Abstract
This paper analyses the communicative functions of the Gã (Niger–Congo, Kwa branch) clausal connective nì, roughly corresponding to English ‘and’, drawing on Wilson and Sperber’s (1995; 2004) relevance theory. The study demonstrates that nì is a conjunction that achieves optimal relevance when the nì-utterance has cognitive effects that transcend those of the individual conjuncts of nì. Importantly, the use of nì leads the way in providing clues that aid the interlocutor to “work out” the nature of the inferential relation between the conjuncts. These inferential relations, including addition, temporality, causality, contrast and parallelism, ultimately enable the interlocutor to arrive at the desired and/or intended interpretation of the utterance as a whole. This paper is, thus, an attempt to account for the meaning of nì as well as the pragmatic processes that inform the specific inferential relations between the nì-conjuncts. It also illumines the ways in which pragmatic enrichment and context-dependent inference can strengthen the logical form of clausal coordination in Gã.
Highlights
The focus of this paper is the Gã1 (Niger–Congo, Kwa branch) clausal connective nì, roughly corresponding to English ‘and’
I have analyzed the communicative purposes served by the Gã coordinating connective nì and argued that nì semantically encodes information which suggests that the nì-utterance as a single unit achieves optimal relevance and more positive cognitive effects over and above the individual units of discourse joined by nì
The semantically encoded information in nì is used as an input for more precise and exact pragmatic interpretations
Summary
The focus of this paper is the Gã1 (Niger–Congo, Kwa branch) clausal connective nì, roughly corresponding to English ‘and’. Carston (2002) (chapter three), for instance, presents an evaluation of various semantic and pragmatic accounts of conjunctions. While the position of Grice and the neo-Griceans on the pragmatically inferred relations between conjuncts is shared by Carston (1993; 2002) and Blakemore and Carston (2005), this latter group of scholars does not consider such relations as implicated conclusions. Instead, they treat them as various enrichment procedures that contribute to the meaning of the overall proposition expressed by the utterance.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
