Show:
Presuppositions I
Presuppositions II
Presuppositions III
Speech Acts I
Speech Acts II
100
TRUE or FALSE? Presuppositions can be considered a type of particularized conversational implicature.
FALSE
100
TRUE or FALSE? Presuppositions are preserved in negative statements.
TRUE. Ex.: Jeff's fiancée is (NOT) from New Orleans.
100
The notion that an utterance is suitable for a given exchange based on shared mutual knowledge is known as: (A) acceptability (B) appropriateness (C) felicity (D) A & B (E) B & C
(E) B & C
100
Speech act theory has applications in all of the following branches of linguistics EXCEPT: (A) syntax (B) semantics (C) second language learning (D) none of the above
(D) none of the above
100
If a speech act goes wrong, it is considered: (A) infelicitous (B) incorrect (C) unsuccessful (D) false.
(A) infelicitious
200
What is the difference between 'sentences' and 'statements'?
Sentences are grammatical constructions while statements are sentences in use (in context).
200
From the utterance FRANK MANAGED TO PASS THE EXAM, can we infer that Frank tried to pass the exam? Explain.
Yes because 'manage' implies 'try'.
200
In general, can presuppositions survive interrogatives? In other words, is the same presupposition found in JENNY'S DOG IS SICK and IS JENNY'S DOG SICK?
Yes
200
Who are the two main names in speech act theory?
J.L Austin and John Searle
200
What is the difference between performatives and constatives? Give an original example of each.
Performative: doing something by uttering a statement. I PROMISE YOU I'LL BE AT YOUR GRADUATION. Constative: stating something that can be deemed true or false. I PROMISED HIM I'D BE AT HIS GRADUATION.
300
What presupposition needs to be true in order for the following statement to be judged as true or false? THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA IS JUSTIN TRUDEAU
That there is actually a prime minister of Canada.
300
What are presupposition triggers? Explain them and give an example.
Presupposition triggers are linguistic items that generate presuppositions. For example, 'after' presupposes something occurred later than something else. In English, the 's of possession presupposes that someone has whatever follows.
300
Explain the concept of defeasibility.
The idea that presuppositions can evaporate. Consider the verb 'know'. (1) Nancy doesn't know that class is canceled. (2) I don't know if class is canceled. (3) Class is canceled.
300
What are felicity conditions?
Conditions which must exist in order for a performative to succeed or "be happy". Circumstances and procedures must be appropriate, procedure must be completed correctly and entirely, participants must have required thoughts and if a response is requested, it must be done.
300
What is uptake? Describe it an give an example.
Uptake is the response required by the interlocutor to a given speech act. For example: (A) I bet you Spain will win the next World Cup. (B) You're on!
400
Explain the concept of wide and narrow scope using the following utterance: THE TEXAN LANGUAGE IS NOT EASY TO LEARN.
Focus on the negation. Wide scope: The Texan language is not easy to learn - because there is no such language. Narrow scope: There is a Texan language and it is not easy to learn.
400
How can a presupposition evaporate? Explain by giving an ORIGINAL example.
When a proposition that follows the original utterance makes the presupposition no longer valid. Example: Clara doesn't regret having lived abroad...because in fact she has never left the country.
400
Explain the concepts of plugs, holes, and filters as they are related to presuppositions.
PLUGS: words (mostly verbs) that stop a presupposition from being projected onto the whole statement (say, mention, tell, ask, warn, accuse...) HOLES: words (mostly verbs) that allow presuppositions to rise and project onto the whole sentence (know, regret, understand, surprise...) FILTERS: Allow some presuppositions to pass through and others not (if...then)
400
What were the three original types of speech acts proposed? Name and describe them.
LOCUTIONARY: utterance with determinate sense and reference; ILLOCUTIONARY: performative with conventional force; PERLOCUTIONARY: bringing about effects on the interlocutor (persuading, forcing, frightening).
400
What is the performative hypothesis (PH)?
It reduces all utterances to performatives if we analyze the deep structure (assuming there is an embedded clause that includes a performative verb).
500
What is the difference between entailments and presuppositions? Explain the difference and give an example of each.
ENTAILMENT: In all worlds in which A is true, B is also true. Sentences have entailments. Ex.: Jack and Jill missed class yesterday. PRESUPPOSITIONS: A presupposes B iff (1) in all situations where A is true, B is true, (2) in all situations where A is false, B is true. Speakers have presuppositions. Ex.: Paul's sister got married last weekend.
500
Explain the projection problem.
Can a presupposition be carried throughout the entire sentence? Consider complex sentences. On one hand, presuppositions survive negations but they disappear in other contexts where entailments can survive. Ex.: (IT'S POSSIBLE THAT) THE TEACHER PUNISHED FOUR STUDENTS.
500
Explain Gazdar's theory of presuppositions.
First, all potential presuppositions for a given utterance are generated. Then they all go through a "canceling machine" in a specific order, in which process some of them are thrown out and one is left with the actual presuppositions of an utterance.
500
After the three initial types of speech acts, these were broken down further into five. What are they?
REPRESENTATIVES (asserting, concluding), DIRECTIVES (requesting, questioning), COMMISSIVES (promising, threatening, offering), EXPRESSIVES (thinking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating), DECLARATIONS (declaring war, christening, firing, quitting)
500
What is the relationship between indirect speech acts and the literal force hypothesis (LFH)?
Indirect speech acts are those that may not use a performative verb but in the deeper meaning they are performatives ("Could you please...?") The LFH states that illocutionary force is built into sentence form (three major sentence types have the forces traditionally associated with them).