Article published in:
New Developments in Relevance Theory
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz and Agnieszka Piskorska
[Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2] 2021
► pp. 252–276

On the interpretation of utterances with expressive expletives

| Universidad de Sevilla

Expressive adjectives or expressive expletives have been argued to voice the speaker’s attitude towards the referent of the noun with which they co-occur, even though the attitude may be felt to be expressed about the referent of another sentential constituent or the state of affairs alluded to in the sentence where they are inserted. A previous pragmatic approach suggests that this is possible because these expletives perform an individual speech act, while a syntactic approach posits a feature whose detachment from a particular constituent enables the speaker’s attitude to target the referent of another sentential constituent or even on the entire proposition expressed. This paper proposes an alternative relevance-theoretic account of the interpretation of utterances containing expressive expletives, which considers pragmatic factors and the cognitive processes in comprehension. It is grounded in contributions on the output of lexical pragmatic processes and the role of paralinguistic clues in utterance comprehension.

Keywords: relevance theory, expressive adjectives/expletives, speaker’s attitude, speech-act hypothesis, expressive feature, argument hopping, attitudinal representations, ad hoc concepts, paralanguage, higher-level explicatures
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Expressive expletives and attitude expression
  • 3.Some problems with the extant approaches
  • 4.Towards a relevance-theoretic account
    • 4.1On the contribution of expressive expletives to communication
    • 4.2On the expression of attitudes towards another referent and the propositional content
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21008.pad
References
Bayard, Donn & Sateesh Krishnayya
2001 Gender, expletive use, and context: Male and female expletive use in structured and unstructured conversation among New Zealand university students. Women and Language 24(1). 1–15.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1992 Understanding utterances. An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning. The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3537–3550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Slurs and expletives: A case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences 521. 22–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Kate Burridge
2001 Introducing English grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bross, Fabian
2021 On the interpretation of expressive adjectives: Pragmatics or Syntax? Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2000 Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 121. 1–44.Google Scholar
2002 Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Carlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2013b Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The semantics-pragmatics boundary in philosophy, 261–283. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy
2007 “Blazing a trail”: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Randi A. Nilsen, Nana A. Appiah Amfo & Kaja Borthen (eds.), Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim, 69–81. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter & Carmella Hollo
2000 English grammar. An introduction. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Daly, Nicola, Janet Holmes, Jonathan Newton & Maria Stubbe
2004 Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics 36(5). 945–964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Klerk, Vivian
1991 Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs 58(2). 156–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Brian Dillon & Charles Clifton
2015 A note on interpreting damn expressives: Transferring the blame. Language and Cognition 7(2). 291–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk
1993 A student’s grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1957 Meaning. Philosophical Review 661. 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2019 The grammar of expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron
1999 English grammar. A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison
2017 Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 55–100. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Robert, Larry G. Coleman & John A. Daly
1980 Expletives and androgyny. Anthropological Linguistics 22(3). 131–137.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1988 English grammar. An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Susan E.
1992 Expletives of lower working-class women. Language in Society 21(2). 391–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
1992 Sentential adverbs and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 41. 193–214.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark
2016 Rethinking explicit utterance content. Journal of Pragmatics 1021. 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jay, Timothy B.
2005 American women: Their cursing habits and religiosity. In Allyson Jule (ed.), Gender and the language of religion, 63–84. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Barbara K. & Barry S. Sapolsky
2004 Offensive language in prime-time television: Four years after television age and content ratings. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48(4). 554–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1988 How gestures can become like words? In Fernando Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Madella, Pauline
2020 Prosodic pointing: From pragmatic awareness to pragmatic competence in Chinese hearers of L2 English. PhD dissertation, University of Brighton.
Mazzarella, Diana
2013 ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251. 20–45.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Laura A. & Lerita M. Coleman
1992 Difference without dominance: Children’s talk in mixed- and same-sex dyads. Sex Roles 27(5–6). 241–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David
1992 Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Bróna
2009 ‘She’s a fucking ticket’: The pragmatics of fuck in Irish English – an age and gender perspective. Corpora 4(1). 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2009a Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics 1(1). 182–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers. Łodź Papers in Pragmatics 5(2). 241–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 51(1). 23–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Interlocutors-related and hearer-specific causes of misunderstanding: Processing strategy, confirmation bias and weak vigilance. Research in Language 15(1). 11–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a Expressive APs and expletive NPs revisited: Refining the extant relevance-theoretic procedural account. Lingua 2051. 54–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b Pragmatic competence injustice. Social Epistemology. A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 32(3). 143–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Qualifying insults, offensive epithets, slurs and expressive expletives: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 7(2). 156–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020a Towards a relevance-theoretic approach to the diminutive morpheme. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24(4). 774–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b El malentendido. In Victoria Escandell Vidal, José Amenós Pons & Aoife Kathleen Ahern (eds.), Pragmática, 384–407. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
2022 Is free enrichment always free? Revisiting ad hoc-concept construction. Journal of Pragmatics 1871. 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
In press. Ad hoc concepts, affective attitude and epistemic stance. Pragmatics & Cognition.
Submitted. Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics.
Potts, Christopher
2005 The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2). 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b The centrality of expressive indices. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2). 255–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François
1989 The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language 4(4). 295–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate
2019 Referring expressions, pragmatics, and style: Reference and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1994 Understanding verbal understanding. In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What is intelligence? 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995 Relevance. Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(44). 117–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staley, Constance M.
1978 Male-female use of expletives: A heck of a difference in expectations. Anthropological Linguistics 20(8). 367–380.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason
2000 Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4). 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Making it articulated. Mind & Language 17(1–2). 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2001 Natural pragmatics and natural codes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 131. 109–158.Google Scholar
2002 Paul Grice, saying and meaning. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141. 207–248.Google Scholar
2003 Interjection, language, and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11(1). 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Pragmatics and prosody. In Keith Allan & Kasia Jazczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 567–584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua 175–1761. 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2016 Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua 175–1761. 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
2006 Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21(3). 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics 1451. 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 141. 249–287.Google Scholar
2004 Relevance theory. In Larry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Tim Wharton
2006 Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10). 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2022. Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 2023. 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.