Larson, Viviane Déprez and Hiroko Yamakido, 124–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E. 1986. “General theory and art of interpretation.” In The Hermeneutics Reader, Kurt Mueller-Vollmer (ed.), 72–97. Oxford: Blackwell.
. 1998. “The mapping between the mental and the public memory.” In Language and Thought, Peter Carruthers and Jill Boucher (eds), 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Dialogue Studies 101).
