On weak communication

Autores
Gil, Jose Maria
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson suggest that much of linguistic communication is weak because the hearer usually must take a great responsibility in the interpretation of the speaker’s utterance. Sometimes, the (very) “weak implicatures” supplied by the hearer are very different from (and even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Relevance Theory helps us to understand crucial aspects of weak communication. However, I aim at showing that pragmatic theory should reconsider the importance of intention in order to explain that, often, the hearer interprets certain meanings that are independent from (or even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Some types of inferences proposed by Mira Ariel, as well as unintended puns studied by Sydney Lamb and other stratificational linguists, help us to begin to show that it may be necessary to go beyond the concept of intention if we want to understand why and how human communication is weak.
Fil: Gil, Jose Maria. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Humanidades. Departamento de Filosofía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
Cognition
Communication
Relational Networks
Truth Compatible Inferences
Weak Implicatures
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62430

id CONICETDig_a475d4ce114c84af5e8657c52e84e300
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62430
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling On weak communicationGil, Jose MariaCognitionCommunicationRelational NetworksTruth Compatible InferencesWeak Implicatureshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson suggest that much of linguistic communication is weak because the hearer usually must take a great responsibility in the interpretation of the speaker’s utterance. Sometimes, the (very) “weak implicatures” supplied by the hearer are very different from (and even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Relevance Theory helps us to understand crucial aspects of weak communication. However, I aim at showing that pragmatic theory should reconsider the importance of intention in order to explain that, often, the hearer interprets certain meanings that are independent from (or even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Some types of inferences proposed by Mira Ariel, as well as unintended puns studied by Sydney Lamb and other stratificational linguists, help us to begin to show that it may be necessary to go beyond the concept of intention if we want to understand why and how human communication is weak.Fil: Gil, Jose Maria. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Humanidades. Departamento de Filosofía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaDe Gruyter2015-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/62430Gil, Jose Maria; On weak communication; De Gruyter; Intercultural Pragmatics; 12; 3; 9-2015; 387-4041612-295X1613-365XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1515/ip-2015-0019info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iprg.2015.12.issue-3/ip-2015-0019/ip-2015-0019.xmlinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:59:04Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62430instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:59:04.971CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv On weak communication
title On weak communication
spellingShingle On weak communication
Gil, Jose Maria
Cognition
Communication
Relational Networks
Truth Compatible Inferences
Weak Implicatures
title_short On weak communication
title_full On weak communication
title_fullStr On weak communication
title_full_unstemmed On weak communication
title_sort On weak communication
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Gil, Jose Maria
author Gil, Jose Maria
author_facet Gil, Jose Maria
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Cognition
Communication
Relational Networks
Truth Compatible Inferences
Weak Implicatures
topic Cognition
Communication
Relational Networks
Truth Compatible Inferences
Weak Implicatures
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson suggest that much of linguistic communication is weak because the hearer usually must take a great responsibility in the interpretation of the speaker’s utterance. Sometimes, the (very) “weak implicatures” supplied by the hearer are very different from (and even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Relevance Theory helps us to understand crucial aspects of weak communication. However, I aim at showing that pragmatic theory should reconsider the importance of intention in order to explain that, often, the hearer interprets certain meanings that are independent from (or even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Some types of inferences proposed by Mira Ariel, as well as unintended puns studied by Sydney Lamb and other stratificational linguists, help us to begin to show that it may be necessary to go beyond the concept of intention if we want to understand why and how human communication is weak.
Fil: Gil, Jose Maria. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Humanidades. Departamento de Filosofía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson suggest that much of linguistic communication is weak because the hearer usually must take a great responsibility in the interpretation of the speaker’s utterance. Sometimes, the (very) “weak implicatures” supplied by the hearer are very different from (and even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Relevance Theory helps us to understand crucial aspects of weak communication. However, I aim at showing that pragmatic theory should reconsider the importance of intention in order to explain that, often, the hearer interprets certain meanings that are independent from (or even incompatible with) the speaker’s intention. Some types of inferences proposed by Mira Ariel, as well as unintended puns studied by Sydney Lamb and other stratificational linguists, help us to begin to show that it may be necessary to go beyond the concept of intention if we want to understand why and how human communication is weak.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-09
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62430
Gil, Jose Maria; On weak communication; De Gruyter; Intercultural Pragmatics; 12; 3; 9-2015; 387-404
1612-295X
1613-365X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62430
identifier_str_mv Gil, Jose Maria; On weak communication; De Gruyter; Intercultural Pragmatics; 12; 3; 9-2015; 387-404
1612-295X
1613-365X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1515/ip-2015-0019
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iprg.2015.12.issue-3/ip-2015-0019/ip-2015-0019.xml
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv De Gruyter
publisher.none.fl_str_mv De Gruyter
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613755530379264
score 13.070432