Abstract

This paper considers the question of whether pictures can be understood to give rise to explicit meanings. In relevance-theoretic terms, this means asking whether pictures give rise to "explicatures‟. The definition of the term "explicature‟ seems to rule out this possibility except in cases where pictures include or are accompanied by material with coded meanings. The paper considers a range of non-verbal phenomena with coded meanings, including pictograms (FORCEVILLE 2011, FORCEVILLE et al 2014). It then considers whether the explicature-implicature distinction could be relevant to pictures without such elements. Some assumptions communicated by pictures seem to be more "explicature-like‟ than others, so it is possible that the distinction will be useful. The question is not merely terminological as the discussion leads to a fuller understanding of ways in which pictures communicate.

Highlights

  • INTRODUCTION1Ostensive communication often involves pictures, especially in mass communication. While Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory (1995 [1986]) aims to account for all ostensive communication, the majority of work in this and other approaches has focused on spoken verbal communication

  • This paper considers the question of whether pictures can be understood to give rise to explicit meanings

  • In this paper we discuss one element which will contribute to this account, namely the question of whether ostensive pictures can be said to have explicit meaning

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION1

Ostensive communication often involves pictures, especially in mass communication. While Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory (1995 [1986]) aims to account for all ostensive communication, the majority of work in this and other approaches has focused on spoken verbal communication. In this paper we discuss one element which will contribute to this account, namely the question of whether ostensive pictures (understood as images created with the intention to communicate) can be said to have explicit meaning. There are encoded meanings which are not linguistic, including coded elements of nonverbal communication (discussed, for example, by WHARTON, 2009) and coded pictorial meanings such as the ‘pictograms’ discussed by Forceville (2011; see FORCEVILLE et al, 2014). While we do not reach a definite conclusion, we suggest that this discussion leads to a fuller understanding of how pictures are understood as well as of the nature of ostensiveinferential communication more generally

EXPLICATURES AND IMPLICATURES
EXPLICATURES
DEGREES OF EXPLICITNESS
HIGHER-LEVEL EXPLICATURES
IMPLICATIONS AND IMPLICATURES
STRONGER AND WEAKER EXPLICATURES AND IMPLICATURES
ARE THERE NON-LINGUISTIC EXPLICATURES?
NONVERBAL AND PICTORIAL CODES
NONVERBAL CODES
PICTORIAL CODES
CODED ELEMENTS ACCOMPANYING OSTENSIVE PICTURES
PICTURES
POTENTIAL EVIDENCE FOR EXPLICATURES IN OSTENSIVE PICTURES
STRONGER AND WEAKER COMMUNICATION
MUTUAL PARALLEL ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES
FURTHER EXAMPLES
SO ARE THERE PICTORIAL EXPLICATURES?
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call