András Kertész

From Thought Experiments to Real Experiments in Pragmatics

The puzzle of thought experiments is a hot topic in the philosophy of science. The chapter raises the puzzle with respect to pragmatics as follows: How is it possible that thought experiments in pragmatics yield new experiential information about communication, although they are carried out entirely in one’s head? The chapter shows, first, that the structure of thought experiments in pragmatics consists of a series of plausible inferences. Second, the function of thought experiments is to serve as the initial step in the process of plausible argumentation as well as to test the plausibility of rival hypotheses. Third, while on the one hand, thought experiments and real experiments may be continuous, on the other hand, the former may be also indispensable components of the latter. Fourth, these properties provide a solution to the puzzle of thought experiments in pragmatics. The key idea of the solution is that thought experiments in pragmatics cannot generate new experiential information; rather, during the process of plausible argumentation they contribute to the retrospective re-evaluation of experiential information already given.

On the Inferential Structure of Indirect Reports

The aim of the paper is to reveal the inferential structure, the functions and the felicity conditions of indirect reports from a novel perspective by the application of a model of plausible argumentation (Kertesz and Rakosi 2012). The central idea is that indirect reports can be reconstructed as plausible inferences. As regards the inferential structure of indirect reports, the p-model interprets the relation between the original utterance and the processed report in terms of two consecutive plausible inferences. Then, indirect reports are assumed to function as effective tools of problem solving in cases in which the original speaker’s authority is greater than that of the reporter, or if the reporter does not want to take responsibility for the truth of the original utterance. The paper also discusses a series of felicity conditions of indirect reports. Among others, it focuses on those ones that are related to the reliability of information sources made use of in their production and processing.

Discourse Markers in Different Types of Reporting

The present paper is informed by discourse marker research, often considered a testing ground for pragmatic theories. The paper’s primary aim is to illustrate the benefits of the cross-fertilization between IR/DR and DM research and to argue that the analysis of discourse markers can serve as a heuristic tool to reveal differences in the use of indirect and direct reports across a variety of genres and text types in our four sub-corpora: (1) NC=natural conversations, (2) CI=celebrity interviews, (3) MPI=mediatized political interviews, and (4) SD=scripted discourse. The combination of automatic and manual annotation, complemented by the statistical analysis of the results, attempts to answer the following two sets of questions: (1) What patterns can be observed in terms of the frequency and grammatical features (tense, aspect, voice) of reporting verbs? (2) What kind of cross-genre differences can we observe with reference to reporting and the use of DMs in different types of reports (in terms of the frequency and functions of DMs, different report types, host units and p-contexts)?