Contexto, conocimiento compartido y acomodación. A propósito de la interpretación de las tautologías

  1. Victoria Escandell-Vidal 1
  2. Elena Vilinbakhova 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
  2. 2 Saint Pertersburg State University, Rusia
Revista:
Boletín de filología: (Universidad de Chile)

ISSN: 0067-9674,  0718-9303

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 57

Número: 1

Páginas: 345-394

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Boletín de filología: (Universidad de Chile)

Resumen

Este trabajo explora las ventajas de una noción dinámica de contexto en la que, además del conocimiento compartido, deben tener cabida los procesos de acomodación de supuestos. Para ello, analizamos la interpretación de las tautologías: de acuerdo con la bibliografía, su interpretación se basa en el conocimiento previo. Nuestra hipótesis es que el conocimiento compartido no es ni necesario ni suficiente para el uso adecuado de una tautología. Para apoyarla, realizamos un estudio de corpus y un cuestionario de interpretación con dos tareas experimentales. Los resultados se alinean con nuestras predicciones.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allott, Nicholas Elwyn. 2007. Pragmatics and Rationality. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, Universidad de Londres, en linea: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/1444091/1/U591393.pdf [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Allott, Nicholas Elwyn. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2013. Strategic Conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 6 (2):1-62.
  • Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2017. Context Selection in Relevance Theory. En Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman y Christopher Laenzlinger (coord.). Formal Models in the Study of Language, pp. 221–242. Cham: Springer.
  • Beaver, David y Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. En Gillian Ramchand y Charles Reiss (coord.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pp. 533–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017
  • Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2017. The Role of Context in Semantics: A Relevance Theory Perspective. En Sarah-Jane Conrad y Klaus Petrus (coord.) Meaning, Context and Methodology, pp. 91-114. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501504327-006/ MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS.
  • Breitholtz, Ellen. 2020. Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: the use of common sense reasoning in conversation. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
  • Bulhof, Johannes y Steven Gimbel. 2001. Deep Tautologies. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(2): 279–91. DOI: 10.1075/PC.9.2.06BUL.
  • Bulhof, Johannes y Steven Gimbel. 2004. A Tautology Is a Tautology (or Is It?). Journal of Pragmatics 36 (5) : 1003- 1005. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00003-1.
  • Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, Universidad de Massachusetts, Amherst.
  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Anaylsis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.
  • Domaneschi, Filippo, Elena Carrea, Carlo Penco, y Alberto Greco. 2014. The Cognitive Load of Presupposition Triggers: Mandatory and Optional Repairs in Presupposition Failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29 (1): 136-146. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.830185.
  • Douven, Igor. 2021. Abduction. En Edward N. Zalta (coord.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University, en linea: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ abduction/ [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Douven, Igor. 2022. The Art of Abduction. Cambridge: MIT press.
  • Douven, Igor y Jonah N. Schupbach. 2015. Probabilistic Alternatives to Bayesianism: The Case of Explanationism. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 459. DOI: 10.3389/ FPSYG.2015.00459.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2020. Tautologías Nominales y Conocimiento Compartido. En Susana Rodríguez Rosique y Jordi M. Antolí Martínez (coord.). El Conocimiento Compartido, pp. 63–82. DOI: 10.1515/9783110711172-003/HTML.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria y Elena Vilinbakhova. 2018. Coordinated tautologies in Spanish and Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (3): 315–348. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2018- 0009.
  • Escandell-Vidal, Victoria y Elena Vilinbakhova. 2019. Negated tautologies and copular contradictions. International Review of Pragmatics 11 (2): 153–199. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1163/18773109- 01102100.
  • Fetzer, Anita. 2017. Context. En Yan Huang (coord.). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 259-278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Finkbeiner, Rita, Jörg Meibauer y Petra B. Schumacher (coord.). 2012. What Is a Context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.
  • Fintel, Kai von. 2008. What Is Presupposition Accommodation, Again? Philosophical Perspectives 22: 137-170.
  • Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Motor Oil Is Motor Oil. An Account of English Nominal Tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 12(2): 215-20. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90080-X.
  • Gaul, Brett. 2019. Affirming the Consequent. En Robert Arp, Steven Barbone y Michael Bruce (coord.). Bad Arguments: 50 Common Fallacies and How to Avoid Them, pp. 42–45. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781119165811.CH2.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. y Nancy S. McCarrell 1990. Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 125–145.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2010. Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as Bounded Rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3): 528–54. doi: 10.1111/J.1756- 8765.2010.01094.X.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd y Henry Brighton. 2009. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (1): 107-43. DOI: 10.1111/J.1756- 8765.2008.01006.X.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd y Peter M. Todd. 1999. Fast and Frugal Heuristics: The Adaptive Toolbox. En Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd y la ABC Research Group (autores). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, pp. 3-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein y Vered Heruti. 2020. Whether Verbal or Visual, Affirmative or Negative, Tautologies are Not Tautologies. Metaphor and Symbol, 35 (2): 97-121. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2020.1784509
  • Goldstein, Daniel G. y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2002. Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic. Psychological Review 109 (1): 75–90. DOI: 10.1037/0033- 295X.109.1.75.
  • Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hertwig, Ralph y Stefan M. Herzog. 2009. Fast and Frugal Heuristics: Tools of Social Rationality. Social Cognition 27 (5): 661-698. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.661.
  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 2008. Abduction in Natural Language Understanding. En Laurence R. Horn y Gregory Ward (coord.). The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 724-741. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark E. Stickel, Douglas E. Appelt y Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63 (1–2): 68-142. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4.
  • Hommel, Bernhard. 2020. Pseudo-Mechanistic Explanations in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4): 1294–1305. DOI: 10.1111/TOPS.12448.
  • Jasinskaja, Katja. 2010. Corrective contrast in Russian, in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language 2 (2): 433–466.
  • Jasinskaja, Katja y Elena Karagjosova. 2021. Rhetorical Relations. En Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann y Thomas Ede Zimmermann (coord.). The Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem061. En linea: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/346089248_Rhetorical_Relations [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Jasinskaja, Katja y Henk Zeevat. 2009. Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, English, German. En: Arndt Riester y Torgrim Solstad (coord.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, pp. 231-246. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
  • Kissine, Mikhail y Myrto Pantazi. 2021. Pragmatic Accommodation. En Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann y Thomas Ede Zimmermann (coord.). The Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem140. En linea: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/346690130_Pragmatic_Accommodation [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Landis, Richard J. y Gary G., Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
  • Lapata, Mirella y Frank Keller. 2005. Web-based Models for Natural Language Processing. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 2:1: 1-31.
  • Lascarides, Alex y Nicolas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 437-493.
  • Lazareva, Victoria. 2012. Binominative tautologies with proper nouns (based on material from Bulgarian, Russian and Italian languages). En Ivelina Savova y Velka Popova (coord.). 40 godini Shumenski universitet 1971-2011, pp. 70-78. Shumen: Episkop Konstantin Preslavski.
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339-359.
  • Lipton, Peter. 2000. Inference to the Best Explanation. En William Herbert Newton-Smith (coord.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, pp. 184-193. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lombrozo, Tania y Nicholas Z. Gwynne. 2014. Explanation and Inference: Mechanistic and Functional Explanations Guide Property Generalization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 700. DOI: 10.3389/FNHUM.2014.00700.
  • Luan, Shenghua, Jochen Reb y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2019. Ecological Rationality: Fastand-Frugal Heuristics for Managerial Decision Making under Uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal 62 (6): 1735-1759. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2018.0172.
  • McHugh, Mary L. 2012. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica 22 (3): 276-282. DOI: 10.11613/bm.2012.031.
  • Mann, William C. y Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281.
  • Meibauer, Jörg. 2008. Tautology as presumptive meaning. Pragmatics and Cognition 16: 439-470.
  • Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. Pragmatic evidence, context, and story design: An essay on recent developments in experimental pragmatics. Language Sciences 34 (6): 768–776.
  • Miki, Etsuzo. 1996. Evocation and Tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (5): 635-648.
  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular clauses. En Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn y Paul Portner (coord.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2, pp. 1805-1829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Filosofía, MIT.
  • Mohammadian, Mousa. 2021. Abduction − the Context of Discovery + Underdetermination = Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 198 (5): 4205-4228. DOI: 10.1007/s11229- 019-02337-z.
  • Müller, Misha-Laura. 2018. Accommodation: A Cognitive Heuristic for Background Information. Anglophonia 25. DOI: 10.4000/ANGLOPHONIA.1491. En linea: https:// journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/1491 [Consulta 06/04/22].
  • Neth, Hansjörg y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2015. Heuristics: Tools for an Uncertain World. En Robert Scott y Stephan Kosslyn (coord.). Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 1–18. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118900772. ETRDS0394.
  • Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601–638.
  • Prüst, Hub, Remko Scha y Martin van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics & Philosophy 17: 261–327.
  • Raab, Markus y Gerd Gigerenzer. 2015. The Power of Simplicity: A Fast-and-Frugal Heuristics Approach to Performance Science. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1672. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01672.
  • Recanati, François, Isidora Stojanovic y Neftalí Villanueva (coord.). 2010. ContextDependence, Perspective and Relativity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1-69. DOI: 10.3765/sp.5.6.
  • Sakai, Tomohiro. 2012. Contextualizing Tautologies: From Radical Pragmatics to Meaning Eliminativism. English Linguistics 29 (1): 38–68. DOI: 10.9793/ELSJ.29.1_38.
  • Sassoon, Galit. 2013. A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics 30: 335-380.
  • de Saussure, Louis. 2013. Background Relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 178–189. DOI: 10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2013.08.009.
  • Scha, Remko y Livia Polanyi. 1988. An augmented context free grammar for discourse. En Denes Vargha (coord.). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 573–577. Budapest: John von Neumann Society for Computing Sciences.
  • Schurz, Gerhard. 2008. Patterns of Abduction. Synthese 164 (2): 201-234. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4.
  • Schwabe, Kerstin. 2000. Coordinative Ellipsis and Information Structure. En Kerstin Schwabe y Ning Zhang (coord.). Ellipsis in Conjunction, pp. 247-269. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99–118. DOI: 10.2307/1884852.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 1979. Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 30(1): 363–96. DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV.PS.30.020179.002051.
  • Simon, Herbert A. 2000. Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow. Mind & Society 1: 25–39.
  • Simons, Mandy. 2005. Presupposition and Relevance. En Zoltán Szabo (coord.). Semantics vs. Pragmatics, pp. 329-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Snider, Todd. 2015. Using Tautologies and Contradictions. En Eva Csipak y Hedde Zeijlstra (coord.). Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 19, pp. 610-627. Göttingen: LinG.
  • Sperber, Dan y Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. En Peter Cole (coord.) Syntax and Semantics 9, pp. 316-332. New York: Academic Press.
  • Stojanovic, Isidora. 2015. Evaluative Adjectives and Evaluative Uses of Ordinary Adjectives. En Daisuke Bekki y Eric McCready (coord.). Proceedings of LENLS-12: Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics. Tokyo. En linea: https://www.academia. edu/17113947/Evaluative_Adjectives_and_Evaluative_Uses_of_Ordinary_Adjectives [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 21 (2): 155–175
  • Umbach, Carla. 2016. Evaluative propositions and subjective judgments. En Cécile Meier y Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink (coord.). Subjective Meaning, pp. 127-168. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena. 2016. Coordinated tautologies in Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2: 61–74. DOI:10.31857/s0373658x0000981-8.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena y Victoria Escandell-Vidal. 2020. Interpreting Nominal Tautologies: Dimensions of Knowledge and Genericity. Journal of Pragmatics 160: 97-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.014.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena y Victoria Escandell-Vidal. 2021. Tautologies with Proper Names in Discourse: Rhetorical Relations and Interpretation. Language and Communication 76:79–99. DOI: 10.1016/j. langcom.2020.10.007.
  • Vilinbakhova, Elena, Victoria Escandell-Vidal y Natalia Zevakhina. 2022. Tautologies, inferential processes and constraints on evoked knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 55-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.001
  • Vogel, Jonathan. 2018. Inference to the best explanation. En Edward Craig (coord.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Abington: Taylor and Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-P025-1. En linea: https://www.rep.routledge. com/articles/thematic/inference-to-the-best-explanation/v-1. [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Wharton, Tim. 2010. Context. En Louise Cummings (coord.). The Pragmatics Encyclopedia, pp. 74-75. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Wee, Lionel. 2006. Proper Names and the Theory of Metaphor. Journal of Linguistics 42 (2): 355-371.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. Boys Will Be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’. Language 63 (1) : 95-114. DOI: 10.2307/415385.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Wilson, Deirdre y Dan Sperber. 2004. La Teoría de La Relevancia. Revista de Investigación Lingüística VII: 237-286.
  • Yus Ramos, Francisco. 2003. Cooperación y Relevancia: Dos Aproximaciones Pragmáticas a La Interpretación. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. En linea: http://rua.ua.es/dspace/ handle/10045/4315 [Consulta 06/04/2022].
  • Zeevat, Henk. 2011. Rhetorical relations. En Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Von Heusinger y Paul Portner (coord.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning, pp. 946–970. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet