Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T03:39:53.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boys Will be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics‘

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Anna Wierzbicka
Anna Wierzbicka*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Colloquial ‘tautologies’ such as War is war or A promise is a promise have often been adduced in support of a ‘Gricean’ account of language use. The present article shows, however, that ‘tautological constructions’ are partly conventional and language-specific, and that each such construction has a specific meaning which cannot be fully predicted in terms of any universal pragmatic maxims. It is argued that the attitudinal meanings conveyed by various tautological constructions and by similar linguistic devices should be stated in rigorous and yet self-explanatory semantic formulae. ‘Radical pragmatics’ is rejected as a blind alley, and an integrated approach to language structure and language use is proposed, based on a coherent semantic theory which is capable of representing ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ aspects of meaning in a unified framework.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 95 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atlas, Jay. 1984. Comparative adjectives and adverbials of degree: An introduction to radically radical pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy 7.347–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Harnish, Robert. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles. 1952. Le langage et la vie. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Bartlett, John. 1980. Familiar quotations. 15th edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bogus$lSawski, Andrzej. 1981. Semantic and pragmatic aspects of reference-related problems. Pragmatische Komponenten der Satzbedeutung, ed. by Daneš, František & Viehweger, Dieter, 1–111. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen. 1978. Universais in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Questions and politeness, ed. by Goody, Esther, 56–311. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1981 (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Couturat, Louis. 1903 (ed.) Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Paris. [Reprinted, Hildesheim: Olms, 1961.]Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. 1984. Oxford dictionary of current idiomatic English. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, Arthur Conan. 1981. The complete adventures of Sherlock Holmes. London: Seeker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Review of Cole 1981. Studies in Language 7:1.151–5.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts (Syntax and semantics, 3), ed. by Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A Modern English grammar, vol. 4. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kalish, Donald, and Montague, Richard. 1964. Logic: Techniques of formal reasoning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Lucy. 1980. Anne of Ingleside. London: Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Pragmatics (Syntax and semantics, 9), ed. by Cole, Peter, 289–303. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pascal, Fania. 1984. A personal memoir. Recollection of Wittgenstein, ed. by Rhees, Rush, 12–48. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Rath, Rainer. 1975. ‘Doch’: Eine Studie zur Syntax und zur kommunikativen Funktion einer Partikel. Deutsche Sprache 1975:222–42.Google Scholar
Sekiguchi, Isugio. 1977. Was heisst doch? Aspekte der Modalpartikeln, ed. by Weydt, Harold, 3–9. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. Irony and the use–mention distinction. In Cole 1981:295–318.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Burton. 1949. Stevenson's book of proverbs, maxims and familiar phrases. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1979. Ethnosyntax and the philosophy of grammar. Studies in Language 3:3.313–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980a. Lingua mentalis. New York & Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980b. The case for surface case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can't have an eat? Lg. 58.753–99.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985a. Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985b. A semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparison of speech acts. Language in Society 14.491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985c. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9.145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986a. A semantic metalanguage for the description and comparison of illocutionary meanings. Journal of Pragmatics 10.313–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986b. Human emotions: Universal or culture-specific? American Anthropologist 88.584–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986c. Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society 15.349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986d. Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English ‘approximatives’. Journal of Pragmatics 10.597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar