Pragmatics

We often say just a little and convey quite a bit. When there is a small kitchen fire, I might say "There is a fire extinguisher under the cupboard" and pragmatically convey that the nearest working fire extinguisher is under C (some particularly salient nearby cupboard). There is a question, though, that I want to ask about pragmatics. When we utter a sentence and pragmatically convey some bit of information, is it the sentence that we utter that triggers the pragmatic conveyance or the content of the sentence that triggers the pragmatic conveyance?

One initially plausible answer is that it is the content of the sentence that triggers the pragmatic conveyance. After all, if I say "there is a fire extinguisher under the cupboard" to someone who does not speak any English, then no information will be pragmatically conveyed to that person. but, if the sentence (and not the content) triggers the pragmatic conveyance, then it seems that information would be pragmatically conveyed to such a person.

Here is another reason to favor the view that pragmatic conveyance is triggered by the content of a sentence rather than a sentence itself. If someone says a a native Spanish speaker "hay un extintor de incendios en el marco del armario" then he will convey to that Spanish speaker the same thing that I convey when I say "There is a fire extinguisher under the cupboard". The best explanation of this is that the content of my sentence and the content of the Spanish sentence is the same and that content conveys that the nearest working fire extinguisher is under C (some particularly salient nearby cupboard).

Unfortunately, there are some troubling cases. First, there is a problem of particular conversational implicatures. Suppose that we have two people, one of whom is a believer is in a pagan religion that believes that Bolti is a vile god that throws thunderbolts from heaven on those whose corps fail. The other is a pagan who believes that Mani is a kind god who throws mana from heaven on those whose crops fail. Assuming that there are no such gods as Bolti and Mani and assuming a certain kind of Millianism, the content of "Mani is listening" is the same as the content of "Bolti is listening". Hence, if pragmatic conveyance is triggered by the contents of sentences rather than the sentences themselves, then someone who utters "Bolti is listening" will convey the same information as someone who utters "Mani is listening". But, this is just not correct. If our first pagan says to one of his friends "Bolti is listening" after the friend confesses that his crops might fail, it seems he has pragmatically conveyed that thunder bolts might fall on his friend. On the other hand, if the second pagan says "Mani is listening" to a friend who has just confessed that that his crops might fail, then it seems he has not pragmatically conveyed that thunder bolts might fall on his friend, but rather that mana might fall on his friend. Thus, it seems that it is not the content of those sentences that triggers the pragmatic conveyance.

Here is another example. Suppose I introduce the word "flugi" to mean the same thing as whatever adjective would be most offensive to Mr. Wake. I then say "Mr. Wake is a flugi" to Mr. Wake. I presume he will not be offended. But, that seems to indicate that whatever is offensive about a use of a particular word, it is not part of the content of that word, but rather part of whatever is pragmatically conveyed. But, now we have another reason for thinking that pragmatic conveyance is triggered by the words or sentences and not the contents of words or sentence. This is becuase if I say to Mr. Wake "You are a flugi", then (as I said before) he will not be offended. But if I say to Mr. Wake "you are an A" where 'A' is whatever word is the one that is most offensive to Mr. Wake, then I will offend him. Since "You are a flugi" and "you are an A" have the same content (in thier respective contexts), then it looks like the pragmatic conveyance is not triggered by the content.

I am not exactly sure what to take away from this discussion. I am inclined to say that pragmatics is much more complicated than one might expect. Pragmatic conveyances aren't just triggered by contents and they are not just triggered by sentences or words either. Rather pragmatic conveyances are triggered by words or sentences in combination with their meanings. On this view, it is not simply the word (taken as a sound of inscription) that triggers a pragmatic conveyance and it is not just the meaning of the word either. Rather, it is something like the word combined with the meaning.