Eliza Kitis

MA Theoretical Linguistics, Essex, Ph.D. Philosophy of Language, Warwick, UK, is Professor of Linguistics at the School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece. She studied initially in Greece, where she got a BA in English Language and Literature (recipient of state studentship IKY on merit during all years of her studies), and during her residence in UK (1970-80) she obtained her other two degrees. Her 1982 University of Warwick Ph.D. thesis (under David Holdcroft's supervision) Problems connected with the notion of Implicature was supported by a three-year major state studentship awarded on merit by the Department of Education and Science, UK. The thesis is a major critique of Grice's Programme of Logic and Conversation. The notion of conversational implicature was redefined in terms of intentionality and the principle of relevance, which was identified as dominant in this type of implicature and in communication. Many instances of Grice's conversational implicature were found to be contextual assumptions ordinarily surrounding speech-events, often explainable in terms of knowledge frames and scripts. It was argued that the notion of frame played a paramount role in communication and that implicature  had to be 'liberated' from such contextual assumptions. Conventional implicature was also discussed and criticized. 

In 1981 she joined the Department of English, Aristotle University, and has since introduced core courses, such as Intros (I, II) to Linguistics, and required electives Semantics, Pragmatics, but also Discourse Analysis. At graduate level she teaches  a required course in Semantics/Pragmatics, but also electives Pragmatics and Semantics. She also teaches at graduate level at other Departments courses: Issues in linguistic pragmatics, Pragmatics in Language Teaching, Subordinate Clauses in Modern Greek and Discourse Markers of Modern Greek.#DMs   

Recent and current PhD research degree supervision topics include:

Visiting:

Her publications, reflecting her teaching areas and special interests, are in the areas of pragmatics, semantics and discourse analysis. They range from problems with Grice's implicature, relevance, conjunction, frame theory  to literary discourse, translation,  aspect#AspectG and pragmastylistics, as well as news and advertising discourses, CDA  and ideology. Her current focus, however, is on connectives and discourse markers, a topic of interest since the days of her thesis.  Papers directly on Grice are the following: Grice 1, Grice 2, Grice 3

Eliza Kitis
Professor of Linguistics (MA Essex, Ph.D. Warwick)

Address: School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki 54124

Tel.: +30-2310-997411 (office)

Fax: +30-2310-997432

E-mail: ekitis@enl.auth.gr

Eliza Kitis's (ekitis@enl.auth.gr) publications include. (click for Abstracts)

Pragmatics, relevance, implicature [generalized, conventional], definiteness,  etc.

Aspect and subordination, aspect and expressivity

Connectives (Discourse Markers, Subordination)

(Also see: When relevance saves) 

Discourse Analysis, Ideology, CDA, Stylistics, Translation 

Sociolinguistics/Education 

Books (edited, in preparation)

Tel.: +30-2310-997411 (office)

E-mail: ekitis@enl.auth.gr, Fax: +30-2310-997432 

Address: School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 54124 Greece.

Abstracts of articles by Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

(JoP31)  On Relevance again. From Philosophy of Language across 'Pragmatics and Power' to Global Relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 643-67, 1999. 

This paper, largely motivated by Harris (1995), revisits the issue of the Cooperative Principle and, in particular, Relevance. I would, firstly, like to note that even before the emergence of empirical pragmatics and critical discourse analysis there had been raised, albeit within a philosophical perspective, some questions relating to language and power and the universality across discourses of the CP. Secondly, I would like to draw attention to the pervasive nature of the maxim of Relevance, which, however, needs to be seen at a global level as a forceful social parameter governing linguistic communication or 'transaction' and as contingent on typifications of social situations described in terms of cognitive knowledge structures. It is claimed that, just as language is firmly placed within structured social domains or events, so too linguistic behaviour within them is structured and largely predictable as enjoined by the structure of those events and domains, represented in our conceptual world. The paper argues for the postulation of a socially determined supermaxim of Global Relevance, embedded within the actional structure of representations of events. As a consequence, a more complete account of what has been called the Cooperative Principle has to lie at the intersection of a cognitive theory and a social theory of language use.

(Symp. 12th) When Relevance saves. Proceedings of 12th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, VI: Papers on Theoretical Linguistics, ed. S. Lambropoulou, Thessaloniki, 1998, 225-35.

In this paper I wish to address one or two problems related to the treatment of natural language connectives within the framework of Relevance theory. In particular, I will address the problem of the constrainability of the theory while I will only just raise the problem of globality. I take the view that while Relevance theory may well provide an initial first order treatment of connectives it is incapable of accounting for the most interesting aspects of their meanings and functions on grounds of the maxim of Relevance alone as this would posit no independent constraints beyond the competence of the individual speaker.

(WPLL89a) Conventional Implicature Revisited. Working Papers in Linguistics and Literature, Department of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 1989, 109-25. 

This is a critique of Grice's proposal to treat both 'but' and 'therefore' in terms of his account of conventional implicature. 'Therefore' and 'but', the two paradigms of conventional implicature on Grice's view, are examined closely and are shown to behave in diverse ways. Firstly, 'therefore' is shown to have at least two distinct uses: the explanatory and the inferential. A Gricean account is shown to be unable to satisfactorily handle the inferential use of  'therefore'. Secondly, 'but' and  'therefore', which on Grice's view are instances of the same phenomenon, are clearly shown to exhibit dissimilarities in their behaviour, demolishing his unitary treatment. Various tests are employed to this purpose. Moreover, it is pointed out that Grice is not consistent in his claim concerning what constitutes conventional implicata. His account is found to be partly implausible, as regards his treatment of 'therefore', and partly inadequate, as it fails to take into account the wide ranging function of 'but' - his paradigm of conventional implicature - but, instead treats its variable meaning aspects as invariable, conventional implicature. (This is an excerpt from EK's 1982 thesis, presented at 1st IPrA conference, 1985)

(WPLL89b) A comment on Grice's distinction between semantics and pragmatics, Department of English Yearbook, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 1989, 161-5.

In his theory of Conversation, Grice (1975) proposes a framework within which all aspects of the interpretation of utterances can be handled. He claims that we must distinguish between what is said in an utterance and what is implicated, thereby drawing a major distinction between semantics and other aspects of communication, which may be called pragmatic and may be treated within pragmatics. His motive for such a distinction is his desire to preserve a truth-conditional semantics, on one hand, allowing, on the other, for the general conditions governing conversation to take care of other aspects of communicated facts. The advantages of the viability of such a theory are well known and need not be gone into here (cf. Koutoupis-Kitis, 1982). I demonstrate that Grice fails to notice that for a full specification of what is said - which, quite clearly, must fall within the purview of semantics on his view - mere knowledge and employment of semantic rules will not suffice. This point, if taken into account, undercuts Grice's distinction between semantics and pragmatics, which he goes to great pains to preserve.

(Symp. 1st) A comment on  the Article. Proceedings of 1st Symposium on English and Modern Greek. School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 1987, 742-54. 

In an attempt to give a solution to the problem of definite descriptions, Grice treats them as a special subclass of referential expressions whose existential presuppositions can be 'explained away' in terms of generalized conversational implicatures. To this end he employs the Russellian tripartite definition of definite descriptions, claiming that the first two clauses of it are regarded by the speaker as common ground, and therefore as not challengable. He concludes that every use of the definite article implicates that the reference is to be taken 'on trust' (my emphasis). I argued that this is a reductionistic approach to the description of the use of the article because it does not address the problem in its right form as the parameters pertaining to the use of the article are, and should be, isolatable from speakers and their erratic or idiosyncratic implicatures and are rather affected by general principles governing their use. The main concern of this investigation, however, is to emphasize the significance of stereotypic knowledge we, as speakers and hearers, bring to bear on our use of the definite article. The relevant linguistic literature is reviewed. It is concluded that, although treating 'definiteness' within a sound framework, workers on the topic have in a large measure overlooked this point.

(JoP11) A comment on John Hawkins' 'A note on referent identifiability and co-presence'. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 1987, 93-7.

With reference to Hawkin's paper (title) it is pointed out that the main point therein made by the author, which - although not clearly stated - was basically an improvement on his 1978 thesis, had been previously made in Koutoupis-Kitis (1982). Moreover, although I agree with Hawkins that even the weakest definition of identifiability or co-presence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the appropriate use of 'the', on the other hand, I argue against his suggestion that recognition of the appropriate uniqueness set or frame is a sufficient condition. I suggest that some form of identifiability conditions attaching to a set of data must be mutually recognized as enabling (or not) the subset to fall within a specific, broader set or frame.

(ICGL3) The case of fovame[fear] and other psychological verbs. (with A. Kakouriotis), Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Ed. A. Mozer. Athens, Ellinika Grammata, 1999, 131-140. 

 In this paper we will examine the category of certain psych(ological)-verbs but will primarily focus on the Greek psych-verb fovame/fovoume[fear] and its translational equivalent terms in English fear, (be) afraid. We will identify their various functions in speech, which will be (co-)related to their grammatical, syntactic but also semantic characteristics. We will conclude that processes of grammaticalization and desemanticization have contributed to the synchronic use of such verbs and more specifically in the area of speech acts.

(JAL3) Discourse connectors and language learning materials. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 1987, 30-50.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: On the one hand, it is attempted to draw attention to the fact that there is a significant divergence of functions of connectives in speech from those of their counterparts in written language, and, on the other, to point out that, as learning materials are based mainly on sentence grammars, the former functions are in the main neglected in them. Furthermore, it is shown that most accounts of connectives are either rather general, or inadequate, as they gloss over significant functions of these linguistic items. More particularly, a distinction is drawn between two distinct uses of connectives, one relating to communicated or inferred aspects of the meaning encoded in their utterance acts, the other relating to their employment by participants in structuring and organizing the communication process itself. Finally, a plea is made that these facts be meticulously incorporated in learning materials.

(Symp. 3rd) Van Oirsouw on coordinated sentences. Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison Of English and Greek, School of English, Aristotle University,  Thessaloniki, 1989, 304-14.

Van Oirsouw (1983) proposes a syntactic criterion to assess semantic relations holding between coordinated sentences. On the basis of this criterion he distinguishes four distinct types of coordination, which he calls: a. Identity, b. Ordered, c. Concomitant and d. Coincidental Coordination. This paper demonstrates that Van Oirsouw's claim to the four types is unfounded and, hence, his theory is inadequate. Instead, it is argued that his syntactic criteria might at best afford a method whereby coordinated sentences can be classified in order of decreased acceptability. 

(WPGAL2) Can we define a category of conjunctive elements? Working Papers in General and Applied Linguistics. 2, ed. A. Kakouriotis, School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 1991, 42-50.

With relation to conjunction I examine the notion of category  and I look at it from different angles  in an attempt to define it.  I raise the question whether it is worth dealing with categorial notions at all at the more realistic level of investigating language structure-cum-use.

(Symp. 8th) Some preliminary remarks on the Greek causal conjunctions jati, dioti and epeidi. Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on English and Greek. School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 305-18, 1994.

The main causal conjunctions in subordinate structures in Modern Greek according to Tzartzanos (1989) are jati, dioti, epeidi and pu. In this paper I make some preliminary observations on the first three. I examine their distribution and look at their functions and their grammatical properties.

(MEG17) Further remarks on causal connectives (in Greek) (Koutoupi-Kitis). [MEG] Studies in Greek Linguistics 17, 1996, 424-37.

This study is a continuation of Kitis (1994).  The three main causal connectives, jati, dioti and epeidi  are further examined in terms of their distribution and the implications derived therefrom. Although they are not freely interchangeable, they are all translated as because in English. I discuss differences of semantic meaning and differences in terms of their function. It is concluded that accounts of their linguistic behaviour can be particularly informed by an appreciation of earlier meanings and processes conjunctions went through.

(RSP8)  Temporality and causality. The case of Greek subordinating connectives. [MEG] Studies in Greek Linguistics 17, 1996, 424-37. 

In a number of studies I have examined the main subordinating causal connectives of Modern Greek, and I have shown that, even in prototypical purely causal connectives, aspects of their evolution as well as their etymological make-up seem to be implicated in current functions and meanings of these connectives. In particular, the domains of temporality and causality have been shown to abut in interesting ways, since current uses of purely causal connectives seem to be reflexes of their prior temporal uses.  In the present paper, I extend this approach to primarily temporal connectives, which, however, are also used secondarily as causal. In other words, I examine connectives, which, while registered as temporal in mass linguistic consciousness, exhibit a clear overlap in current usage of temporal and causal domains. Moreover, they are shown to have developed meanings in the domains of conditionality and contrastingness. Processes of grammaticalization, it is claimed, have constrained their semantic and pragmatic meanings to an extent that the functions of the introduced adverbial clauses seem to be direct reflexes of these historical origins and particular etymologies. It is concluded that the case of these M. Greek connectives, too, is a clear case where a synchronic analysis is, not only motivated, but also particularly informed by an understanding of earlier meanings and of the processes they went through. Moreover, the functions of these connectives are compared to those of their English counterparts. The evidence from M. Greek informs current accounts of connectives.

(MEG20) Specific and general remarks on subordinating connectives of Modern Greek [in Greek] (Koutoupi-Kitis). [MEG] Studies in Greek Linguistics 20, 2000, 222-233. 

In this study I focus on some phenomena characterizing the use of certain subordinating connectives of Modern Greek, which have not to date been noted in grammar books or studies. More specifically, I consider the nature of connection of what have been traditionally regarded as subordinative connectives (eno), and I claim that there is a shift towards co-ordinate connection in their use in everyday speech, which is associated with semantic bleaching. The findings bear significantly on the widely entertained hypothesis of unidirectionality in grammaticalization processes.

 (ICGL4) The case of some temporal subordinative connectives: Existential and universal quantifiers [in Greek] (Koutoupi-Kitis). Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Cyprus, 1999. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2001, 268-276. 

In this paper, I concentrate on one aspect of the interconnection between two temporal subordinate connectives of Modern Greek, otan and afu, and their translational equivalents in English, when and since. Their distinct uses are accounted for in terms of their potential as quantification operators. Otan is claimed to also function as a universal quantification operator, while afu, on the other hand, is characterized as a bound existential one. Their distinct evolutions are presumed to have played a decisive role in this respect.

(P&C8) Connectives and frame theory. The case of antinomial hypotextual and. Pragmatics & Cognition 8(2): 357-409.

In this study I examine some uses of connectives, and in particular co-ordinate conjunction, from a critical discourse perspective; these uses, in my view, cannot find a satisfactory explanation within current frameworks. It is suggested that we need to identify a conceptual level at which connectives function as hypo-textual signals, activating systematic law-like conditional statements (IF-THEN), which form default specifications of consistent structured knowledge frames. I argue that an account of connectives at the conceptual level of their function that does not take into consideration such tightly structured background schemata, representing both general knowledge and ideologies, cannot afford any generality. As a result, 'deviant' or 'subversive' uses of these connectives can neither be identified as such nor find an adequately general explication within existing accounts, whereas in the proposed framework such uses find a ready explanation of sufficient generality. This framework lies at the intersection of disciplines: linguistic pragmatics (empirical pragmatics, critical discourse analysis), on the one hand, and cognitive science, on the other. Consequently, this proposal, too, can be regarded as a plea for crossing boundaries and joining forces. 

(Symp. 14th) On the Modern Greek conditional connective an, or towards restoring the image of the Greek culture. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics.  From the 14th International Symposium April, 2000. Ed. M. Makri-Tsilipakou. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2002, 154-174.

There has been a claim regarding the monosemicity (or un-ambiguousness) of the connective an of Modern Greek (MG) as compared to its translational equivalent if in English (Athanasiadou, 1997, henceforth AA). While the latter has been claimed by several researchers to function, not only as a conditional connective, but also as a concessive and adversative one, signifying factuality, on the other hand, MG an has been claimed to unambiguously signify conditionality, but not concession or adversativity. On account of the alleged validity of this finding, also allegedly supported by an examination of other MG concessive connectives, that is, on the assumption that the domains of conditionality, concession or adversativeness are non-overlapping, divergent domains in Greek, the additional claim has also been advanced that the Greek culture is far less ambiguous than the English one (AA).  In this paper, my aim is to restore the picture of the MG conditional connective an. On the basis of an examination of real data, it will be demonstrated that, despite the existence of connectives such as eno(while), afu(since) and ama(if[cond.temporal]), MG an can function, not only as a conditional connective, but also as a concessive and adversative one, signifying factuality as well, just like its English counterpart. Moreover, I will advance the thesis that both English if and MG an are used in contrastive and concessive contexts, as well as conditional ones, as strategic devices of rhetorical structures. They are not unique in this function, as I have already shown that connectives have potential as evaluative devices in rhetorical constructions (Kitis, 2000, forthcoming [a], [b], Koutoupi-Kitis 2000). I also review AA's tripartite classification of MG concessive connectives and prove it vacuous. My findings are hoped not only to restore an (and other MG connectives discussed in AA) as a connective bringing together such domains as conditionality, concessivity and adversativity in MG, but also suspend rather harsh and indiscriminate aphorisms regarding complicated issues of culture. 

Constructional modus ponens: The case of antinomial when-construction  

My objective in this paper is to present evidence for the claim that explanatory models of linguistic phenomena need to include constructs whereby a theory can associate semantic and pragmatic interpretation principles with syntactic configurations larger than those corresponding to simple sentences. I focus on a certain type of when-clauses and try to tease out the various competing forces which contribute to the generation of its construction very much in Kay's (1997, ch. 8) fashion. I identify and fill in a template, corresponding to the enlarged when-clause's syntactic pattern coupled with its semantic characteristics and pragmatic interpretation and function.  Moreover, I claim that it is precisely the properties identified here and their concurrent function as a constructional unit that contribute to, and indeed generate, its potential for rhetorical use. In fact, the when-construction that will emerge here is a prime rhetorical construction as well. We will discover that we need to look on when-clauses such as the ones identified here as constructions in order to provide an adequate account of their use and rhetorical potential.

(IPrA7) Conditional constructions as rhetorical structures 

In this paper I will look into conditional constructions as rhetorical constructions used in discourse. Conditionality is almost tantamount to unassertability (Comrie 1986, Dancygier 1998), and hence one would naturally think that in discourse conditional constructions would not have a great role to play in cases in which epistemic distance is not required. While accepting this generally held view in broad terms, I will nevertheless try to demonstrate that despite the common property of unassertability characterizing conditional constructions, in fact, we often use conditional constructions, not in order to register epistemic distance, but rather to enhance the assertability of the apodosic proposition of the construction, and fuse in the if-clause a pluralization of voices. I will argue for a class of conditional constructions whose protasic propositions are not treated as precarious assumptions or context propositions generally presenting insecure knowledge, but rather as extracted or dislocated constituents of the clause of the apodosis, developed into full conditional clauses and regarded as focalized topics. I will argue that this class of conditionals, which I will call pseudocleft conditionals, needs to be viewed as a separate construction whose analysis will also involve the description of the rhetorical discourse function that determines its construction.

 (MS1) Causal connectives. The evidence from Greek.

In this paper I concentrate on the main or prototypical monolexemic purely causal subordinating connectives of Modern Greek (MG). While it is acknowledged that connectives function on a multiplicity of levels, this study focuses on a conceptual brand of their meaning, which is assumed to give rise to later developments of meanings and functions at other levels of discourse. This perspective seems to be particularly enlightened by a historical approach that looks into the origins of MG subordinating causal connectives. Processes of grammaticalization are shown to have constrained their semantic and pragmatic meanings to an extent that the functions of the introduced adverbial clauses seem to be direct reflexes of these historical origins. It is concluded that the case of the Greek causal connectives — as indeed of many other connectives of Greek— is a clear case where a synchronic analysis is, not only motivated, but particularly informed by an understanding of earlier meanings and of the processes they went through. Additional interest lies in the fact that, whereas in English because is the only causal subordinator— at least the prototypical one— in Greek there are at least three 'clearly' causal subordinators realizing causal relations, but also highlighting distinct functions of the introduced adverbial clauses. The parallel courses of the English because  and the MG causal subordinators are compared. The evidence from MG is shown to inform current accounts of connectives.

 Dynamical systems as a metaphor in linguistics. The case of two connectives of Modern Greek, 'eno' and kathos'.  In The Other Within. VII: Aspects of Language and Culture. Ed. Eliza Kitis. Thessaloniki: A.A.Altintzis, 2001, 87-102. (with K. Zafiriadou)

This paper examines two Modern Greek connectives, 'eno' and 'kathos' and compares them to their English counterparts, 'while' and 'as'. The analysis borrows the conceptual apparatus from the theory of chaos (catastrophic semantics) and uses it as a broad metaphor to explain the functional differences between the two connectives. It is concluded that 'eno' designates discrete functions while 'kathos' marks parallel or continuous functions.

 (JoP28) Read it and believe it. How metaphor constructs ideology in news discourse; a case study. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 557-590, 1997.

Although it may be argued that critical linguistics  needs to examine language as discourse, i.e., as text embedded in the social conditions of production and interpretation, to be independently identified and examined as the text is subordinated to them (Fairclough, 1992, Hodge and Kress, 1988), we claim that a thorough linguistic analysis, employing all the methods and tools which the discipline provides is in a large measure revealing of such conditions. However, to yield such results, i.e., to unravel these conditions and their contribution to the generation of ideological complexes, a linguistic analysis should not be restricted to viewing grammatical units as isolated sentences or smaller structures within the text, as has been the case in traditional approaches, but rather examine such grammatical and lexical structures as being incorporated in the overall formation of the text. Moreover, the focus should be primarily on higher-level organizational features as well as on rhetorical structures and semantic and pragmatic relations as they contribute to the general style of the text, thus yielding desired versions of reality and ideologies. We substantiate this claim by analyzing an article published in Time (October 12, 1992) entitled Greece's Defense Seems Just Silly. While paying close attention to both the grammatical and lexical structures of the text, our analysis views these structures  within the framework of a constructed metaphor which not only permeates and dominates the whole article, but also forms the backbone of its argumentative structure. What is foregrounded, moreover, in this multi-level analysis is a preponderance of certain assumptions of an ideological nature, which, although they do not form part of the formal structure of the text, are aspects of interpretations surreptitiously cued into the subtext of the text. 

 (W&I) Ads-part of our lives. Linguistic awareness of powerful advertising. Word & Image 13, 304-13, 1997.

It has been claimed (Cook 1988, 'Stylistics with a dash of advertising' Language & Style) that advertising too, just as literature, is characterized by poetic language, involving deviations such as metaphor, ambiguities, etc. I argue that even in the absence of such literary devices as metaphor, lexical or anaphoric ambiguity, double meanings, etc., advertising discourse still employs stylistic techniques ingeniously used in order to construct prospective consumers (Fairclough 1989, 1992). Moreover, it is suggested that ads are seen and act as powerful rhetorical arguments since their objective is persuasion and seduction.

   (Symp. 11th) A frame-theoretic interpretation of Anne Sexton's poem 'Buying the whore'.  Proceedings of 11th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, ed. S. Efstathiadis and A. Tsangalidis, Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1997, 121-129. (With Aneta Karagiannidou) 

This paper provides further evidence that a cognitive approach to poetry interpretation, based on frame theory, as developed within the framework of Cognitive Science, is not only feasible, but also yields new insights. This approach is demonstrated by way of analysing a poem, Anne Sexton's 'Buying The Whore'. In this type of interpretation, the emphasis is laid on what can be called existential holism: interpretation, although sparked off by textual elements, is primarily based on shared knowledge of the world and its reception and comprehension in terms of systematically organized components, frames and scripts, rather than on atomistic, often idiosyncratic, inferencing processing. This type of interpretation, therefore, is neither text-centred or -bound, nor inference-centred. It is holistic in that it evolves from systematic and comprehensive shared background knowledge of the surrounding world—the cosmic environment in which the poem is born and sustained in life—and the way this knowledge has to be reorganised on the basis of textual stimuli.

(G1)  Constructing an identity. The significance of sui-referential markers in Bradstreet's poem 'The Flesh and the Spirit'. Gramma 3, 1995, 27-40.  

According to a widely accepted interpretation, Bradstreet's poem 'The Flesh and the  Spirit' reflects the clash of feeling and dogma in her poetry (Rosenfeld 1983), or it constitutes the "most definite statement of Christian hope", while at the same time it is "probably her strongest assertion of doubt of the reality of the insubstantial" (Stanford 1974: 85). In earlier work (Kitis and Mehler Language & Style 25, 2; Kitis and Mehler 1994) we argued that this interpretation is sustained and borne out by the discourse of the poem. We offered a linguistic-stylistic analysis of the poem concentrating on the context constructed by the deixis of the discourse. It was also noted there that the use of deictic sui-referential markers generating subject positions is consequential for the same level of interpretation of the poem. However, we did non take up the point in any detail. In this paper, I examine the logomachia between the two sisters, the two sides of a self - the Flesh and the Spirit - through the subject positions generated by the use of deictic self-referential pronouns. A psychoanalytic perspective is adopted.

(KK) Logomachia in Anne Bradstreet's 'The Flesh and the Spirit'. In E. Douka-Kabitoglou (ed.) Logomachia: Forms of Opposition in English Language/Literature. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, 1994, 61-79. (with Carol Mehler)

This paper proposes a partial linguistic analysis of Anne Bradstreet's poem. We examine it from the pragmastylistic point of view, not in an interpretative or evaluative fashion, but rather with a view to contributing to a certain level of its interpretation. The linguist's contribution, as we see it, is to start from an evaluation or a specific level of interpretation of the poem or text and work her way through the means in an effort to enhance appreciation and  understanding. The analysis will primarily address the issue of the logomachia between the two sisters and the issue of the substantiality of the Spirit's claims. It will consider the impact of the lexical choices made as constituting the coordinates of the text which determine the response of the reader.

(Symp.7th) Why questions? The interrogative mode in Anne Bradstreet's 'The Flesh and the Spirit'. Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on English and Greek. Comparison of the two languages. Thessaloniki: 1993, 29-44. (with Carol Mehler)

In this paper we examine Flesh's interrogative mode in the poem. It is demonstrated that Flesh's probing interrogatives unite form and function. They function to question Spirit about her beliefs through an iterated form of inverting propositional content. Continually hearing such a pattern, the ultimate effect can move spirit to invert normally declarative propositions. Then, 'I do believe in God' becomes 'Do I believe in God?'

 (L&S25)  Warring contraries in 'The Flesh and the Spirit'. Language and Style, 25(2), 1-18. (with Carol Mehler)

According to a widely accepted interpretation, Bradstreet's poem 'The Flesh and the  Spirit' reflects the clash of feeling and dogma in her poetry (Rosenfeld 1983), or it constitutes the "most definite statement of Christian hope", while at the same time it is "probably her strongest assertion of doubt of the reality of the insubstantial" (Stanford 1974: 85). In this paper we demonstrate how this level of interpretation is sustained by the discourse of the poem. The language of the poem is patterned so as to provide a whole set of stylistic contrasts, and the linguistic analysis offered concentrates on the context constructed by the deixis of the discourse, which consists of two subsets, the proximal and the distal. Lexical opposition, deictics of time and space, as well as their significance for the interpretation of the poem, are pointed out and discussed in the paper. The epitome of the stylistic contrasts, however, is the question-answer or criticism-defence pair and it is also catechistic discourse, therefore, that is explored in this paper from a discourse-analytic point of view.

(L&S) Brendan Behan's speech acts in the The Quare Fellow. Language and Style, forthcoming (with Patra Kontoulis)

Behan's work, and particularly 'The Quare Fellow', shares a twofold message: art is an agent of truth and the truth about society and the individual is that they have lost all moral being. Criticism is directed at both the individual and society for appropriating mechanisms of power and constructs of truth that make life easier but shallower. This claim is substantiated by analysing an excerpt from the play primarily in terms of the characters' speech acts.

(SemioVth) The semiotization of frames in interpretation [in Greek]. In G. Paschalidis and E. Hondolidou (eds) Semiotics and Culture, VI . Thessaloniki, Paratiritis, 2001, 212-223.

On the assumption that there is hardly a one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning, in this study I show how meaning is derived in its contextualization in frames and scripts. I demonstrate this by way of analysing mostly cartoons. I suggest that the nebulous notion of 'context' needs to be gradually and systematically replaced by well structured frames.

(Metafr)  'A counter-proposal for the translation of poetry [In Greek]. Commenting on David Rick's translation of Kariotakis'. Metafrasi 5, 1999, 173-182.

This is a critical comment on David Rick's translation of Kariotakis (1998). I demonstrate that by depriving his translation of the double-speared arrow of the original, pointing both upwards and downwards, Ricks impoverishes the textual world created in his translation and thus reduces the wide range of interpretations sustained by the original. It is argued that translators should pay particular attention to creating equivalently broad textual worlds.

(Melo) 'The poetics of the message' [In Greek]. In Melodrama: Discursive and Ideological Transformations. Ed. S. Patsalidis and A. Nicolopoulou . Thessaloniki, University Studio Press, 2001, 547-578.

In this paper I present the melodramatic use of language in various discourse types. I focus primarily on the discourse of advertising, jokes, cartoons, headlinese, fliers and news discourse.

 (SL7) Multilingual concepts in Education. Greece.  Sociolinguistica 7, 1993, 119-34.

Multilingualism and Education are reviewed within the Greek context. In this connection the paper discusses quantitative and qualitative data of multilingualism, autochthonous and allochthonous languages, principles of territoriality versus individuality, multilingualism in language planning and in language politics, focusing on particularities of the educational system. It gives an overview of the multilingual situation in Greece, discussing minority issues and educational problems in this respect. It also offers a comparison with neighbouring countries on this matter. The paper  concludes with a critical evaluation and with a presentation of further perspectives.

(JAL7)  Hellas. Dialect and school. Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, 1991, 97-113. (Shorter version in Language International 2, 1990, 15-7).

This paper discusses the present language situation in the context of Greece with an emphasis on problematic issues in Education. It is stressed that the Greek language is rather homogeneous but it is added that dialectal variation in it has been mostly studied from the point of view of phonetic and morphological or at the most lexical variation while little attention has been paid to sociological correlates of variation. It reviews the present situation in the school context and remarks that appreciation of dialectal variation should be appreciated by educators. To this end attitudes need to be changed towards sociological aspects of language variation.

(Symp.13th) Reporting speech acts in ELT. Proceedings of 13th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Festschrift for Prof. A. Kakouriotis. Ed. K. Nicolaidis and M. Mattheoudaki. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press 2000, 265-275. 

The paper focuses on problems in EFL environments generated by poor understanding of the functions of utterances or rather by not viewing sentences as utterances of functional discourse. More specifically, it concentrates on problems in reporting discourse or what is conventionally called 'reported speech'. Rather than following traditional 'recipes' of what needs to be done when confronted with such tasks, teachers need to sensitize their students to the multiple functions of utterances in discourse often forsaking their formal grammatical features and structures. In order to equip their students in this task teachers themselves need to be familiar with the fundamentals of the functionality of discursive utterances on a theoretical rather than a haphazard empirical basis. This paper aims at demonstrating the need for acquiring a 'pragmatic slant' in our teaching of reporting discourse or at applying our knowledge of pragmatics to at least one area of language teaching.

Expressivity as an option of Tense-Aspect-Mood in language: The case of Modern Greek imperfective past.

The core meanings and functions of the main tense and aspect options and their configurations in Modern Greek (hereafter MG) have been identified and amply described in the literature – concentrating on morphological, syntactic and semantic issues. The focus of this paper will be on instances in which the predicted TAM configurations in certain contexts are violated and the reasons that lead to this violation. Crucially, we are going to concentrate on what may be called a parameter of expressivity affecting the interpretation of otherwise well-understood grammatical behaviour. In effect, we will propose that we need to postulate a multi-level model of linguistic analysis for the description of tense-aspect, in order to accommodate the data observed. We will propose that, while truth-functional propositional meaning can be accounted for at the referential level of language analysis, expressive or evaluative and ideological 'meanings' can be deferred and explained at the interpersonal level of expressivity in language use. We, thus, manage to preserve our grammatical categories intact with their core semantic meanings, but we are also given the possibility to explicate subjective non-truth-functional 'meanings' or implications that need a pragmatic framework or a broader evaluative semantics (Kitis 2000)#P&C8 in order to be adequately accounted for.

Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koutoupis-Kitis, Problems connected with the notion of Implicature. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, 1982. (supported by a major 3-yr studentship by the DES, UK)

Abstract: As the title suggests, the primary concern of this study is with problems arising from a very widely used notion in the literature of linguistics and philosophy, the notion of implicature. As this concept was introduced and developed by the philosopher H. P. Grice, the main part of the study is centred on his work. Grice distinguished between two main types of implicature, the conventional and the conversational. In the first part the study is concerned with, what Grice called, conventional implicature, and in particular with the linguistic items generating it, as described in his work. Thus the aim of this part of the study is to investigate the nature of conventional implicata, and to raise the question whether they can be justifiably claimed to be non-consequential for truth-valuation and invariable, as Grice argues. His account in this respect is found to be partly implausible, as regards his treatment of 'therefore', and partly inadequate, as it fails to take into account the wide ranging function of 'but', his paradigm of conventional implicature, but treats its variable meaning aspects as invariable, conventional implicature. In view of the intriguing linguistic behaviour of 'but', the main contributions to the topic in the literature are reviewed and found implausible (R. Lakoff, 1971, Dascal and Katriel, 1977, etc.). An alternative account is proposed in which  p and q  within p but q constructions are treated as moves towards a pre-set goal. As far as 'therefore' is concerned, the study distinguishes between two uses of this connective. Its argumentative or inferential one and its explanatory one. In both cases the invocation of enthymematic premises is discussed. 

In the second part of the study the primary aim is to consider in detail linguistic phenomena that have come under the rubric of conversational implicature in the literature, with an emphasis on Grice's examples, with a view to detecting common characteristics that can be taken as the parameters along which these phenomena can be defined as a homogeneous class. It is concluded that they cannot. Moreover, most of Grice's particularized conversational implicatures are shown to be bogus cases of implicature, and it is concluded that the allegedly implicata are no more than aspects of activated background knowledge. More stringent criteria are proposed for membership in a narrowly defined class of particularized conversational implicature in terms of speaker intentionality and relevance, and the maxim of Relevance is proposed as the primary (and first if not only) maxim that is violated in its generation. Further, the particularized conversational implicature (q) thus defined is considered to be more significant communicatively than what is said (p), which is considered to be merely the vehicle of the implicature. Additionally, two classes of background knowledge and assumptions are described and shown to bear significantly on language production and understanding and, in particular, on the production and understanding of linguistic facts that have been called conversational implicatures. It is concluded that the term 'conversational implicature' has been misused and abused. The view taken here is that background knowledge schemes must be taken into account and represented in a language theory, though the difficulties facing such an enterprise are well understood and acknowledged. Scripts and frames are borrowed from cognitive science and are experimented with. 

The overall conclusion is that Grice's proposal effects a cut and dried demarcation between a neat but narrowly defined truth-functional semantics, on the one hand, and an unexplicated pragmatics, on the other, that would, however, include the most intriguing aspects of language use. This view of language is not very revealing and, hence, uninteresting and unappealing. The final proposal of the thesis combines the philosophical tradition with a conversation-analytic approach (Ethnomethodology), but also incorporates findings from the field of cognitive science (scripts and frames). In other words, the pragmatic perspective adopted lies at the intersection of cognitive and social domains.  

Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Semantics, Ling-2-341 (undergraduate), Instructor: Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

ECTS Code: G-LSUD3 ThLing 341E Semantics

Course Description: Semantics can now be viewed as a component discipline of linguistics, which is the study of meaning, that field of linguistics where language makes contact with reality. Some time ago semantics was not the concern of the linguist but was rather abandoned to the philosopher, as then the current view was that semantics was a messy business not fit to occupy a place within the framework of the scientific study of language. The main concern of the linguist then was syntax and phonology, which study the structure of expressive options in language. Semantics, however, has since the 1970s been accorded a very central position in linguistic studies. In this course, we will try to explore the organization of the semantic structure of language and acquaint ourselves with the types of analysis involved in this enterprise. Students are urged to take this course after they have taken courses in phonology, morphology, and syntax, as these components of linguistics are historically and methodologically prior to semantics. 

Reading List: 

  These books are on reserve in the Departmental Library. Students can take them out on a limited basis. There is also a Semantics folder kept in the library for students' use. In there you will find notes by E. Kitis Semantics. The Study of Meaning (MS) (ca 200pp). This is required reading.

Course Requirements:  The course will be assessed by an end-of-term exam.  

Course Outline
A. SCOPE OF SEMANTICS 

B. THE WORD: Meaning and the world 

C. THE SENTENCE: Meaning within language: Structural semantics I

 D. Meaning within language: Structural semantics II
1. The meaning  of "meaning" 

2. What is communication? 

3. The emergence of semantics 

4.Working concepts

 

 

1. The concept of meaning: sign, signifier, signified 

2. The triangle of signification

3. Meaning and reference:
referring expressions equative sentences, generic sentences predication,deixis and definiteness,    extensions and prototypes  

 

Sense Relations  

1. Meaningfulness/lessness

2. Sense  

3. Analytic/Synthetic sentences

4. Synonymy, Hyponymy, Polysemy

5.Antonymy, Contradiction, Converseness, Complementarity

6. Entailment, Paraphrase

7. Semantic Ambiguity

Semantic Fields

1. Structuralism: the Saussurean dichotomies

2. Semantic fields

3. Syntagmatic lexical relations  

 
 E. LOGICAL SEMANTICS: Formalization of sentence meaning F. Formalization of word meaning   G. MEANING AS INTENTION 

1. Propositional calculus

2.Logical connectives

3.Truth-conditions and logical form

4.Compositionality

5. Reflexivity
(a)symmetry, transitivity

1. Componential analysis 

2.Meaning postulates 

3.Selectional restrictions 

 

 1. Grice's theory of meaning

2. Reactions 

 

 

Pragmatics, Ling-2-350 (undergraduate), Instructor: Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

ECTS Code: G-LSUD3 ThLing 350 E Pragmatics

Course description: The purpose of this course is to provide some indication of the scope of pragmatics which deals with the question of how utterances have variable meanings in specific situations, i.e., with language usage. It will, therefore, examine utterances not in isolation from the co-text, context, and other factors, as might be done in semantics, but within their co-text, and in relation to a number of factors contributing to variability of meaning. Areas which will be dealt with will include speech-acts, various topics relating to presupposition and implicatures and an introduction to the principles governing conversation. Relevance is also reviewed. This course is both logically and methodologically dependent on prior knowledge of the fundamentals of semantics. Therefore, it is greatly urged that only students who have already passed Semantics (Ling-2-341) take this course.   

Textbooks:

Selected articles will be assigned during the course (Corpus).  

A PRAGMATICS folder (Corpus) is kept at the library for student use. 

Method of assessment:              

 The course will be assessed by in-class quizzes (no advance notice) (25% of the total grade), and an end-of-term exam (75%). Students who wish to do an assignment must see the instructor.  

Course Outline
A. THE SCOPE OF PRAGMATICS   B. SPEECH-ACT THEORY   C. THE LOGIC OF CONVERSATION   D. PRESUPPOSITION E. RELEVANCE

1. What is Pragmatics? The origin of the term
2. The emergence of Pragmatics
3. Code-Inferential Model of Communication
4. Some useful concepts  

 

1.Introduction: The Descriptive Fallacy, Speech as activity
2. Performative utterances, constative utterances
3. Felicity Conditions
4. Explicit Performatives-Descriptive utterances
5. Phone-Pheme-Rheme
6. Locution, Illocution, Perlocution
7. Regulative-Constitutive rules
8. Direct-Indirect speech acts
9. A Taxonomy of illocutionary acts  

1. Introduction
2. Crice's Co-operative Principle: the maxims
3. Grice's theory of Implicatures: types of implicature
4. Tests for implicature  

 

 1. Semantic Presupposition
2. Pragmatic Presupposition		 1. Can relevance replace the CP?
2. Local and Global Relevance

Students may opt to do an assignment in lieu of the end-of-term exam. The assignment must be type-written of about 3,000 words, and must be handed in a week before the date of the exam. It needs to conform to stylesheet requirements and include a bibliography. Students are urged to design their own research topic/project and are also encouraged to select a more applied topic in consultation with Eliza Kitis. Here are some suggested theoretical topics:

Suggested Research Topics for PRAGMATICS  Ling-2-350

Discourse Analysis, Ling-4-420 (undergraduate), Instructor: Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

(ECTS Code: G-LSUD4 LingSp 420E Discourse Analysis)

Course Description: This course is designed to be partly theoretical and partly practical. In its theoretical part students will be acquainted with various modes of the analysis of spoken discourse and text, i.e., the focus will be on language in its linguistic and situational context, as used by its speakers. This is a direct consequence of the view taken in this course that language is important not because of what people can say or mean in it or by it, but because of what they can do with it. In its practical component, students will be asked to examine the natural spoken and written discourse of native speakers and apply whatever knowledge of analysis they have acquired. A positive gain will be access to samples of the constructions that are being investigated. Taking into account the context of the discourse (linguistic, social, etc.) it is hoped that students will unravel facts about English which are not encountered in an examination of English as consisting of strings of grammatically well-formed sentences or utterances. They are expected to develop an awareness of issues such as why some forms or constructions are used in specific contexts rather than others and possibly generate their own hypotheses which might be put to test. Amongst other things, this course will aim to make prospective teachers of English acquire a critical stand towards reference grammars and coursebooks intended for the use of EFL and help them to develop an awareness of the need to heed and incorporate the findings of discourse analysis in their teaching strategies and materials designing. It cannot be overemphasized that an appreciation of the issues discussed in this course will greatly depend on a fair grounding in general linguistics, semantics and pragmatics. Therefore it is recommended that this course follows the above. It must also be stressed that the practical component of this course presupposes small classes.

Method of assessment: Final exam/option of research paper.  

Course Outline  

Introduction  

Cohesion in language  

Coherence  

Computing communicative function

Speech Acts  

The Logic of Conversation  

What is discourse?

Is discourse structured?

Language, action, knowledge, situation

Discourse Analysis (DA) and Linguistics

The place of DA and Pragmatics within linguistics

Some general concepts / Terminology  

Are cohesive ties a necessary and /or sufficient condition for texture?

Text vs. non-text  

 

Linguistic structures

Language functions  

 

The performative hypothesis

Locutions, illocutions, perlocutions

Explicit-implicit speech acts

Indirect speech acts

Classification of speech acts  

 

The Co-oP Principle

Flouting the Co-oP Principle and Implicature  

 
Politeness Strategies of Conversation: Conversational Structure   Dialogic Discourse   Knowledge Structure   Relevance  
The social basis of conversational implicature  

Rules of Discourse (Rules of Production/Interpretation)
Local Management System:
Turn-taking Adjacency-pairs: types
Conditional relevance
Transition relevance place
Instruction sequences
Preference organization  

 Information Structure  

Textbooks:

PRAGMATICS (GRADUATE) 

ELing 2-542: Pragmatics  

 Instructor: Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

Course description: In the undergraduate course of Pragmatics the student is initiated into how we, as language-users, understand what other language-users mean, on account of what they say, but sometimes despite what they say, and how we make sense of what we read in texts. In sum, rather than examining components of language as constituents of an abstract system, the focus  in a course in Pragmatics is on language-in-use. At this graduate level, the aim is to delve more deeply into the same aspects of language-use in order to acquire mastery of the functionality of language. The course will briefly review the roots of Pragmatics and will start with the philosopher Wittgenstein, who inaugurated two distinct, but equally important, trends in philosophy of language. The aim of the course is to help the student to come to grips with fundamental issues in Pragmatics. More specifically, the course will cover areas in Speech Act Theory, Logic of Conversation, Implicature and Relevance. Within this framework students will be acquainted with the work of Austin, Searle, Grice, the neo-Griceans and relevance theorists. An appreciation of the main thrust of Grice's philosophy of language as well as the distinct philosophy of a relevance-theoretic view of language will be within the objectives of the course.

The course is of immediate (but, alas, not so obvious) relevance to language teaching, as it extends to an appreciation of language use beyond the sentence. It also bears on literary criticism (hence the terms 'literary pragmatics' and 'pragmastylistics') since it will deal with language in its textual, social and psychological context. (But there is no time to make the connections as no practical component is included).

However, pragmatics nowadays, by introducing a distinct perspective, has opened new vistas for domains and fields such as speech and visual communication, critical thinking, rhetoric, reading and listening theories, composition studies, film studies, semiotics, pictorial perception, informal logic, cognitive psychology, literary theory, education, argumentation, sociology, psychiatry (psychosis, various disorders, developmental disabilities), etc. Pragmatics also provides the sturdy (back)ground for work in computer science and Artificial Intelligence (AI). And it goes without saying that nowadays all the hyphenated subfields of linguistics, such as socio-linguistics or psycho-linguistics, as well as  components of it, such as morphology, all tend to incorporate in their research a pragmatic perspective.

Method of assessment: 1. Research paper  2. Active in-class participation /quizzes

Basix Textbooks:          

Additional reading: A selection of papers relevant to topics discussed in class.

Syllabus

Background: Earlier Wittgenstein:

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922[1961]) Tractatus Logicophilosophicus, trsl. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

                         Later Wittgenstein:

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953) Philosophical Investigations, trsl. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

What is Pragmatics:              

Speech Act Theory:

Further Reading: 

Implicature:   LOGIC and CONVERSATION: GRICE

NEO-GRICEANS:   

 Relevance:  

(Below are some high aspirations)

 Frame Semantics: Fillmore

 Sweetserian domains

Broad research areas (Pragmatics Course, Graduate), Instructor: E. Kitis

Research Topics: General 

  1. Is conventional implicature semantic or pragmatic?

  2.  If the notion of literal meaning is defensible in a semantic theory, what other / further analyses need to be offered in pragmatics towards a more comprehensive theory of meaning?

  3. Is a distinction between semantics and pragmatics defensible or plausible? What are the (dis)advantages?

  4. Do we need to view pragmatic meaning in a broader framework than that espoused in SAT(Speech Act Theory)? Defend. 

  5. What are the arguments in favour of regarding SAT as part of semantics?

  6. What are the arguments in favour of regarding SAT as part of pragmatics?

  7. What is Grice's motivation for discerning conventional implicature as distinct from conversational implicature? 

  8. Advance arguments towards regarding conventional implicature as part of truth-conditional meaning. 

  9. Advance arguments towards regarding conventional implicature as part of extra-logical, non-truth-conditional meaning. 

  10. What is the impact of Grice's theory of Logic and Conversation? 

  11. What is the connection between Grice's theory  of Logic and Conversation and his theory of Meaningnn? 

  12. Is meaning computed serially or parallely, i.e., what are the processes of computation of direct / indirect speech acts for example, or literal / non-literal [metaphorical, metonymical meaning]? 

  13. What is Grice's (indirect) answer to later Wittgenstein's account of meaning? 

  14. Is the postulation of CP (Cooperative Principle) defensible / universal?ho are the forerunners of Austin and in what way did they foreshadow his theory?

  15. What are the (dis)advantages of Austin's ground-breaking view of meaning as against the tradition in which he wrote (or taught)?

  16.   Is Searle's distinction between direct / indirect speech acts defensible?

  17. What are the advantages of a neo-Gricean account? What problems does it solve / create?

Research Topics: Relevance theory

  1. The main attractions of Relevance theory: What problems does it purport to solve and what problems does it create / leave unsolved? 

  2. How does Relevance theory compare to a Gricean or neo-Gricean account? 

  3. Is Relevance rightly postulated as the principle par excellence? Defend. 

  4.   Show the asocial nature of Relevance theory. In what ways could this be remedied?

Students are warned:
The bibliography given is sketchy and only indicative.
For any of the topics (sketchy too) they might choose, they need to delve much more deeply into the literature than covered in the course.
As students won't be offered the chance of an applied pragmatics, they will be allowed to do a research paper in an applied field (FLT. LT or stylistics or media analysis, etc.) 

Course: Semantics-Pragmatics ( Graduate)

Department of Linguistics, MA Programme

Course code: ELing 2-540

 Taught by: Eliza Koutoupi-Kitis

Tel.: 2310-99-7411, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

(All reading material in the course's packet, Library)

Main textbook:

J. Saeed (1997). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. (chs from this book)

(Background textbook):   J. Lyons (1977). Semantics. I. II. CUP

Additional reading: A selection of papers relevant to discussed topics

Method of assessment:

Week topic
Assigned Reading
Week 1  Semantics-Pragmatics: Background Ch. 1 (+ background reading)  
Week 2   Theories of Meaning: Thought-Reality, useful concepts   Ch. 2 (+ background reading)  
Week 3   Lexical Meaning    Ch. 3; D. Cruse (1986). Lexical semantics CUP; W. Hirtle 'The challenge of polysemy' in Y. Tobin (ed.) From sign to text,135-41, Benjamins; D. Tuggy (1993) 'Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness' GL: 273-90; P. Seuren (2001) 'Lexical meaning and metaphor', in Cognition in Language Use: Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference. V.1: 422-31. IprA; D. Geeraerts (1993). 'Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries' GL: 223-72; E. Koutoupi-Kitis  (2001)  'The semiotization of frames' [in Greek], in G. Paschalidis and E. Hondolidou (eds) Semiotics and culture. VI. Thessaloniki: Paratiritis.  
Week 4   Sentence Relations Presupposition, Entailment   Ch. 4; S. Levinson (1983) Pragmatics (Ch. 4); (Optional: G. Frege (1892) 'Sense and Reference'; P. Strawson (1952) 'On referring'  
Week 5   Context, Deixis   Ch. 7; S. Levinson (1983) Pragmatics (Ch. 2); A. Duranti & Ch. Goodwin (eds) (1992) Rethinking Context, CUP (Introduction); M. Petruck (1996) 'Frame Semantics' in Handbook of Pragmatics ed. J. Blommaert & Ch. Bulcaen, 1-13, Benjamins (EK's notes)  
Week 6  

 

Speech Act Theory

 

 Ch 8; S. Levinson (1983) Pragmatics (Ch. 5); E. Koutoupi-Kitis (MS) Pragmatics. The study of invisible meaning in language [in Greek]. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press. E. Kitis (2000) 'Reporting speech acts in ELT' Proceedings of 13th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Ed. K. Nicolaidou and M. Mattheoudaki , 265-275, Thessaloniki: University Studio Press; (Optional reading)  
Week 7   Logic and Conversation   S. Levinson (1983) Pragmatics (Ch. 3); E. Kitis (1982) Problems connected with the notion of Implicature, Univ. of Warwick Thesis; (Optional rding)  
Week 8   Formalisation of Lexical Meaning, Formal Semantics   Chs 9 & 10, E. Kitis (MS) Semantics: an Introduction; Y. Veloudis  (1998) Elements of formal Logic and Semantics, Aristotle University [in Greek]  
Week 9   Cognitive Semantics   Ch. 11; Marmaridou; G. Lakoff (1988) 'Cognitive Semantics' in U. Eco et al. Meaning and Mental Representations, 119-54, Indiana UP; R. Langacker (1997) 'The contextual basis of cognitive semantics' in J. Nuyts & Pederson (eds) Language and Conceptualization, 229-52, CUP
Week 10     Revision  

 

 

Course: SEMANTICS  ( Graduate)

Department of Linguistics, MA Programme

Course code: Ling 2-543

 Taught by: Eliza Koutoupi-Kitis

Tel.: 2310-99-7411, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

Topics covered
Theory of Meaning:

(1) Formalist or Constructivist: 

Frege's programme, Sense and Reference

Russell's Theory of Descriptions  Strawson on Referring 

Donnellan on Reference and Definite descriptions 

Wittgenstein (earlier), Set Theory, Propositional/Predicate Logic

 

 

   

Theory of Meaning:

(2) Ordinary Language approach:

Wittgenstein (later), Meaning as use

Austin, Speech-act Theory

Searle Speech-act Theory

Grice Meaning as Intention

Strawson Meaning as Convention

Lewis Convention

Grice Logic of Conversation

         Formal Pragmatics

(Optional)

(3) Foundations of T-G/Chomskyan paradigm:

 Philosophical Basis:

  Rationalism vs Empiricism

  The Innateness hypothesis

  Competence vs Performance

 Formal properties of T-G

  GB, Parameters, etc. 

 

 

Bibliography for Semantics (MA)

(1)        Gottlob Frege (1892) "On sense and reference". H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds). Readings in pholosophical analysis. NY: Appleton, 85-102.

            Bertrand Russell (1905) "On denoting" (in above item)

            Peter Strawson "On referring" Mind, in Steinberg&Jakobovits (S&J)

            Keith Donnellan, in (S&J)

E. Kitis (1989) "Frege's and Russell's solutions to the problems of non-existent subject terms, identity statements and opaque contexts" (in library)

(2)      Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953). Pholosophical Investigations. Blackwell.

            John Austin (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.

            John Searle (1969)

            Paul Grice in (S&J)

            Paul Grice (Logic of Conversation)

                        Neo-Griceans

                        Relevance

            D. Sperber & D. Wilson (1986) Relevance. Blackwell.

 

Assignment Topics for SEMANTICS (Graduate course):

  1. Compare Russell's and Strawson's approaches to a Theory of Reference.

  2. What are the (de)merits of Russell's Theory of denoting?

  3. Identify and discuss Frege's major contribution to semantics.

  4. Discuss and compare the notions of presupposition and entailment in a semantic theory. What problems have they created/solved?

  5. Frege regards his theory of sense and reference as applying not only to definite descriptions but also to ordinary proper names like 'Chicago'. Discuss.

  6. It is customary to distinguish between a semantic and a pragmatic notion of presupposition. What has necessitated the distinction? Which of the two notions is more essential in semantic theory? Discuss.

  7. Discuss the role of intention in a theory of communication.

  8. Discuss the role of intention in a semantic theory.

  9. Intention or convention? Discuss the two notions in formulating a semantic theory.

  10. Is presupposition a semantic relation between sentences or is it a relation between the latter and their speakers? Discuss.

  11. Presupposition and lexical semantics: In what way can presupposition contribute to a better understanding and/or description of lexical meanings?

  12. Provide some examples which seem to demand the semantic notion of presupposition and critically evaluate arguments in its favour.

  13. Discuss what is meant by 'appropriacy conditions' and evaluate their role in linguistic analysis.

 

MA Course: Issues in linguistic pragmatics Instructor: Eliza Kitis, ekitis@enl.auth.gr

Course description: The problem with language is that we can communicate, not just on the basis of what is said, but also on the basis of what is not said but meant. The purpose of this course is to explore this interface in language and ultimately in communication between what is encoded in linguistic terms and its relation to variable meanings and interpretations in specific situations, i.e., with language usage. It will, therefore, examine utterances not in isolation from the co-text, context, and other factors, as might be done in semantics, but within their co-text, and in relation to a number of factors contributing to variability of meaning. Areas which will be dealt with will include speech-acts, various topics relating to presupposition and implicatures, an introduction to the principles governing conversation and information structure. This course is of immediate relevance to many disciplines, such as media studies and translation studies, but, primarily, pragmatics constitutes the cornerstone of methodologies in language teaching. We will also explore the applicability of 'pragmatic' knowledge to the fields of translation and language teaching in an attempt to demonstrate the significance of such pragmatic knowledge for practitioners in the fields. 

 

Aristotle University, 

School of English, Department of Linguistics

 Eliza Koutoupi-Kitis

ekitis@enl.auth.gr

Bibliography for MA theses:

Reference/Proper Names:

Bertrand Russell  'On denoting'

_____              'Descriptions'

Gottlob Frege (1892)  'On sense and reference'.

Peter Strawson (1950) 'On referring'.

Peter Strawson (1964) 'Identifying reference and truth-values'.

Bertrand Russell 'Mr. Strawson on referring'

Keith Donnellan 'Reference and definite descriptions'

W. Quine (1953) 'Notes on the theory of reference'. In his From a logical point of view. NY: Harper Torchbooks.

____    ____  'Reference and modality' (as above).

John Lyons 1977  Semantics. VI, II. CUP (VI: ch7).

S. Kripke (1977)  'Speaker's reference and semantic reference'. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2: 255-76.

Kent Bach (1987) Thought and reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

K. Donnellan (1978) 'Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora'. Syntax and semantics 9:47-68.

F. Recanati (1990) 'Direct reference, meaning, and thought'. Noûs, 24:697-722.

M. Sainsbury (1985) 'The varieties of reference'. Mind, 94:120-42.

David Cooper (1973) Philosophy and the nature of language. Longman.

W. Sellars  (1954) 'Presupposing'. Philosophical Review, 63:197-215.

Proper Names/Reference:

David Cooper (1973) Philosophy and the nature of language. Longman.

Jonathan Cohen   (1980) 'The individuation of Proper Names'. In Z. van Straaten (ed.) Philosophical subjects: Essays presented to P. F. Strawson. Osford: Clarendon Press, 140-63.

Hilary Putnam (1975) The meaning of meaning'. In Philosophical Papers, v.  2: Mind, Language and Reality. CUP, 215-71.

S. Kripke (1980) Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (look for abridged version in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.

J.J. Katz (1990) Has the description theory of names been refuted?' In G. Boolos (ed.) Meaning and method: Essays in honour of Hilary Putnam. CUP, 31-61.

B. Brody (1977) Kripke on Proper Names'. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2:64-69.

J. Searle (1969)  'Proper Names'. In his Speech acts. CUP.

R. Carnap (1956) Meaning and necessity.  The University of Chicago Press.

M. Platts (1997) Ways of meaning. MIT University Press.

G. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet  (1990) Meaning and Grammar. MIT University Press.

 

Entailment:

R. Kempson (1975) Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. CUP.

R. Kempson (1977) Semantic theory. CUP.

J. Lyons (1977) Semantics. VI, II. CUP.

J. Lyons (1995) Linguistic semantics. CUP.

G. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet (1990) Meaning and Grammar. MIT University Press.

D. Wilson (1976) Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics. Academic Press.

 

Eliza Kitis
Professor of Linguistics (MA Essex, Ph.D. Warwick)

Address: School of English, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki 54124

Tel.: +30-2310-997411 (office)

Fax: +30-2310-997432

E-mail: ekitis@enl.auth.gr

(Last updated: January 2003)