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














1















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?










share|improve this question


























    1















    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?










    share|improve this question
























      1












      1








      1








      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?










      share|improve this question














      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 8 hours ago









      jeff schneiderjeff schneider

      466113




      466113




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          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.






          share|improve this answer























          • 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


















          0














          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.






          share|improve this answer























            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
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            3














            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.






            share|improve this answer























            • 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















            3














            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.






            share|improve this answer























            • 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













            3












            3








            3







            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.






            share|improve this answer













            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.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            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

















            • 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











            0














            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.






            share|improve this answer



























              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer

























                0












                0








                0







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 8 hours ago









                user6726user6726

                36.5k12471




                36.5k12471



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單