Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 33–58

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

The speaker’s derivational intention

 | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.02fre
Adopting the basic tenets of relevance theory, Powell (2010) introduces the concept of derivational intention as something separate from a speaker’s informative intention. The derivational intention of a speaker is an intention concerning the pragmatically inferred route that the hearer should take in order to recognize the speaker’s informative intention. This paper addresses what can happen when a speaker’s derivational intention is at odds with a particular piece of procedural information encoded by some linguistic expression, with the conceptual semantics of a lexical item, or with the procedural meaning of an intonation pattern employed by the speaker. The procedural meaning of one expression may override that of a co-occurring expression when there is a conflict between them.
References (20)
References
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard. 2007. “Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/Implicature Distinction.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 67–89. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat (eds). 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2012. “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 29: 607–623. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dommelen, Wim A. van, and Thorstein Fretheim. 2013. “Intonational Cues to the Identification of Propositional Form and Speech-act Type in Norwegian.” In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the XIth Conference, ed. by Eva Liina Asu and Pärtel Lippus, 401–410. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1978. “When Syntax Fails to Determine Semantic Scope.” In Nordic Prosody, ed. by Eva Gårding, Gösta Bruce, and Robert Bannert, 5–14. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. “Intonational Phrasing in Norwegian.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 4: 111–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “Themehood, Rhemehood and Norwegian Focus Structure.” Folia Linguistica XXVII: 111–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Description as Indication: The Use of Conceptual Meaning for a Procedural Purpose.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by 
Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 131–156. Bingley, UK: 
Emerald Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Relevance Theory and Direct Reference Philosophy: A Suitable Match?” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska and 
Agnieszka Piskorska, 331–352. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein, and Wim A. van Dommelen. 2012. “A Pragmatic Perspective on the Phonological Values of Utterance-final Boundary Tones in East Norwegian.” The Linguistic Review 29: 663–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Intonation as a Guide to a Parenthetical vs. a Non-parenthetical Interpretation of a Norwegian Cognitive Verb.” Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists , Geneva, July 21–27.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 2011. “Child Language, Theory of Mind, and the Role of Procedural Markers in Identifying Referents of Nominal Expressions.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 205–231. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, George. 2010. Language, Thought and Reference. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 
Oxford: Blackwell. (2nd edition with a Postface)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston
2019. Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue