The underspecification of utterances and the role played by the overall

In the course of this process of utterance formation, the speaker economically

underspecifies the meaning of the message he wants to convey, more or less consciously relying on the hearers’ ability to correctly infer such a meaning without the need for everything to be made explicit.

In this perspective, the use of language may be certainly considered a constructive

225 _{These are typically labeled “isolating” or “analytical” languages (e.g. Vietnamese) (Encyclopædia} Britannica. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online).

226 _{These are typically labeled “synthetic” languages (e.g. Latin) (Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 29} January 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online).

227 _{Similarly K. Allan, Natural Language Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), p. 15.} 228 _{K. Allan, Natural Language Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), p. 18.}

and cognitive process, both from the point of view of the speaker and from that of the hearers.229 _{The effectiveness of the utterance, consisting in the fact that the hearers} understand the meaning of the message conveyed and recognize the reaction expected by the speaker, very much depends on the speaker’s ability:

(i) to make the most accurate assumptions about the hearers (their knowledge, background experiences, etc.) and the situation existing at the moment of the interpretation and

(ii) to properly take into account the situation of the utterance.

All in all, the effectiveness of the utterance heavily depends on how the speaker does take into account the overall context when constructing the utterance.

But what is exactly is such overall context that the speaker has to take into account and assess when formulating the utterance and the hearers will symmetrically consider when interpreting it?

This is composed by various elements, the first being the world(and time) spoken of. When attributing a meaning to an utterance, in fact, both the speaker and the hearers generally construct a mental model of the world (and time) the utterance is partially or totally about. Such a world does not have to be a factual one, but may be a metaphysical, imagined, desired, or supposed one. Notwithstanding this, in many cases the world (and time) spoken of is somewhat linked to the world (and time) spoken in, i.e. the world (and time) in which the utterance occurs. The relevance of the world (and time) spoken of is mainly due to the fact that, among the various meanings attributable to the utterance, the hearers tend to consider only those meanings that appear coherent and sensible, i.e. those making the world (and time) spoken of internally consistent and in accordance with common ground.

Common ground is the second element of the overall context. That is made up of: (i) things that should be obviously perceived and taken into account by the hearers,

(ii) things that should be obviously inferred and taken into account by the hearers on the basis of their perceptions, their expected knowledge of the language used,230 _{including the common principles on behavior when communicating} through language (cooperative principles), and their expected encyclopedic knowledge.231

As a mere exemplification, common ground includes the identity and capacity of the speaker and of the potential hearers, the purpose of the utterance, the use of a specific jargon, the cooperative principles and the background and experiences of the speaker and hearers, including their encyclopedic knowledge. Moreover, one of the most relevant cooperative principles forming part of the common ground consists in the expectation, by the speaker, that the hearers will use their knowledge and will draw inferences in

229 _{K. Allan, Natural Language Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), p. 25.} 230 _{I.e. its grammar, semantics and other conventions pertaining to its functioning.}

order to attribute a meaning to the utterance in light of the world being spoken of. In other words, the speaker expects the hearers to make constructive inferences from their expected knowledge and constructs his utterance accordingly.232 _{Common ground may} vary from one language community to another and, within a community, from a sub- group to another, in the sense that in different communities and sub-groups people may be expected to know or believe in different things and to draw from them different conclusions.233 _{It is therefore important that the speaker makes the correct assumptions} on what constitutes common ground within a certain community and on whether the hearers are part of such a community, so that they may be reasonably presumed to know or believe in given things.234 _{Finally, it is worth noting that common ground is generally} presupposed by the speaker, who considers it superfluous to make it explicit.

The third element to be taken into account as part of the overall context is the co- text, i.e. the text that precedes and succeeds a given utterance. Co-text is significant for the purpose of identifying the world (and time) spoken of, or better specifying something within that world. It provides additional information relevant to the proper interpretation of ambiguous forms and expressions.235

These three interconnected236 _{elements of the overall context, where appropriately} taken into account by the speaker in formulating his utterance, will ordinarily enable the hearers to reduce the ambiguity of that utterance, since just a few of the possible interpretations thereof will make sense in the overall context.