Cover not available
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
| University of Birmingham,
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
Published online: 27 May 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.1.07teu
References (23)
References
Arens, Hans (ed.). 1984. Aristotle’s Theory of Language and its Tradition: Texts from 500 to 1750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René. 1968. Discourse on Method and the Meditations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Give me that juicy bit over there.” London Review of Books, 6. October.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1990. “On redefining linguistics.” In Redefining Linguistics, Hayley G. Davis and Talbot J. Taylor (eds), 17–68. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jäger, Ludwig. 2010. Ferdinand de Saussure zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loux, Michael J. (ed.). 1998. Ockham’s Theory of Terms: Part I of the Summa Logicae. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E. 1986. “General theory and art of interpretation.” In The Hermeneutics Reader, Kurt Mueller-Vollmer (ed.), 72–97. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1992. The Rediscovery of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Daniel and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “ ‘Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading.” Mind and Language 171: 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 2010. Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Dialogue Studies 101). DOI logoGoogle Scholar