Riassunto esame Lingua e traduzione inglese 3, prof. Iaia, libro consigliato Mediating Cultures, Guido

3.7. PRAGMATIC IMPLICATIONS: FACTS THAT ARE 'ACTUALIZED' AND 'STILL TO BE ACTUALIZED'

3.7.1. Presuppositions

Presupposition is a type of mental process by which a listener can reach a logical conclusion by using

additional knowledge to make sense of what is not explicit in an utterance. A presupposition is a logical

conclusion that speakers judge to be (a) true or false and (b) appropriate or non-appropriate in

reference to the context in which they say it. Presuppositions can be ascribed to a linguistic domain

between Semantics and Pragmatics, insofar as they are both:

• Co-text sensitive: semantically dependent on the textual context in which they occur;

• Context sensitive: pragmatically dependent on the actual context of the utterance.

Presuppositions are preserved in negative sentences.

e.g: Jane saw/didn't see the castle on the hill (there exists a castle on the hill)

The verbs of perception are typical instances of presuppositions triggers, which means that they are

words capable of activating certain presuppositions in the listeners' minds. Thus, for instance:

1. Try/attempt and remember/forget may be classified as Implicative Verbs when they trigger

(innescano) presuppositions implying pre-existing states.

e.g: Jim tried/did not try to open the door (the door was closed; Jim intended/ did not intend

to open it)

2. Try/attempt and remember/forget may be classified as Factive Verbs when they trigger

presuppositions concerning already actualized facts.

e.g: Jim tried/did not try opening the door (the door was closed; Jim opened/did not open the

door)

3. Stop/finish may be classified as Change of State Verbs in that they signal the passing from a

pre-existing state to a new one.

e.g: John stopped smoking (John had been smoking-ending a pre-existing state)

e.g: John stopped to smoke (John stopped [what he was doing at the moment] in order to

smoke-passing a new state)

According to Gazdar a presupposition, to be pragmatically appropriate, needs to be mutually known

by the participants in a communicative exchange interacting within shared cultural contexts.

e.g: The speaker stopped working.

CAP. IV- MODULE 11

4.5. SOCIAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL PROXIMITY AND DISTANCE: MODAL AUXILIARIES SHOULD AND

WOULD AS TONE/STYLE MARKERS

The notion of Conditional in English doesn't regard it as a Mood. The English language, in fact,

conceptualizes the notion of Conditional as part of the Indicative Mood and as a modalization of the

Present Tense in both its Simple and Perfect Aspects by means of the two modal auxiliaries would and

should. Although would and should represent the corresponding Past-Tense versions of the Present-

Tense forms of will and shall, they are not regarded as such in the context of the English

conceptualization of Conditional. The semantic notion of Conditional, in fact implies the setting of

conditions in the present time for the realization of a process in the future time.

• The Ideational Function is concerned with the way in which language enables speakers to

represent their mental image of reality;

• The Interpersonal Function is concerned with the way in which language enables speakers to

interact with other people.

The use of the Past Tense of the modal auxiliary verbs in the so-called conditional clauses needs to be

understood in its figurative sense of psychological and social distance of the Speaker from his/her

Listener. In Halliday's view, a Speaker can conceive a psychological distance from (or a psychological

proximity to) his/her Listener by activating in his/her mind the Ideational Function of language. On

the other hand, the Speaker can conceive a social distance from (or a social proximity to) his/her

Listener by means of the Interpersonal Function.

(1) Will you wait for me?

(2) Would you wait for me?

The only difference between these two sentences is pragmatic, insofar as:

• Sentence (1) indicates that the Speaker considers him/herself to be psychological and socially

closer to the Listener, and this is signalled by the modal auxiliary will that marks an informal

style and a direct tone.

• Sentence (2), the use of would marks a more formal style and a tentative tone, indicating that

the Speaker is psychologically and socially more distant from the Listener.

Halliday's notions of Tone and Style are connected to his view of Register, that is, language used

within specific situational contexts and often related to specialized fields of discourse. Tone and Style

are two aspects of Tenor that is: the Register parameter that signals the relationship of the Sender of

messages (speakers/writers) with his/her supposed Receiver, and the way in which this relationship is

reflected in the form given to the messages.

A tentative tone signals a formal style indicating the social (interpersonal) and psychological

▪ (ideational) distance between Speaker and Listener.

A direct tone, on the other hand, signals an informal style indicating the social and

▪ psychological proximity between Speaker and Listener.

4.6. MODALIZED CONDITIONAL PROCESSES

4.6.1. Present (Simple) Conditional with Modal Auxiliaries: Syntax and Semantics

The Present Simple Conditional is formed by the modal auxiliaries would/should+ the Infinitive of the

main verb. Its structures are parallel to the structures are parallel to the structures of the Future

Simple, except for the use of would and should instead of will and shall:

Affirmative

I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they/ would/should work

Negative

I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they/ wouldn't/shouldn't work

Interrogative

Would/Should I/you/he/she/it/you/they work?

Negative Interrogative

Would/Should I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they not work?

Image schema of the I-Node in a Present Simple Conditional sentence.

Semantically, the Present Simple Conditional conveys:

a. The sense of an improbable or uncertain process in the future.

e.g: I would come to see you if you were free next Monday (which is improbable or

uncertain)

b. The same sense conveyed by the Future Simple but set in a past period of time (the so called

Future in the Past).

e.g: I hope that I will/shall pass the exam. (referred to the present moment of speaking)

I hope that I would/should pass the exam (referred to a past moment in time)

4.6.2. Perfect Conditional with Modal Auxiliaries: Syntax and Semantics

For the Perfect Conditional, the focus of the conventional label is on Aspect (Perfect) only, since this

conditional form is indefinite as for its reference to Tense. In fact, it may imply either a present or a

past reflection on a failed condition in the past, depending on the context within which this

conditional form occurs.

Syntactically, the Perfect Conditional is formed with would/should + the Perfect Infinitive of the main

verb.

Affirmative

I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they would/should have worked.

Negative

I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they wouldn't/shouldn't have worked

Interrogative

Would/Should I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they have worked?

Negative Interrogative

Would/should I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they not have worked?

Semantically, the Perfect Conditional conveys:

a. The sense of an impossible process in the past time, when a condition which was expected

to occur in the future did not occur because the process necessary to realize such a condition

did not happen.

e.g: I would have come to see you if you had been free the following Monday (but

actually you were busy and I did not come).

b. The sense of the realization of a process which was considered to be impossible, due to the

fact that, in a past time, a condition which was not expected to occur in the future did actually

occur and caused the realization of such a process.

e.g: Jim shouldn't have finished his work if Fiona hadn't helped him for the whole

week.

c. The sense of an equivalent of the process expressed in the Future Perfect but set in the past

time (Future in the Past).

e.g: I hope that I will/shall have passed the exam before Christmas (referred to the

present moment of speaking- the Speaker does not know yet if he is going

to succeed or not).

I hope that I would/should have passed the exam before Christmas (referred to a

past moment in time- the Speaker now knows that he did not succeed).

4.7. PRAGMATIC DIMENSIONS OF CONDITIONAL FORMS

4.7.1. Should and Would in Discourse

The modal auxiliaries would and should keep the same semantic implications of will and shall, that

is: volition and intention for will and would, and determination and obligation for shall and should.

Should and would mark instead a more detached tone which makes the style of discourse more formal

and conventional. Such 'detached discourse more formality can be interpreted as an expression of

the Speaker's tentative proposal for a future action, or also as the Speaker's insufficient commitment

in the action that s/he is predicting for the future.

These pragmatic uses of would and should are particularly evident in political discourse. In the Tenor

of political speeches, indeed, the use of the modal auxiliaries should and would to refer to future

processes are often deliberately employed to avoid a too direct first-person involvement and

ideological commitment of the Speaker is saying is not unquestionably acceptable by Listeners. The

Speaker may prefer to use this tentative way of exploring Listeners' reactions advancing them openly.

CAP. VII- MODULE 17

COHERENCE AND INFERENCE IN CONDITIONAL SENTENCES

7.1. SEMANTIC COHERENCE AND SCHEMATIC INFERENCE IN DISCOURSE

7.1.1. Textual/Contextual Coherence

Coherence in the process of making sense of a text it is necessary to realize that in interpreting a

written text as discourse, a reader does not exclusively rely on its syntactic and lexical structure. S/he

also needs to possess the relevant knowledge to contextualize the text in the socio-cultural situation

in which it was produced. Contextualization enable the reader to provide the logical connection to

concepts and ideas expressed in the text. This process of making logical sense of the lexical and

syntactic structure of the text by means of a shared socio-cultural knowledge of situational contexts

is what we mean by Coherence.

De Beaugrande and Dressler explore the cognitive mechanism by which a reader achieves coherence

from a text to make it function as discourse in context. Coherence as one of the seven standards of

textuality representing the constitutive principles which determine the communicative quality of a

text. The other "standards of textuality" are: Cohesion, Intentionality, Acceptability, Informativity,

Situationality, Intertextuality. Moreover, to be communicatively successful within a specific socio-

cultural context, a text needs to meet three additional regulative principles which are: Efficiency,

Effectiveness and Appropriateness.

Coherence is strictly connected with the notion of Textual World which stands for the cognitive

representation of the semantic sense of a text that a reader constructs in his/her