Abstract
This book is based on Börjesson’s research for her doctoral dissertation. One of the latest books in the Language, Context and Cognition series, it is dedicated to discussing problematic terms like literal meaning and non-literal meaning, which have been used to characterize semantics and pragmatics, and to proposing revised criteria for the differentiation of these dichotomous terms.
The book comprises six chapters. Chapter 1 points out that one main problem with pairs of terms used in the differentiation of semantics and pragmatics is that the terms are not clearly defined. Chapter 2 argues against the notion of literal meaning as context-independent and non-literal meaning as context-dependent. Five approaches to lexical meaning (maximalist, intermediate, minimal, cognitive and Ruhl’s monosemic approach) are reviewed, showing that an underspecification approach to lexical meaning is superior, mainly because it can best reflect revised characterizations of such notions.
Chapter 3 mainly discusses on what level literal meaning is determined and what processes are involved in determining utterance meaning. Grice believed literal meaning is determined at the level of timeless meaning of utterance type, but for Bierswisch, it is at the level of utterance meaning. Relevance theory’s notion of explicature and Bach’s notion of implicature posit that utterance meaning is determined by both linguistically mandated forms and unarticulated constituents. However, others define the level of utterance meaning as the level of meaning resulting merely from a contextual saturation process. Börjesson also reviews several experiments aiming to test whether speakers intuitively differentiate what is said from what is meant, with results showing that it is difficult to prove experimentally that levels of meaning are psychologically real.
Chapter 4 discusses metaphor, irony, conversational implicature and indirect speech acts – phenomena identified as belonging to what is meant. Theories range from categorizing metaphorical meaning as explicit meaning, to arguing that a new category is created by the interpreter, to proposing a special operator for understanding metaphor. However, empirical experiments about the influence of familiarity and aptness on metaphor interpretation show that the literal meaning of a metaphor is not rejected immediately, but is activated initially and either stays activated or is suppressed later. Similarly, post-Gricean approaches propose that to interpret irony, the basic meaning must first be processed. Börjesson emphasizes the necessity of differentiating generalized and particularized conversational implicature, and she argues that indirect speech acts should not be treated in terms of conversational implicature.
Chapter 5 mainly presents three alternative characterizations of literal meaning and non-literal meaning and analyzes the role context plays in differentiating semantics from pragmatics. Börjesson emphasizes that both kinds of meaning should be viewed as being pragmatically determined. She characterizes literal meaning as basic and non-derived and non-literal meaning as non-basic and derived or deviating (p. 305). Börjesson further argues that the dichotomy context-independent versus context-dependent may only be used to differentiate linguistic semantics from pragmatics (p. 306).
Dichotomous terms like literal meaning and non-literal meaning have long been used to characterize the difference between semantics and pragmatics in the literature, but few linguists have questioned these basic notions. By contrast, Börjesson gives a thorough analysis of the characterization of meaning and utterance in different theories. Her book is worthy of careful reading by researchers and learners who are interested in the study of semantics and pragmatics for the following reasons.
First, it is a big challenge to argue against terms already used widely, including by influential researchers in the field, yet this book’s review of the use of terms such as literal meaning and non-literal meaning by linguists is so well organized and persuasive that it not only shows readers their vague definition and unclear distinction, but its logical argument also helps readers realize the urgency to come up with revised, clearer and less ambiguous characterizations. Such revision is beneficial for future researchers because it gives them a better understanding of these terms and the kinds and levels of meaning being classified, which will further better orientate them toward the exact kind and level of meaning they intend to analyze.
Second, the book’s conclusion that although revision has resulted in more adequate characterization of relevant notions these dichotomous terms are still inappropriate for differentiating semantics from pragmatics, is unprecedented, since these terms have been so widely used to characterize these two branches of linguistics that their adequacy to do so has also long been assumed to be beyond question. Börjesson’s proposal that these two branches are actually differentiated by the nature of processes constituting them is to a large degree innovative, considering that few previous studies have endeavored to find alternative criteria to characterize semantics and pragmatics.
Third, this book combines comparison of existing theories of utterance interpretation with presentation of empirical studies, which contributes to the convincing power of both Börjesson’s review of literature and the elaboration of her own characterization of meaning.
However, one limitation of this title relates precisely to its empirical discussion, which reports results of various experiments but only explains their respective data and specific analytic procedures, rather than examining them critically. With more critical examination, the empirical results presented could have been more persuasive, and the whole book could have achieved a better balance between theoretical discussion and empirical analysis. All in all, despite that limitation, this is an impressive book that will contribute a lot to the comprehensive study of meaning in linguistics.