Intensional profiles and different kinds of human minds. “Case studies” about Hungarian imperative-like sentence types
Gábor Alberti
University of Pécs , Hungaryhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8907-0715
Judit Kleiber
University of Pécs , Hungaryhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7571-6949
Zsuzsanna Schnell
University of Pécs , HungaryVeronika Szabó
University of Pécs , HungaryAbstract
The paper offers such description of some imperative-like sentence types in potential well-formed Hungarian utterances which includes a parallel representation of the linguistically encoded intensional profiles of the sentence types and actual information states in potential interlocutors’ minds. In our representational dynamic pragmasemantics framework ReALIS, we demonstrate the intensional profiles of the five basic and two “fine-tuned” sentence types as members of a system enabling addressers’ of utterances to express their beliefs, desires and intentions concerning the propositional content of the given utterances as well as the addressees’ and other people’s certain beliefs, desires and intentions (concerning the propositional content, too, or each other’s thoughts). We also provide “case studies” in which actual beliefs, desires and intentions in potential interlocutors’ minds are compared to the linguistically encoded intensional profiles of Hungarian imperative-like sentence types. In this context, the listener’s task is to calculate the speaker’s intentions (and hidden motives) on the basis of the mismatches that this comparison reveals. The paper concludes with an insight into our attempts to model the mind of individuals living with Autism Spectrum Disorder. This latter subproject is relevant since our framework provides solutions to pragmaticosemantic phenomena “at the cost” of undertaking the complex task of actually representing the structure of the human mind itself – which is not impossible but requires an adequate decision of the level of abstraction and the components to be used.
Keywords:
discourse representation/markers, mind representation, dynamic pragmatics, autismReferences
Alberti, G. 2000. Lifelong Discourse Representation Structures. Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics 00–5: 13-20.
Alberti, G. 2005. Accessible referents in “opaque” belief contexts. In H. van Ditmarsch and A. Herzig (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th ESSLLI Belief Revision and Dynamic Logic Workshop, 1-7. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Alberti, G. 2011. ReALIS: An Interpretation System which is Reciprocal and Lifelong, Paper presented at Focus on Discourse and Context-Dependence, Amsterdam, September 16, 2009. http://lingua.btk.pte.hu/realispapers.
Alberti, G. 2011. ReALIS: Interpretálók a világban, világok az interpretálóban. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Alberti, G. 2012. Where are Possible Worlds? II. Pegs, DRSs, Worldlets and Reification. In G. Alberti et al. (eds.), Vonzásban és változásban, 308–323. Pécs: Doctoral School of Linguistics at University of Pécs.
Alberti, G., M. Dóla, and J. Kleiber. 2014. Mood and modality in Hungarian: Discourse Representation Theory meets Cognitive Linguistics. Argumentum 10: 172-191.
Alberti, G., and M. Károly. 2012. Multiple Level of Referents in Information State. In A. Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 349-362. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Alberti, G., and J. Kleiber. 2012. Where are Possible Worlds? Arguments for ReALIS. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59: 3-26.
Alberti, G., and J. Kleiber. 2014. ReALIS: Discourse Representation with a Radically New Ontology. In L. Veselovská, and M. Janebová (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There, 513-528. Olomouc: Palacký University.
Alberti, G., and L. Nőthig. 2015. ReALIS2.1: The Implementation of Generalized Intensional Truth Evaluation and Expositive Speech Acts in On-Going Discourse. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems 8/1-2: 85-106.
Alberti, G., Z. Schnell, and V. Szabó. to appear. Autizmussal élni: más elmével élni [Living with Autism: Living with a Different Mind]. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
Alberti, G., N. Vadász, and J. Kleiber. 2014. Ideal and Deviant Interlocutors in a Formal Interpretation System. In A. Zuczkowski et al. (eds.), The communication of certainty and uncertainty, 59-78, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Asher, N., and A. Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Astington, J. 1993. The child’s discovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Austin, J.L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dowty, D., R.E. Wall, and S. Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Farkas, J. and M. Ohnmacht. 2012. Aspect and Eventuality Structure in a Representational Dynamic Semantics. In G. Alberti, J. Kleiber, and J. Farkas (eds.), Vonzásban és változásban, 353-379. Pécs: PTE BTK Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola.
Gärtner, Hans-Martin and Beáta Gyuris. 2012. Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59: 387-426.
Gibbs, R.W., and H.L. Colston (eds.) 2007. Irony in Language and Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Gyarmathy, É. 2009. Atipikus agy és a tehetség I. – Tehetség és a neurológia hátterű teljesítményzavarok valamint az Asperger szindróma. Pszichológia 29: 377-390.
Győri, M., K. Gy. Stefanik, I. Kanizsai-Nagy, and A. Balázs. 2002. Naiv tudatelmélet és nyelvi pragmatika magasan funkcionáló autizmusban: reprezentációs zavar, performanciakorlát, vagy kompenzáció? In M. Racsmány and S. Kéri (eds.), Architektúra és patológia a megismerésben, 11-39. Budapest: Osiris.
Jary, M. and M. Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judge, K.E. 2014. Epistemic uncertainty and the syntax of speech acts. In S. Cantarini et al. (eds.), Certainty- uncertainty – and the attitudinal space in between, 217-237. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kamp, H. 1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
Kamp, H., and U Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kamp, H., J. van Genabith and U. Reyle. 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. In D.M. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 125-394. Berlin: Springer.
Kaufman, M. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kleiber, J. 2005. Across world(let)s in a representationist interpretation system. In J. Gervain (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th ESSLLI Student Session, 112-121.
Kratzer, A. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford: OUP.
Labinaz, P., and M. Sbisà. 2014. Certainty and uncertainty in assertive speech acts. In Andrzej Zuczkowski et al. (eds.), The communication of certainty and uncertainty, 31-58. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Leiss, E. 2014. Modes of modality in an Un-Cartesian framework. In Sibilla Cantarini et al. (eds.), Certainty- uncertainty – and the attitudinal space in between, 47-62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Meibauer, J. 2005. Lying and falsely implicating. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1373-1399.
Oishi, E. 2014. Discursive functions of evidentials and epistemic modals. In S. Cantarini et al. (eds.), Certainty- uncertainty – and the attitudinal space in between, 239-262. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Péteri, A. 2012. The Hungarian Imperative Particle Hadd. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59: 439-463.
Pollard, C. Hyperintensions. An ESSLLI 2007 course. Accessed January 12, 2016 http://www.ling.ohio- state.edu/~hana/hog/
Reyle, U. 1993. Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representation and Deduction. Journal of Semantics 10: 123-179.
Schlangen, D., A. Lascarides, and A. Copestake. 2003. Imperatives in dialogue. In P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, and H. Zeevat, Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, 287-305. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schnell, Z. 2007. Metaphor Processing and the Acquisition of Idioms – A mentalistic model. Acta Linguistica 54: 73-104.
Szücs, M. 2010. A hadd problémaköre. In Z. Gécseg (ed.), LingDok 9, Nyelvész-doktoranduszok dolgozatai, 193-210. Szeged: University of Szeged.
Turi, G. 2009. Kötőmód a mai magyar nyelvben. Argumentum 5: 25-38.
van Eijck, J. and H. Kamp. 1997. Representing discourse in context. In J. van Benthem, and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, 179-237. Amsterdam: Elsevier, and Cambridge: MIT Press.
Venhuizen, N., J. Bos, P. Hendriks, and H. Brouwer. 2015. Differentiating projection phenomena in a unified semantic framework. Paper presented at Redrawing Pragmasemantic Borders, University of Groningen, March 19-20, 2015.
Wimmer, H., and J. Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: representation and the containing function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103-128.
Zuczkowski, A., R. Bongelli, L. Vincze, and I. Riccioni. 2014. Epistemic stance. Knowing, Unknowing, Believing (KUB) positions. In A. Zuczkowski, R. Bongelli, I. Riccioni, and C. Canestrari (eds.), Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty, 115-135. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
University of Pécs
University of Pécs
