Haha! I've been watching these WiPhi videos for a while now. I'm in Professor Lewis' logic course, it was cool to run across this one. Really well done too!
This video made the maxims and their application click for me haha. I had a habit of overthinking, thanks to the ambiguity of my professor's lectures, or maybe I'm just a simpleton, and I respond well to visual presentation, haha. Thank you!
Dear Karen, You're my hero "of the day" with that "long" video about pragmatics! It's not an easy topic, but you're presentation is amazing! Thanx. Claude, a French teacher of philosohy in Montréal!!!
Does anyone else have a strong desire to do a treasure hunt baking game? Bake this cake in under an hour - but with a twist! All of the ingredients are hidden. You must use the treasure maps provided to find your ingredients, make your cake and bake it before time runs out.
Karen shmaren, bananas. I like tea. Your presentation was... let's just say... I got my hair cut yesterday. You are French I see! I hope you appreciate my infringements of the maxims as much as I appreciated your excellent video! :)
I disagree with your very last statement. The semantic content of the sentences are actually different, pragmatics just explains why and how. Remember Tarski's definition of semantics: "[a discipline] that deals with certain relations between expressions of a language and the objects (or states of affairs) "referred to" by those expression". Pragmatics falls well within this definition, just (perhaps) with more oblique relations.
Thank you for the video. I'm doing a PhD currently but I've never felt dumber when engaging with journal articles in this area. Everything seems to convoluted! Thank you for simplifying it.
I had lost track of this video for a long time. Tried for hours and hours to find it again. Finally found it again. I really hate misplacing valuable knowledge.
Can this concept be used when analyzing a written statement or verbal statement to find out if someone is being truthful about what they are saying? Great job on this video.
Dear Karen, Thanks for your video. I am wondering if the Gricean theory is only applicable in conversation between two or more participants, or it is also appropriate to use this theory for advertising language analysis which commercials is kind of a one-way communication as viewers could not involve in the ideas exchange.
+Wireless Philosophy maybe it's just me but the language series is by far the best. (tbh i've made a point to watch the language series, whereas i've only seen a couple of other videos on other topics.) more language videos!!!
This video in relation to the noticeable difference (often mentioned in comedy) between male and female communication has me pondering. Could the reason females often violate the second part of the Maxim of Quantity be because of the difference in thought between the genders and the resulting stigma that "Men are idiots" thus making the female believe they need to offer more information than the male thinks is necessary?
+FailedNuance , this is what i was thinking as well. In sociolinguistics there is the concept that men and women speak differently, females imploring language differently to males. Thus the conclusion that we are 'just different' or wired differently as people like Tanner state. Although i think it also has to do with how we are socialised and conditioned throughout life. With the Maxims (in regards to Grice and pragmatics), it's not just the fact that men and women may be speaking differently (use of language), but also their goals in the interaction are different. Also, women (as you have stated) might feel the need to give more information based on previous experiences of miscommunication. This is called a schema (expectations based on previous interactions and observations). So women and men may 'think' differently, and implore language differently, but at the end of the day, it's actually the speaker (regardless of sex) that has to take responsibility for what is said, what is implied, what the receiver infers and what is not said. We also have to consider that implicature works both ways: the speaker may have tried to imply something (Honey, it's really cold in here), and the receiver of the utterance may infer that his missus is making a literal statement about the temperature in the room, not implying to turn the heater on etc. So... a lot of communicate breakdowns, IMO are based not so much on the sex distinction, but on how receptive you are to understanding what is implied. Basically having shared and mutual understanding of what is said and what is not :)
![PHILOSOPHY - Language: Gricean Pragmatics [HD]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
