Words that signal future content
Is it possible to 'live off the sea'
What was with Miles Morales's stickers?
Understanding the TeXlive release cycle: What is the meaning of a TeXlive release and is it ever 'finished'?
Avoiding cliches when writing gods
How to create a dictionary within a dictionary
Different pedals/effects for low strings/notes than high
Is it a problem if <h4>, <h5> and <h6> are smaller than regular text?
"You've got another thing coming" - translation into French
Should I compare a std::string to "string" or "string"s?
Is an early checkout possible at a hotel before its reception opens?
How to retract an idea already pitched to an employer?
Hottest Possible Hydrogen-Fusing Stars
The eyes have it
Trapping Rain Water
How to project 3d image in the planes xy, xz, yz?
My coworkers think I had a long honeymoon. Actually I was diagnosed with cancer. How do I talk about it?
Was the output of the C64 SID chip 8 bit sound?
How would a aircraft visually signal in distress?
Do simulator games use a realistic trajectory to get into orbit?
Where does "0 packages can be updated." come from?
What's up with this leaf?
Do any instruments not produce overtones?
Do the English have an ancient (obsolete) verb for the action of the book opening?
How did students remember what to practise between lessons without any sheet music?
Words that signal future content
Some content words signal that future content will likely follow. The words seem to act as a typing system for instances of the content. For example:
"I have an idea." --> one expects the idea to soon follow
"I have an example." --> (what is the example?)
"There are two things I need to say." --> (what are the two things?)
Is there a name for these kinds of words?
terminology semantics discourse-analysis
add a comment |
Some content words signal that future content will likely follow. The words seem to act as a typing system for instances of the content. For example:
"I have an idea." --> one expects the idea to soon follow
"I have an example." --> (what is the example?)
"There are two things I need to say." --> (what are the two things?)
Is there a name for these kinds of words?
terminology semantics discourse-analysis
add a comment |
Some content words signal that future content will likely follow. The words seem to act as a typing system for instances of the content. For example:
"I have an idea." --> one expects the idea to soon follow
"I have an example." --> (what is the example?)
"There are two things I need to say." --> (what are the two things?)
Is there a name for these kinds of words?
terminology semantics discourse-analysis
Some content words signal that future content will likely follow. The words seem to act as a typing system for instances of the content. For example:
"I have an idea." --> one expects the idea to soon follow
"I have an example." --> (what is the example?)
"There are two things I need to say." --> (what are the two things?)
Is there a name for these kinds of words?
terminology semantics discourse-analysis
terminology semantics discourse-analysis
asked 8 hours ago
jeff schneiderjeff schneider
466113
466113
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
User6726 is absolutely correct, but to expand a little bit:
The "more to follow" idea comes from Gricean implicature, not from the words themselves.
Grice's Maxims are four rules that people "expect" everyone in a conversation to follow. One is the maxim of relevance: if you're saying something, you're saying it for a reason, so it should be relevant to the context. Another is the maxim of quantity: you'll say as much as you need to get the point across.
"I have an idea" on its own generally seems to violate either relevance or quantity: in most contexts, that doesn't really add anything or give any useful information (bad relevance), and if the idea is relevant, you haven't said enough about it (bad quantity). But if you followed it up with "…we could foo the bar", that would fulfill both relevance and quantity. So people will be expecting that followup—it's the only way the first part makes pragmatic sense.
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
add a comment |
These words are nouns. The effect you're referring to doesn't come from those words. For example "That's why I rejected that idea", "I accepted his example", "As you know, Dr. Seuss wrote about two things". You can create an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31664%2fwords-that-signal-future-content%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
User6726 is absolutely correct, but to expand a little bit:
The "more to follow" idea comes from Gricean implicature, not from the words themselves.
Grice's Maxims are four rules that people "expect" everyone in a conversation to follow. One is the maxim of relevance: if you're saying something, you're saying it for a reason, so it should be relevant to the context. Another is the maxim of quantity: you'll say as much as you need to get the point across.
"I have an idea" on its own generally seems to violate either relevance or quantity: in most contexts, that doesn't really add anything or give any useful information (bad relevance), and if the idea is relevant, you haven't said enough about it (bad quantity). But if you followed it up with "…we could foo the bar", that would fulfill both relevance and quantity. So people will be expecting that followup—it's the only way the first part makes pragmatic sense.
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
add a comment |
User6726 is absolutely correct, but to expand a little bit:
The "more to follow" idea comes from Gricean implicature, not from the words themselves.
Grice's Maxims are four rules that people "expect" everyone in a conversation to follow. One is the maxim of relevance: if you're saying something, you're saying it for a reason, so it should be relevant to the context. Another is the maxim of quantity: you'll say as much as you need to get the point across.
"I have an idea" on its own generally seems to violate either relevance or quantity: in most contexts, that doesn't really add anything or give any useful information (bad relevance), and if the idea is relevant, you haven't said enough about it (bad quantity). But if you followed it up with "…we could foo the bar", that would fulfill both relevance and quantity. So people will be expecting that followup—it's the only way the first part makes pragmatic sense.
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
add a comment |
User6726 is absolutely correct, but to expand a little bit:
The "more to follow" idea comes from Gricean implicature, not from the words themselves.
Grice's Maxims are four rules that people "expect" everyone in a conversation to follow. One is the maxim of relevance: if you're saying something, you're saying it for a reason, so it should be relevant to the context. Another is the maxim of quantity: you'll say as much as you need to get the point across.
"I have an idea" on its own generally seems to violate either relevance or quantity: in most contexts, that doesn't really add anything or give any useful information (bad relevance), and if the idea is relevant, you haven't said enough about it (bad quantity). But if you followed it up with "…we could foo the bar", that would fulfill both relevance and quantity. So people will be expecting that followup—it's the only way the first part makes pragmatic sense.
User6726 is absolutely correct, but to expand a little bit:
The "more to follow" idea comes from Gricean implicature, not from the words themselves.
Grice's Maxims are four rules that people "expect" everyone in a conversation to follow. One is the maxim of relevance: if you're saying something, you're saying it for a reason, so it should be relevant to the context. Another is the maxim of quantity: you'll say as much as you need to get the point across.
"I have an idea" on its own generally seems to violate either relevance or quantity: in most contexts, that doesn't really add anything or give any useful information (bad relevance), and if the idea is relevant, you haven't said enough about it (bad quantity). But if you followed it up with "…we could foo the bar", that would fulfill both relevance and quantity. So people will be expecting that followup—it's the only way the first part makes pragmatic sense.
answered 7 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
15.1k12361
15.1k12361
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that, [Words-of-Type-X mandate follow-up content or they violate a Gricean maxim]. Hence, there's a difference between the set of "Words-of-Type-X" and the policy (a Gricean maxim). So, I fully agree with you on the policy, but I'm hopeful that additional thought has gone into the categorization of words that could trigger the policy.
– jeff schneider
7 hours ago
1
1
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
@jeffschneider That's the thing, there's nothing special about those words that makes them act that way. "I disagree with Einstein's ideas" doesn't violate a maxim on its own, but "have you seen?" does, without any nouns at all.
– Draconis
6 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
Thanks. I'd suggest that "have you seen" violates argument realization, and I'd classify as a different problem. "Einstein's ideas" could trigger a follow-up but won't because common sense knowledge overrides the Gricean event. The phenomenon seems to be triggered when the reader is: 1. left wondering "which one(s)" (we have a pretty good guess on which of Einstein's ideas). 2. left wondering about examples or instances. Perhaps, hyponyms of 'content', 'cognitive construct', ...
– jeff schneider
4 hours ago
2
2
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
Are you saying that I created an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough?
– user6726
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
@user6726 Dammit, now I wish I'd made that joke in the answer itself…
– Draconis
2 hours ago
add a comment |
These words are nouns. The effect you're referring to doesn't come from those words. For example "That's why I rejected that idea", "I accepted his example", "As you know, Dr. Seuss wrote about two things". You can create an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough.
add a comment |
These words are nouns. The effect you're referring to doesn't come from those words. For example "That's why I rejected that idea", "I accepted his example", "As you know, Dr. Seuss wrote about two things". You can create an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough.
add a comment |
These words are nouns. The effect you're referring to doesn't come from those words. For example "That's why I rejected that idea", "I accepted his example", "As you know, Dr. Seuss wrote about two things". You can create an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough.
These words are nouns. The effect you're referring to doesn't come from those words. For example "That's why I rejected that idea", "I accepted his example", "As you know, Dr. Seuss wrote about two things". You can create an expectation of "more to come" by not saying enough.
answered 8 hours ago
user6726user6726
36.5k12471
36.5k12471
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31664%2fwords-that-signal-future-content%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown