QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE
The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recent...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Philosophical quarterly 2019-04, Vol.69 (275), p.418-426 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 426 |
---|---|
container_issue | 275 |
container_start_page | 418 |
container_title | The Philosophical quarterly |
container_volume | 69 |
creator | Grindrod, Jumbly Borg, Emma |
description | The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recently, however, a number of proposals have attempted to use the framework to help to settle issues at the semantics/pragmatics boundary, fixing the truth-conditions of what is said by a speaker (which many theorists take to be a semantic matter). In this discussion piece, we suggest that this kind of putative extension of the work to be done by the QUD framework is illegitimate, as the framework ultimately seems to depend on a prior grip on semantic content. To see this, we first outline the QUD framework and then raise our concern. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/pq/pqy058 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_pq_pqy058</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48586146</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48586146</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-2fda6ddcca8cd498422de05d31418188471c1721ef86e5200056bed82aed80243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRMFYP_gAhVw-xO_uRbC5CSLZtoE21m3gNcXcDFqVttpf-ezdEHIaZYXh4mXcQegT8Ajil8-PJ5wVzcYUCYHESpQToNQowphAJnLJbdOfcHvvgSRKg1_dGqrrcVipsqkLuwqJUeaOU34RZVYT1SoZKbrKqLnM1f9tly002jp77KAt5j2767tvZh78-Q81C1vkqWm-XZZ6tI004nCPSmy42RutOaMNSwQgxFnNDgYEAIVgCGhICthex5WQ8Lv60RpDOF0wYnaHnSVcPB-cG27fH4eunGy4t4HY03h5P7WTcs08Tu3fnw_APMsFF7F9CfwG95k_d</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE</title><source>Oxford Journals - Connect here FIRST to enable access</source><creator>Grindrod, Jumbly ; Borg, Emma</creator><creatorcontrib>Grindrod, Jumbly ; Borg, Emma</creatorcontrib><description>The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recently, however, a number of proposals have attempted to use the framework to help to settle issues at the semantics/pragmatics boundary, fixing the truth-conditions of what is said by a speaker (which many theorists take to be a semantic matter). In this discussion piece, we suggest that this kind of putative extension of the work to be done by the QUD framework is illegitimate, as the framework ultimately seems to depend on a prior grip on semantic content. To see this, we first outline the QUD framework and then raise our concern.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8094</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9213</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/pq/pqy058</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>DISCUSSION</subject><ispartof>The Philosophical quarterly, 2019-04, Vol.69 (275), p.418-426</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-2fda6ddcca8cd498422de05d31418188471c1721ef86e5200056bed82aed80243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-2fda6ddcca8cd498422de05d31418188471c1721ef86e5200056bed82aed80243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grindrod, Jumbly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borg, Emma</creatorcontrib><title>QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE</title><title>The Philosophical quarterly</title><description>The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recently, however, a number of proposals have attempted to use the framework to help to settle issues at the semantics/pragmatics boundary, fixing the truth-conditions of what is said by a speaker (which many theorists take to be a semantic matter). In this discussion piece, we suggest that this kind of putative extension of the work to be done by the QUD framework is illegitimate, as the framework ultimately seems to depend on a prior grip on semantic content. To see this, we first outline the QUD framework and then raise our concern.</description><subject>DISCUSSION</subject><issn>0031-8094</issn><issn>1467-9213</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRMFYP_gAhVw-xO_uRbC5CSLZtoE21m3gNcXcDFqVttpf-ezdEHIaZYXh4mXcQegT8Ajil8-PJ5wVzcYUCYHESpQToNQowphAJnLJbdOfcHvvgSRKg1_dGqrrcVipsqkLuwqJUeaOU34RZVYT1SoZKbrKqLnM1f9tly002jp77KAt5j2767tvZh78-Q81C1vkqWm-XZZ6tI004nCPSmy42RutOaMNSwQgxFnNDgYEAIVgCGhICthex5WQ8Lv60RpDOF0wYnaHnSVcPB-cG27fH4eunGy4t4HY03h5P7WTcs08Tu3fnw_APMsFF7F9CfwG95k_d</recordid><startdate>20190401</startdate><enddate>20190401</enddate><creator>Grindrod, Jumbly</creator><creator>Borg, Emma</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190401</creationdate><title>QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE</title><author>Grindrod, Jumbly ; Borg, Emma</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-2fda6ddcca8cd498422de05d31418188471c1721ef86e5200056bed82aed80243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>DISCUSSION</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grindrod, Jumbly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borg, Emma</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The Philosophical quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grindrod, Jumbly</au><au>Borg, Emma</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE</atitle><jtitle>The Philosophical quarterly</jtitle><date>2019-04-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>275</issue><spage>418</spage><epage>426</epage><pages>418-426</pages><issn>0031-8094</issn><eissn>1467-9213</eissn><abstract>The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recently, however, a number of proposals have attempted to use the framework to help to settle issues at the semantics/pragmatics boundary, fixing the truth-conditions of what is said by a speaker (which many theorists take to be a semantic matter). In this discussion piece, we suggest that this kind of putative extension of the work to be done by the QUD framework is illegitimate, as the framework ultimately seems to depend on a prior grip on semantic content. To see this, we first outline the QUD framework and then raise our concern.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/pq/pqy058</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0031-8094 |
ispartof | The Philosophical quarterly, 2019-04, Vol.69 (275), p.418-426 |
issn | 0031-8094 1467-9213 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_pq_pqy058 |
source | Oxford Journals - Connect here FIRST to enable access |
subjects | DISCUSSION |
title | QUESTIONS UNDER DISCUSSION AND THE SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS DIVIDE |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T16%3A58%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=QUESTIONS%20UNDER%20DISCUSSION%20AND%20THE%20SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS%20DIVIDE&rft.jtitle=The%20Philosophical%20quarterly&rft.au=Grindrod,%20Jumbly&rft.date=2019-04-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=275&rft.spage=418&rft.epage=426&rft.pages=418-426&rft.issn=0031-8094&rft.eissn=1467-9213&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/pq/pqy058&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48586146%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48586146&rfr_iscdi=true |