Cover not available
Part of
The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation
Edited by András Kertész and Csilla Rákosi
[Studies in Language Companion Series 153] 2014
► pp. 221–270

Chapter 9. Thought experiments and real experiments as converging data sources in pragmatics

The aim of the present chapter is to reconstruct the relationship between thought experiments and real experiments in pragmatics. In the first part, Searle’s (1969) thought experiment on Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn? is analysed with the help of the p-model. The second part reconstructs the argumentation structure of the real experiments reported on in Holtgraves & Ashley (2001), and shows that the latter and Searle’s thought experiment closely interact. Basically, their relationship is characterised by the dynamic process of the cyclic, prismatic and retrospective re-evalutation of information in the sense of the p-model. However, they have different strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the generalised finding is that the conscious integration of real and thought experiments as data sources within some research may considerably enhance the reliability of pragmatic hypotheses.
Published online: 23 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.153.09ker
References (34)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do Things with Words . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert & Fehige, Yiftach. 2011. Thought experiments. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . <[URL] (23 September 2013).
Cohen, Philip R. & Levesque, Hector J. 1990. Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In Intentions in communication , Philip R. Cohen, Jerry L. Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 221–256. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice . Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1983. Do people always process the literal meaning of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 9: 524–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gooding, David. 1993. What is experimental about thought experiment? In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1992, Vol. 2: Symposia and Invited Papers , 280–290. East Lansing MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989a [1957]. Meaning. In Grice 1989c, 213–223.
. 1989b. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. In Grice 1989c, 86–116.
. 1989c. Studies in the Way of Words . Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas & Ashley, Aaron. 2001. Comprehending illocutionary force. Memory & Cognition 29: 83–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kertész, András. 2010. On stage setting thought experiments in cognitive linguistics: A case study. In Von Katastrophen, Zeichen und vom Ursprung der menschlichen Sprache , Cornelia Stroh (ed.), 7–30. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kertész, András & Kiefer, Ferenc. 2013. From thought experiments to real experiments in pragmatics. In Perspectives on Philosophy and Pragmatics , Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds). Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kertész, András & Rákosi, Csilla. 2012. Data and Evidence in Linguistics. A Plausible Argumentation Model . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. This volume a. Introduction: The state of the art and the structure of the book.
. This volume b. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics.
Keysar, Boaz, Shen, Yeshayahu, Glucksberg, Sam & Horton, William S. 2000. Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language 43: 576–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühne, Ulrich. 2005. Die Methode des Gedankenexperiments . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Meggle, Georg & Ulkan, Maria. 1979. Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn? (Zu Searles Kritik an Grice). Papiere zur Linguistik 20: 75–87.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design. An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences 34(6): 768–776. (= Kertész, András, Schwarz-Friesel, Monika & Consten, Manfred (eds), Converging Data Types in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
Moue, Aspasia S., Masavetas, Kyriakos A. & Karayianni, Haido. 2006. Tracing the developments of thought experiments in the philosophy of natural sciences. Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 37: 61–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy J. 1993. In the theoretician’s laboratory: Thought experimenting as mental modelling. In Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Vol. 2, 291–301. East Landing MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
. 1991. The cognitive sciences and the history of science. In Proceedings, joint HSS-SHOT conference on Critical Problems and Research Frontiers in History of Science and Technology , October 1991, 92–116. Madison WI.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 1991. Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy , Tamara Horowitz & Gerard J. Massey (eds), 129–48. Savage MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
. 2002. On thought experiments: Is there more to the argument? <[URL]>/
Noveck, Ira A. & Sperber, Dan. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics. In Pragmatics , Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), 184–212. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A. & Reboul, Anne. 2008. Experimental Pragmatics: a Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(11): 425–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, Csilla. 2011a. Metatheoretical reconstruction of psycholinguistic experiments. Part 1. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 21(1): 55–93. (Csatár, Péter (ed.), Metapher, Metonymie und Argumentation/Metaphor, Metonymy and Argumentation 1. Münster: Nodus).Google Scholar
. 2011b. Metatheoretical reconstruction of psycholinguistic experiments. Part 2. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik , 21.2 [= Csatár, Péter (ed), Metapher, Metonymie und Argumentation/Metaphor, Metonymy and Argumentation 2. Münster: Nodus], 159–187.Google Scholar
. 2012. The fabulous engine: Strengths and flaws of psycholinguistic experiments. Language Sciences 34(6): 682–702. (= Kertész, András, Schwarz-Friesel, Monika & Consten, Manfred (eds), Converging Data Types in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Conversational analysis and socially shared cognition. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition , Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds), 150–171. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. & Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris & Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Argumentation Schemes . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958[1953]. Philosophical Investigations . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kertész, András
2015. The Puzzle of Thought Experiments in Conceptual Metaphor Research. Foundations of Science 20:2 ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Kertész, András
2016. Poor vs. Good Thought Experiments in Pragmatics: A Case Study. In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 9], ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Kertész, András & Csilla Rákosi
2014. Chapter 2. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics. In The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 153], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Kertész, András & Csilla Rákosi
2016. On the Inferential Structure of Indirect Reports. In Indirect Reports and Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 5], ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.