Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Raskin1985 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - It is this theory, with its strong contextual emphasis, which has been found to be applicable to the analysis of humor, unlike its predecessors in semantics which were largely limited to the meaning of the sentence in isolation.
        
        Raskin's script-based lexicon 將分析時所需之extralinguistic knowledge降低
        
        Anti-contextual後果
        
        ...according to the meaning-in-isolation point of view, practically every sentence is ambiguous while in real discourse it would be easily and unnoticeably disambiguated by the context... (p.63)
        
        PTT data難以用formal semantics解釋
        
        Context重要性
        
        Every sentence is uttered in context, including imaginary one. Hearers also use their previous experience to facilitate sentence comprehension. If the above has not been accessible, the sentence will be incomprehensible.
        
        Normally the speaker's obvious context coincides with the hearer's obvious context. (p.63) That is, what speakers' context of utterance is determines what the utterance means. And hearer knows what the context is as well so he interprets the utterance by the same context as does the speaker. So they can communicate.
        
        What affects obvious context?
        
        Which of the two becomes the obvious context
        depends on a number of factors concerning the speakers' personal background and experience, their idiolect, and their most recent encounters
        with the objects or events referred to in the sentence.
        
        Implicature is thought by Raskin to be closely related to obvious context (p.64)
        
        The issue of the obvious context as well as that of the setting theory raise the important problem of the boundary between the knowledge of language and the knowledge of the world between linguistic knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge.
        
        The boundary between knowledge of language and knowledge of the world
        
        The former kind of knowledge is assigned to the proper domain of semantics while the latter is delegated to pragmatics.
        
        1 more item...
    - - Only match the speaker's competence with respect to a particular pre-selected feature
        
        What feature(s) do we have in semantics?
        
        The first formal semantics by Katz and Fodor (1963) are based on three features: ambiguity, semantic normalcy, and paraphrase.
        
        They suggested four abilities that semantic theory should account for.
        
        Katz and Fodor => Interpretive semantics (anti-contextual, p.61)
        
        Why anti-contextual?
        
        According to Katz and Fodor, in order to construct such a semantic theory a complete theory of settings would be necessary, and the latter would require a structured and formalized description of all the knowledge the speakers have about the world
    - - To account for the meaning of every sentence in every context it occurs.
        
        It recognizes the existence of the boundary between our knowledge oflanguage