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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Philosophical quarterly 2019-04, Vol.69 (275), p.418-426
Hauptverfasser: Grindrod, Jumbly, Borg, Emma
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