Subject: summary : in other words

dear netters , i have posted several queries a few months ago . about ten members of the linguist list answered me by e-mails . i must show great thanks especially to prof . welchsler , prof . jewett , prof . edwards ( who sent me examples of iow from london - lund corpus ) , prof . patrikis , prof . spackman , prof . macrakis , prof . alvarez - caccamo , prof . harris , prof . huettner , and dr . georgia green ( who introduced me " two types of convention in indirect speech acts " by j . l . morgan , contained in the volume : _ syntax and semantics , vol . 9 : pragmatics _ edited by peter cole ( 1978 , new york : academic press ) . the following are my own summary . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in this summary , i propose the hearer 's implicature / implication - interpretation process ( prof . alvarez - caccamo 's suggestion ) , which constrains on the use of in other words ( iow ) in english . i would distinguish between speaker 's intended implicature and hearer 's interpreted implicature . thus , speaker a may have the intention to implicate x , but hearer b may very well fail to recognize such impli - cature or else may interpret some other . even if b correctly interprets a 's intention , b 's interpretation depends largely upon the context and / or background assumption . the use of iow is such a case . a dictionary edited by ball ( 1986 ) calls such usage " inferential function " , though he uses the term rather informally in the dictionary . i will follow his terminology just for the sake of convenience . the inferential use of iow frequently occurs between the two people 's dialogue . ( 1 ) a : i ' m afraid there is n't much i can help you with . b : _ in other words _ , you do n't want to be bothered . although the interpretation process of ( 1 ) is very close to what is called " conventional " use , i . e . it might be processed spontaneously , without any inferential process in the hearer 's mind , b guesses a 's real intent , which is not directly inferred from a 's utterance , but indirect - ly from a 's implicature . in order for b to necessitate iow , b exploits his / her background assumption / encyclopedic knowledge , implicating that a is busy now , or a does n't feel at ease with b . let the implicature just explained be c , then a sequential flow of consciousness / inferential process such as a $ @ " * ( jc $ @ " * ( jb emerges . iow is a visible index of the hearer 's implicature-interpretation process . speaker / hearer 's background assumption varies between common sense and the knowledge which is only valid between the speaker and hearer . ( 2 ) a : i love schubert 's late piano sonatas . b : _ in other words _ , you do n't like the beethoven sonatas ? iow in ( 2b ) is derived by the use of a restricted set of background assumption in which b has already admired the beethoven sonatas . b assumes that a is also an admirer of beethoven , but contrary to b 's assumption a declares an admiration for schubert . so , b feels criticism in a 's words . b 's background assumption becomes an old information , conflates a 's new information and enables iow to create a = b . " non - conventional " , rather complicated use of iow is the following . ( 3 ) a : i ' m going to kill you . b : _ in other words _ , you 'd like it if i moved my car . for example , b 's car stands in the way of a 's car , so that a gets infuriated at b . the situation like the above gets a to utter such harsh words ; kill you . a 's real intent , in this case implicature / implication , is " i ' m going to kill you if you do n't move your car " , or simply " move your car " , which is labelled as c again . b , beginning with iow , paraphrases c by b 's own words . again in order for b to use iow , h / she must infer that a assumes / implicates c . background assumption mitigates b 's processing effort . if not , b processes too much effort and cannot interpret a 's words . b 's job here is to process the flow of the dialogue like a $ @ " * ( jc $ @ ! a ( jb . b 's failure to process / infer the flow of the dialogue sometimes occurs . ( 1 ' ) a : i ' m afraid there is n't much i can help you with . b ' : ? _ in other words _ , you need to be helped . in the context where a really needs help , s / he does n't bother to say that s / he can't help b ' . if a 's hands are full of the parcels and he visibly needs help , so that s / he says s / he can't help b ' , there is a possibility of b ' saying it is you who need to be helped . however , this is a very insulting comment , because b ' actually implies that if you can't help me , you are not a capable person . so , you are the one who needs help . another completely misled example of inference is the following . ( 4 ) a : sorry , i can't help you now , because i ' m busy . b : * _ in other words _ , you ' re busy . unacceptability of b comes from a 's words _ because i ' m busy _ , where a has already spoken out his own implicature c . mere repetition cannot be allowed in iow 's case . if something extra can be implied in b 's response , type of ( 4 ) is ok . ( 5 ) a : sorry , i can't help you now . b : _ in other words _ , you can't . ( - ) ' you really can't . ' ) in summary , an utterance " a . in other words , b " has an inferential process / hearer 's interpretive process " a $ @ " * ( jc ; in other words c $ @ ! a ( jb " . iow can be campared with 's o ' and ' then , ' etc . the following results are the above contributors ' reactions . ( * ) means that there are some who judge a sentence acceptable and others unacceptable . ' so ' : $ @ ! ! ( j ( 6 ) a . there was $ 5 in his wallet . { _ so _ / ( * ) _ in other words _ } he had n't spent all the money . b . she 's your teacher . { _ so _ / ( * ) _ in other words _ } you must respect her . $ @ ! ! ( j ( 7 ) playing the french horn . a : anyway , the horn makes funny noises . { _ so _ / ( * ) _ in other words _ } it 's a treacherous instrument , is n't it ? it 's something that is very hard for you to control . why is that ? too much spit , or what ? b : i ' m glad you ' ve used that term . because it 's not difficult . it is treacherous . so are the players , of course . but that 's another story . $ @ ! ! ( j ( 8 ) tom ate condemned meat . { _ so _ / * _ in other words _ } he felt ill . $ @ ! ! ( j ( 9 ) bill insulted mary . { _ so _ / _ in other words _ } she left . in contrast with resultative 's o 's ' in ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) , two 's o 's ' in ( 8 ) and ( 9 ) are sequential . in the case of iow , one is ok and the other is out . ( 9 ) can be interpreted that bill 's insulting mary always leads to her leaving ( here ) , so that iow is permitted . iow in ( 8 ) is n't ok because eating condemned meat always equals to his feeling ill , in which case iow in such situation is redundant / meaningless / uninformative . ' then ' : $ @ ! ! ( j ( 10 ) an insurance man visits a girl he knows . he has brought her a policy application for signature . they talked about her husband . girl : i ' m expecting robert home soon . insurance salesman : oh ! why ? is he in trouble ? g : no . he 's thinking of setting up in business on his own . is : oh , good for him . g : you think it 's a good idea ? is : yes , why not ? g : small businesses are going bust all over the place . is : so , there are millions of people on the dole right now who thought they were safe and secure working for someone else . { _ so _ / _ in other words _ / ( * ) _ then _ } , now 's the time to have a go . there 's nothing else to lose anyway . g : think so ? is : yes . ' in that case ' : $ @ ! ! ( j ( 11 ) a : i ' m afraid there is n't much i can help you with . b : { _ in that case _ / ( * ) _ in other words _ } i shall have to ask someone else . ' that is ' : $ @ ! ! ( j ( 12 ) they took refreshments , { _ that is _ / * _ in other words _ } , sand - witches , coffee , beer , fruit juice , and chocolate . ball ( 1986 ) explains that ' that is ' is open-ended and iow is closed - ended . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * if you have further comments on my analyisis of iow above , please do n't hesitate to e-mail me . thanks very much for all the help you have given . sincerely , hiroaki tanaka associate professor , tokushima university , japan . e-mail : gca01363 @ niftyserve . or . jp
