The semantics-pragmatics interface: the case of the singular feminine demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Jordan University of Science and Technology

The semantics-pragmatics interface: the case of the singular feminine demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic

Samer Omar Jarbou

Jordan

Abstract

The aim in this study is to investigate the interface between semantics and pragmatics in relation to the use of the indexical demonstrative `haay' `this-S.F.' in Jordanian Arabic (JA).

The following symbols have been used to represent sounds and grammatical inflections occurring in JA structures: /' / a glottal stop, /H/ a voiceless pharyngeal fricative, /kh/ voiceless velar fricative, /3/ voiced pharyngeal fricative, /D/ emphatic voiced dental-alveolar stop, /th/ a voiced interdental fricative, /a/-/aa/ short-long vowel /a/, /i/-/ii/ short-long vowel /i/, /u/-/uu/ short- long vowel /u/, S. (singular), Pl. (plural), M. (masculine), F. (feminine).

It is argued here that an analysis of meaning in relation to context-sensitivity inherent in the use of `haay' can give evidence to the view that semantic and pragmatic processes can be distinguished from each other. I have found that the meaning of `haay' consists of three distinct levels: linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic meaning. The denotational and conventional senses of `haay' comprise its linguistic meaning, its semantic meaning is generated when any of the variables in the linguistic meaning is selected in relation to `narrow context', the pragmatic meaning depends on relating the semantic meaning to an entity in the physical context of interaction. The results of this study support the view that the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be distinctively demarcated.

Keywords: Semantics-pragmatics interface, deixis, demonstratives, Jordanian Arabic

Анотація

Кореляція прагматики та семантики на прикладі вказівного займенника однини жіночого роду в йорданському варіанті арабської мови

Джарбо Сaмер Омар

Метою цього дослідження є вивчення взаємодії семантики та прагматики на прикладі використання вказівного займенника “haay” (“ця”) в йорданському варіанті арабської мови. У статті йдеться про те, що аналіз значення та його зв'язку з контекстною чутливістю, які притаманні використанню “haay ”, може свідчити про те, що семантичні та прагматичні процеси можна розмежовувати.

Автор стверджує, що значення “haay” складається з трьох чітких рівнів: мовного, семантичного та прагматичного. Денотативне та конвенціональне значення “haay” утворюють його лінгвістичне значення.

Семантичне значення формується тоді, коли будь-яка змінна в лінгвістичному значенні вибирається у відношенні до “вузького контексту”, а прагматичне значення залежить від відношення семантичного значення до об'єкта у фізичному контексті взаємодії. Результати цього дослідження засвідчують думку про те, що семантика та прагматика можуть бути чітко розмежовані.

Ключові слова: кореляція семантики та прагматики, дейксис, вказівні займенники, йорданський варіант арабської мови.

Introduction and Background

Many researchers define pragmatics as, generally, the study of the speaker's intended meaning in the context of interaction; semantics is defined as the study of propositions, linguistic information, or literality fixed to words or sentences irrespective of context (see Stalnaker, 1972:383; Katz, 1977:14; Gazdar, 1979:4-5; Kempson, 1988:139; Bach, 1997; Recanati, 2002; Grice, 1978; Levinson, 1995). Deictic nominal demonstratives have a semantic content and a pragmatic function¹. In linguistics, semantic content is traditionally taken to be fixed or context- insensitive while pragmatic function is considered changeable and context- sensitive. According to Manning (2001:56), demonstratives like `this' and `that' can be described as `indexical denotationals ' (following Silverstien, 1976) since they combine semantic and pragmatic properties. The semantic aspect of a deictic demonstrative is represented by its denotational meaning(s) (i.e. senses) while the pragmatic side is represented by indexing (pointing at) actual referents in context. A deictic demonstrative consists of sense and index that complement each other during actual interactive use (see Manning, 2002; Kaplan, 1977).

There are two main views concerning the interface between semantics and pragmatics (see Bach, 1997; Recanati, 2002; Carston, 2008; Cappelen and Lepore, 2005). Linguists and philosophers who represent the first view `reduce' one of the fields to the other (e.g. pragmatics to include semantics) (see Huang, 2007:210211). The other view maintains that the boundaries between the two fields are distinct since these two have separate processes².

The Semantic and Sociolinguistic Aspects of the Demonstrative haay In Jordanian Arabic (JA), demonstratives are distinguished according to the gender (male/female) and number (singular/plural) of the referent (see Table 1 below). The demonstrative haay `this-S.F.' has more variation concerning features of number and gender than any of the other demonstratives in JA. The classical, unmarked, literal meaning of haay in JA is that it is a proximal singular feminine demonstrative (i.e. `this-feminine'). Table (1) shows demonstratives that are used in JA along with their equivalents in Standard Arabic (SA) (see Jarbou, 2012 for further details).

Demonstratives in JA and SA and their unmarked denotational content

In general, deixis is reference to any of the elements of the context of an utterance (see Lyons, 1977; Levinson, 2006). The focus in this paper is on haay as a deictic demonstrative that is used to refer to objects, people, or other entities in the real world of interactants. For further information on the different uses of demonstratives in JA see Jarbou (2010).

For a comprehensive introduction to the semantics-pragmatics interface, see Huang (2007:209224).

However, the demonstrative haay has other denotations: it can be used to index a plural feminine or a plural masculine entity. JA has a definite demonstrative that is specifically used to index masculine and feminine plural entities, which is haDawl `these-Pl.M./F.' (see Jarbou, 2010). Using haay, which is singular and feminine in unmarked use, instead of haDawl to refer to masculine or feminine plural entities can be described as set by convention. This usage, however has two aspects: the singular feminine demonstrative can be used to refer to human plural entities or to non-human plural entities. When encoding non-human plural entities, the usage is mostly perceived as the same as using the plural demonstrative haDawl `these'.

The social perceptions of using haay to encode plural human entities are related to the issue that a speaker mostly intends to communicate a further message in addition to the denotative semantic meaning of haay. This usage of haay is known by members of JA speech community. In JA, the speaker has the option to use either the singular feminine demonstrative haay or the plural demonstrative haDawl to point to a group of people. When referring to a group of people in a particular context by using haay, the speaker usually intends to express particular feelings or attitudes towards the referent such as displeasure, exasperation, sarcasm, and/or astonishment concerning; this represents the marked use of haay as in the following examples:

1. akiid haay hi liDyuuf illi bidha ti3mal Haflih

` Sure this-S.F. she guests-M/F which-S.F. wants- S.F. make-S.F. party'

` Are you sure that these guests can make a party'

2. haay hi labTaal illi bidha tfuuz ilyuum

` this-S.F. she champion-Pl.M wants-S.F. win-S.F. today'

` Are these the champions who were going to win today (as you've told me)'

In (1), the speaker is wondering that the small number of guests who have arrived to a wedding party cannot make a lively, boisterous party; the use of haay is intended to communicate the message that he is both frustrated and exasperated. If the speaker used the unmarked plural demonstrative haDawl, her utterance will sound more like a question without the added pragmatic meanings. In (2), the speaker is expressing sarcasm and exaggerated depreciation by using haay. Of course, using the unmarked plural demonstrative instead of haay would not convey the same degree of feelings unless accompanied by extra-linguistic elements such as tone of voice (which would still not be as intense as the perceptions conveyed through using haay). It is noticeable also that in all of these utterances where haay is used instead of the unmarked plural demonstrative that verbs and adjectives in the sentence would agree in gender and number with the singular feminine haay though the referent can be a group of males or a group of females. Verbs and adjectives are inflected for gender and number in JA, and so even though the referent could be plural and masculine, the verbs bidha, ti3mal , tfuuz in (1) and (2) above have singular feminine inflections to agree with the singular feminine haay rather than with the plural masculine or feminine referents (see also utterances 3-8 below).

However, the speaker does not intend, nor does the addressee understand, any suggestions of effeminizing the referent in these usages^ю

Tracing the historical origin of the plural marked interpretations of haay is the beyond the scope and space considerations of this paper These usages are conventional.

These overt messages in interaction can be looked at as the pragmatic interactive meaning of the demonstrative. The hypothesis in this paper is that the overall meaning of the demonstrative haay in contexts that involve plural human referents depends on distinct, though interrelated, semantic and pragmatic processes that can be differentiated based on their level of sensitivity to context. It is assumed here that analyzing the semantic and pragmatic processes involved in generating the meaning of haay will add support to the view that semantics and pragmatics are distinct though complimentary subfields of linguistics.

Methods. The data for this study have been collected from personal observations of the language spoken to and around the researcher in daily interactions in the Jordanian society over a period of around one and a half years. The data consisted of 71 usages of haay in contexts where the referent is a group of humans: 44 involved plural female referents and 27 involved plural male referents.

Results and Discussion

This section discusses the relations between the levels of meaning inherent in using the demonstrative haay in relation to different stages of context of use.

Literality and Contextuality

Literal and non-literal meanings are classically differentiated in line with, among other criteria, context-dependent vs. context-independent, semantic vs. pragmatic meaning, direct vs indirect, entailed vs implicated, linguistic vs. contextual, and sentence meaning vs utterance meaning (see Ariel, 2002; Gibbs, 1984, 1999; Dascal, 1987; Katz, 1977; Sperber and Wilson, 1986; Gibbs and Moise, 1997; Nicolle and Clark, 1999; Vicente, 2002). However, according to Ariel (2002: 364), recent “researc h has convincingly shown that literal and non-literal meanings” at least as classically defined, “cannot always be distinguished from each other” (see also Rumelhart, 1979; Sperber and Wilson, 1986; Searle, 1978; Lakoff, 1987; and Gibbs, 1994).

Among the three denotational senses of haay, the most salient one is that referring to a singular feminine entity. However, this saliency would be diverted or deleted in contexts where the noun following the demonstrative haay is plural feminine or plural masculine (see Giora, 1999 and 1997 on ` salient meaning'). The salient meaning of haay is `erased' when haay is used to refer to a plural feminine or a plural masculine entity as in examples (2) and (4), respectively. The salient meaning of the demonstrative haay is inactivated in favor of less salient meanings according to contextual ` demands' . I call them ` demands' because these marked uses of the demonstrative are required by the speaker in order to convey specific intentions.

Speakers of JA would usually use the non-salient meanings of haay to convey feelings and opinions beyond the semantic meaning of the demonstrative. It seems that, in JA, using the singular feminine demonstrative to index a plural entity serves better to intensely express those feelings than simply using the traditional plural demonstratives.

These marked senses of haay can be described as metaphorical or non-figurative but, nonetheless, they are still part of the linguistic meaning of the demonstrative; they are not pragmatic in nature. It seems that in one stage during the historical development of the use of demonstratives in JA, the metaphorical uses had been gradually added to the linguistic senses of haay to indicate disapproval or surprise. Lee (1990:212), following MacCormac (1985), believes that words “evolve additional meanings” and become polysemous as they progress in history and are frequently used by a language community. Lee (1990) argues that these additional meanings that lead to changing the semantic content of words can come through the metaphorical usage of these words. These metaphorical usages later become part of the lexical entries of words (Lee, 1990:211-212). Ariel believes that words tend to integrate some of their contextually derived meanings (above `what is said') into their linguistic (literal) meaning in the course of their history. Now, such a process must be gradual, and hence the difficulty of teasing apart implicated and semantic meanings (in some cases) (Ariel, 2002:366).

Likewise, we can say that the metaphorical (i.e. marked) meanings of haay seem to have been added to the denotational unmarked meaning (i.e. singular feminine) of the demonstrative in latter historical stages. These metaphorical or `contextual extensions' were later conventionalized and became part of the linguistic meaning of haay in JA See Lee (1990) and Sweetser (1990) on the conventionalization of metaphorical meanings.. But because these conventionalized meanings have been added to the unmarked meaning of haay (i.e. denoting a singular, feminine entity) for specific contexts, they remain marked and non-salient in frequency and occurrence. If we look at these marked conventional uses of haay as metaphorical or that they had been metaphorical at an early stage during the development of the semantic repertoire of haay, this means that these uses are originally non-literal. We can keep in mind that metaphorical interpretations are traditionally considered non-literal in nature (see Bach, 1994).

The use of singular demonstratives in SA and JA is similar with regard to accord between the gender features of demonstratives and their referents (whether human or non-human). The difference involves demonstratives used to encode plural entities since human entities in SA are referred to using plural demonstratives while non-human entities are encoded with the singular feminine haathihi (i.e. equivalent of haay) only. In JA, however, plural entities, both human and non-human, can be encoded either with plural demonstratives or with the singular feminine haay regardless of gender.

To conclude this section, the three senses of the deictic haay cannot be considered as having the traditional features of literal meaning as classically defined. The second and third senses are obviously metaphorical. The speaker expects the addressee to recognize that haay is intended to have any of the three senses based on knowing the noun within the CNP in the complex demonstrative structure. Recognizing the entities pointed at by the speaker demands that the addressee be cognitively aware of the physical context surrounding interaction.

These two points make it necessary to investigate the linguistic and actual nature of the context of utterances where haay is used.

Interface and Context: Linguistic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Meanings

Because of the varied definitions of literal meaning and of the many assumptions, controversies and contradictions involved in and concerning these definitions, the term ` literal meaning' should not be `trusted' when investigating the distinction between the different levels of the meaning of, at least, indexicals. In this study, I replace it (i.e. literal meaning) with two distinct concepts: linguistic meaning and semantic meaning. These two, in turn, are differentiated with regard to the concept of context-sensitivity.

The major parameter that will be the criterion for this investigation of the interface between semantic and pragmatic processes is context-sensitivity. This would have been an easy task had we been able to easily categorize the various language phenomena as either definitely context-sensitive or insensitive.

Traditionally, semantic information is considered to be context-insensitive while pragmatic propositions are considered to be context-sensitive. However, Ariel (2002) argues that context-dependence versus independence cannot be taken as distinguishing literal from non-literal meaning since context-dependent inferencing works for both what is called literal and non-literal meanings. According to Bach (1997), and taking indexicals into consideration, semantic content can be context- sensitive, though on a limited scale. Bach (1997) distinguishes between `narrow context' and `broad context' in order to investigate the pervasiveness of context in determining the value of what is uttered:

There are two sorts of contextual information, one much more restricted in scope than the other. Information that plays the limited role of combining with linguistic information to determine content (in the sense of fixing it) is restricted to a short list of variables, such as the identity of the speaker and the hearer and the time and place of an utterance. Contextual information in the broad sense is anything that the hearer is to take into account to determine (in the sense of ascertain) the speaker's communicative intention (Bach, 1997:39).

The concepts of `narrow context' and `broad context' as used in this article are borrowed from Bach (1997) . Though not the same as Bach's concepts these terms, as used here, are generally similar to Bach's in that `narrow context' is considered as “much more restricted in scope and much more limited in role than broad context” (Huang, 2007:215). The `short list' of variables within what Bach refers to as `restricted contextual information' (i.e. narrow context) in the case of the indexical haay consists of three `variables' or senses (discussed above and repeated here for clarity):

a. reference to a singular feminine entity

b. reference to a plural feminine entity

c. reference to a plural masculine entity.

In the case of the two marked variables b. and c., the process of assigning reference makes use of`narrow' context to avoid ambiguity and to emphasize the use of any of these marked variables. This narrow context is linguistic in origin and is generated by stating the exact noun (i.e. as plural feminine or plural masculine) that represents the referent within the CNP. Thus, in the marked uses, the speaker would say something like haay liwlad literally meaning `this boys' or haay elbanaat `this girls '.

Studying haay in context shows that this demonstrative has two different types of referentiality: semantic and pragmatic. The different possible number and gender denotations of haay are the `short list of variables' (e.g. singular feminine) determined in context of the NP following haay within the complex demonstrative structure; this is narrow (i.e. semantic) context. Next, determining the speaker's intended referent depends on the addressee's awareness of`broad' (i.e. pragmatic) context. Therefore, “broad context is taken to be any contextual information that is relevant to the working out of what the speaker overtly intends to mean” (Huang, 2007:215). That is, the initial stage of constructing the interactive meaning of haay is to situate it in narrow context to determine which of the three senses the speaker intends; this stage is immediately followed by that of recognizing the indexed referent along with the feelings the speaker intends to convey in broad context. These results confirm the hypothesis in this study that the semantic and pragmatic processes involved in the creation of the intended meaning of haay can be distinguished from each other based on different levels of context-sensitivity. Though these processes are distinct from each other, they are, however, sequentially interconnected.

We can perhaps also draw a line between the linguistic meaning of haay and its semantic meaning. First, the three different senses of haay are abstract and represent its linguistic meaning; this is “a meaning level which is unaffected by context, it is obligatory and automatic” (Ariel, 2002:392). Next, once used in narrow context, the speaker intends one and only one of the three possibilities available in the linguistic meaning, and so the selected meaning becomes the semantic meaning in (narrow) context. Finally, the third level of meaning is the pragmatic meaning comprised of indexing an entity and expressing attitudes towards it in broad (i.e. deictic) context. The first level of meaning (i.e. linguistic meaning) is not inferential while the second and third levels are inferential, though in varying degrees. The pragmatic aspect of this usage is related to broad context concerning the `overt ` information that the speaker intends to add to the already selected semantic meaning. This pragmatic meaning can be an expressing of displeasure, sarcasm, and or astonishment regarding the exact referent. Of course, the speaker's intention here fills a `semantic gap ' (Bach, 2012) since it determines the semantic content of the demonstrative (see Stokke, 2010 on the role of intention in semantics).

The different meanings of haay as a complex demonstrative depend on the number and gender features of the noun within the NP following the demonstrative. These meanings are selected based on, at least, linguistic context. The demonstrative haay does not acquire any of its meanings unless it is placed within a context that includes the NP or referent it points at. This phenomenon is usually investigated as the `compositionality' of words. Compositionality is usually discussed as one of the components of literality (see Bartsch, 1996). The literal meaning of haay is not composed within itself but is rather a product of the interactive process between this demonstrative and the NP standing for the referent within linguistic context.

I avoid calling the final meaning of haay as pragmatic since it is partially the result of the (initial) semantic process in narrow context followed by a final pragmatic process in broad context. Instead, the expression `interactive meaning' seems more adequate and is intended here to indicate the interaction between the sequential semantic and pragmatic processes towards the generation of the indexical function of haay in context. According to Cappelen and Lepore in Insensitive Semantics (2005:143), semantic content is “the content that can be grasped and reported by someone who is ignorant about the relevant characteristics of the context in which an utterance” of a sentence took place. According to Bach (2001:22), pragmatic “ information is (extralinguistic) information that arises from an actual act of utterance. Whereas semantic information is encoded in what is uttered, pragmatic information is generated by, or at least made relevant by, the act of uttering it.” The semantic content of haay will be any of the three mutually exclusive senses that exist independently of utterance context (i.e. broad context).

That is, used within `narrow context', only one of them is selected to be the single semantic value of haay. Narrow context can be looked at here as `sentential' context. It is represented by the common noun phrase following haay. The three senses cannot be the semantic content of haay simultaneously. Once used to index an entity, narrow context activates only one of the three possible meanings which then enters the world of exophoric referentiality concerning the actual world of people, time, and place.

This is the world of broad context where a sentence becomes an utterance. Semantic content is denoted by `what is said' while pragmatic value is the product of matching semantic information with the physical context relevant to the utterance. contextual sensitivity language linguistic haay semantic

In their investigation of context sensitivity, and mainly with regard to sentences rather than to single words, Cappelen and Lepore (2005) argue that for a sentence to be context-sensitive, its semantic content has to `shift' from one context to another (Cappelen and Lepore, 2005:104-105; see Doerge, 2010 for different perspectives). In the case of haay as a complex demonstrative, its semantic content shifts as a result of the change in both the linguistic and the physical context where it is used.

The matter is so because to determine that haay has any of its three senses in context depends on the number and gender features of the noun in the NP following it within the complex demonstrative structure.

The semantic content of haay does not refer to any actual entities, it is abstract. The “commonsense understanding of deictic acts rests on interactions between schematic (or prefabricated) and local (or emergent) aspects of participant knowledge” (Hanks, 1990:75).

The pragmatic potential of haay, thus, depends on contexts related to `participant knowledge'; these contexts and the entities haay can deictically encode are limitless. This type of referentiality, however, seems to be a hybrid of semantics and pragmatics; it is semantic in the sense that the meaning assigned to haay is still abstract (i.e. a singular feminine, plural masculine, or plural feminine entity). It is pragmatic in the sense that the addressee has to recognize the speaker's intention based on the semantic content, features of the complex demonstrative structure, context of interaction. The semantics-pragmatics interface in the case of haay is represented by this process of picking out a semantic variable within `narrow' context which is then followed by recognizing the intended referent in the physical `broad' context. The interval between the two processes is cognitively distinct.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research

Analysis of the semantic and pragmatic aspects of the meaning of the demonstrative haay has confirmed the hypothesis that semantics and pragmatics can be distinguished on account of context-sensitivity.

The acid test for distinguishing the semantic and pragmatic properties of the complex demonstrative haay has been the nature of the relation between meaning and context: whether it is limited (i.e. narrow) relating to the semantic senses of haay or pragmatic relating to the attitudes the speaker intends to communicate with regard to a particular referent. The semantic proposition as core meaning needs always to be incremented by the pragmatic anchoring in the immediate context of situation. The interface between the two processes occurs as a result of the pragmatic processes succeeding the semantic ones rather than the two processes being indistinctly merged with each other.

Aknowledgements. I would like to express my gratitude to Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan, for funding this research.

1. Agha, A. (1996). Schema and superposition in spatial deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, 38(4), 643-682.

2. Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(e), 361-402.

3. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124-162.

4. Bach, K. (1997). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters, Linguistiche Berichte, 8, 33-50.

5. Bach, K. (2001). You don't say? Synthese, 128(1), 15-44.

6. Bach, K. (2012). Context dependence. In: The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Language, (pp. 153-184). M. Garda-Carpintero & M. Kцlbel (eds.). New York: Continuum International.

7. Bartsch, R. (1996). The myth of literal meaning. In: Language Structure and Language Use: Proceedings of the International Conference on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics. Munster, 1994, (pp. 3-16). E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds.). Tubingen: Niemeyer:.

8. Berg, J. (2002). Is semantics still possible? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 349-59.

9. Braun, D. (2008). Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(1), 57-99.

10. Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell

11. Carston, R. (2008). Linguistic communication and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 321-345.

12. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Dascal, M. (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science, 11(3), 259-281.

14. Doerge, C. F. (2010). The collapse of insensitive semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(2), 117-140.

15. Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.

16. Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275-304.

17. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18. Gibbs, R.W. (1999). Speakers' intuitions and pragmatic theory. Cognition, 69(3), 355359.

19. Gibbs, R. W. & Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition, 62(1), 51-74.

20. Giora, R., (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206.

21. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919-929.

22. Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487-506.

23. Grice, H.P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, 9, P. Cole (ed.). (pp.113-127). New York: Academic Press; reprinted in H.P. Grice (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24. Hanks, W. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

25. Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26. Jarbou, S. O. (2010). Accessibility vs. physical proximity: An analysis of exophoric demonstrative practice in Spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3078-3097.

27. Jarbou, S. O. (2012). Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy. Pragmatics, 22(1), 103-118.

28. Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In: Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.). (pp. 481-563). New York: Oxford University Press.

29. Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

30. Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In: Linguistics, F. Newmeyer (ed.). The Cambridge Survey, Vol. II (pp. 139-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32. Lee, C. J. (1990). Some hypotheses concerning the evolution of polysemous words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 211-219.

33. Lepore, E.,& Ludwig, K. (2000). The semantics and pragmatics of complex

demonstratives. Mind, 109(434), 199-240.

34. Levinson, S.C. (1995). Three levels of Meaning. In: Grammar and meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, (pp. 90-115). F.R. Palmer (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35. Levinson, S. C. (2006). Deixis and pragmatics. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp. 97-121), L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

36. MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37. Manning, a. (2001). On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, 43(1), 54-100.

38. Nicolle, S. & Clark, B. (1999). Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response to Gibbs and Moise. Cognition, 69(3), 337-354.

39. Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4(4), 295-329.

40. Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Blackwell, Oxford.

41. Recanati, F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal interpretation'. Cognitive Science, 19, 207-232.

42. Recanati, R. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(3), 299345.

43. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44. Rumelhart, D., E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meaning. In: Metaphor and thought, A. Ortony (ed.). (pp. 78-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45. Searle, J. R., (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207-224.

46. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Meaning in Anthropology, K. Basso, & H.A. Selby (eds.). (pp. 11-56). Albuquerque: School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press.

47. Sperber, D. and Wilson D. (1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86 (1985-6), 153-171.

48. Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In: Semantics for Natural Language, D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.). (pp. 380-97). Dordrecht: Reidel.

49. Stokke, A. (2010). Intention-sensitive semantics. Synthese 175, 383-404.

50. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51. Vicente, B. (2002). What pragmatics can tell us about (literal) meaning: A critical note on Kent Bach's theory of impliciture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 403-421.

Размещено на Allbest.ru