Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Here the need part: you dont. Because chomskyite grammar sucks sweaty balls.
Tbf, by my second run through Intro to Pragmatics i got the maxims. But our prof had some really strange interpretations of them.
Well, that explains a lot.
Frankly the way that I handle syntax nowadays is completely heterodox - the tree is just a convenient way to represent some pseudocode-like "rules", nothing else. My framework is completely proto-scientific and it probably has more holes than a sieve, but it isn't a big deal since my main area of interest is Historical Linguistics anyway.
On pragmatics: it's a really amazing field to dig into, but professors with "strange interpretations" are a dime a dozen. Often because they're too stubborn to ditch their favourite framework even when it doesn't work for something - for example, trying to explain politeness expressions through the maxims won't work, and yet some still try to do it.
Tree Diagrams can be useful to structure a sentence, but the UG system of "assume one system fits every language cuz inherent ability" is bad.
If you want to check your understanding of how phrases, clauses and words connect to each other in a certain language, trees can be pretty powerful.
To the latter point: My biggest gripe with linguistics is the tendency to boil everything down to a simple system.
Do you want to elaborate more on how politeness cant be explained by gricean maximes?
The Gricean maxims only handle the informative part of a conversation; they don't handle, for example, the emotional impact of the utterance on the hearer, or the social impact on the speaker. As such, in situations where politeness is a concern, you'll see people consistently violating those maxims.
I'll give you an example. Suppose two people in a room: Alice and Bob. Alice has a lot of cake, she's eating some, and Bob is craving cake.
If Bob were to ask Alice for some cake, Bob could simply say "gimme cake". It fits the four maxims to the letter - and yet typically people don't do this, they request things through convoluted ways, like "You wouldn't mind sharing some cake with me, would you?" (violating the maxim of manner), or even "You know, I was in a rush today, so I had no breakfast..." (implying "I'm hungry", and violating the maxims of quantity and relation).
To handle why Bob would do this, you need to backseat Grice's Logic for a moment and use another framework - such as Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, it explains stuff like this really well.
This is probably obvious for you (and for me), and yet you still see some pragmaticists shoehorning everything into Grice's logic. Or some doing the exact opposite and shoehorning it into Austin's speech acts, or B&L Politeness Theory, etc. It sounds a lot like "I got a hammer, so everything must be a nail".
Yes, yes, and yes. You can see Language (as human faculty) as a single system but, if you do so, any accurate representation of that system is so big that it's completely useless, like a map as large as the territory.
That's already a tendency in Linguistics in general, but in the case of the generativists it's their explicit goal.