Revisiting Inference. A Multidisciplinary Approach

Table of Contents

0. Introduction

0.1. Background to the study

0.2. Rationale behind the study

0.3. Major Claims

0.4. Research Objectives

0.5. Research Questions

0.6. Structure of the Dissertation

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1.Formal Logic and the Study of Inference

1.1.1.What is Logic? Towards a definition

1.1.1.1. Boundaries between logic and other disciplines

1.1.1.2. The relevance of Logic

1.1.2.The Logical Study of Inference

1.1.2.1. Is logic all about inference?

1.1.2.1.1.The matter and form of logic

1.1.2.1.2. The Matter and Form of Inference

1.1.2.2. The contributions of logic to the study of inference

1.1.2.2.1. Delimitating the boundaries of inference

1.1.2.2.2. Types of Inference

1.1.3.Types of Logic and Inference Analysis

1.1.3.1.Deductive Logic

1.1.3.1.1. On validity

1.1.3.1.2. Categorical Logic

1.1.3.1.2.1. Basic Notions

1.1.3.1.2.2. Validity Testing

1.1.3.1.2.3. Criticism of categorical logic

1.1.3.1.3.Truth-functional logic

1.1.3.1.3.1. Basic Notions

1.1.3.1.3.2.Validity Testing

1.1.3.1.3.3.Criticism of truth-functional logic

1.1.3.2.Inductive logic

1.1.3.2.1.Inductive syllogism

1.1.3.2.2.Inductive generalizing

1.1.3.2.3.Inductive analogy

1.2. Pragmatics and the Study of Inference

1.2.1. Inference in Major Pragmatic Theories

1.2.1.1. Inference in Grice’s Paradigm

1.2.1.1.1. Possible behaviours towards the maxims

1.2.1.1.2 Revisiting the debate over the inferentiality of implicatures

1.2.1. 2. Inference in speech act theory

1.2.1.2.1. Speech Act theory

1.2.1.2.2. Inferencing about speech acts as a type of utterance interpretation

1.2.2. Inference at the interface of Pragmatics, Semantics, and Logic

1.2 2.1. Inference at the interface of Pragmatics and Semantics

1.2.2.1.1. Introducing Presupposition

1.2.2.1.2. Semantic vs. pragmatic presupposition

1.2.2.2. The Pragmatics/Logic Interface

1.2.2.2.1. Informal Logic

1.2.2.2.2. Argumentation Schemes

1.3. Conclusion

1.3.1. Summary of literature review

1.3.2. New Inference Taxonomy

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY

2.1. Rationale behind methodological choices

2.2. Corpus

2.2.1. Corpus description

2.2.2. Corpus selection criteria

2.2.3. Corpus collection method

2.3. Analytical Method

CHAPTER THREE: CORPUS ANALYSIS

3.1. Qualitative Analysis: text-by-text inferential description

3.1.1. Qualitative Analysis of d-texts

3.1.2. Qualitative Analysis of g-texts

3.2. Quantitative Analysis

3.2.1. The Charts

3.2.2. Quantitative Findings

3.3. Discussion

3.3.1. Text-by-text interpretation of the findings

3.3.2. General Discussion

Research Objectives and Themes

The dissertation aims to establish a multidisciplinary framework for understanding inference by synthesizing contributions from logic and pragmatics. The primary research question centers on how these distinct disciplines can be unified into a novel, effective descriptive tool for analyzing inferential structures in diverse discourse types and themes.

• Multidisciplinary synthesis of Logic and Pragmatics regarding inference.
• Development of an innovative "Inference Taxonomy" and its application as a discourse analytic instrument.
• Empirical corpus-based analysis of inferential patterns across varied themes (gene mapping vs. freestyle dance).
• Investigation into the correlations between inferential choices and specific discourse genres.
• Assessment of the validity of using logic and pragmatics as a cohesive descriptive tool for discourse analysis.

Auszug aus dem Buch

Summary of Chapters

0. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research background and rationale, major claims, research objectives, and the overall dissertation structure.

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW: This chapter reviews logical and pragmatic contributions to the study of inference to develop a multidisciplinary taxonomy.

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY: This section details the rationale for using a corpus-based approach and explains the four-level method applied to the analyzed texts.

CHAPTER THREE: CORPUS ANALYSIS: This chapter presents the qualitative and quantitative findings of the study based on the analysis of ten selected texts.

Keywords

Inference, Logic, Pragmatics, Multidisciplinary Approach, Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Schemes, Presupposition, Implicature, Deductive Logic, Inductive Logic, Corpus-Based Analysis, Validity, Soundness, Reasoning.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this dissertation?

The research focuses on revisiting the concept of inference by adopting a multidisciplinary approach, combining insights from both logic and pragmatics to create a new discourse analytic tool.

What are the core thematic areas?

The core themes include formal and informal logic, pragmatic theories such as Grice's paradigm and Speech Act theory, and the systematic analysis of how inference functions in written discourse.

What is the main goal or research question?

The goal is to determine if a multidisciplinary approach can synthesize logical and pragmatic findings to offer a better descriptive tool for analyzing the "inferential net" underlying discourse.

Which scientific methodology is employed?

The study utilizes a corpus-based approach, applying qualitative analysis to ten texts across two distinct themes, followed by quantitative synthesis to detect inferential patterns and tendencies.

What does the main body address?

The body covers a comprehensive literature review of logic and pragmatics, the methodology for corpus analysis, and a detailed systematic application of the proposed framework to selected texts.

Which keywords characterize this work?

Key concepts include Inference, Logic, Pragmatics, Argumentation Schemes, and Discourse Analysis.

How does this study handle the controversy regarding "enthymemes"?

The research addresses the theoretical controversies surrounding enthymemes by revisiting them from a multidisciplinary perspective, treating them as an inference type needing detailed description through both logical and pragmatic lenses.

What is the significance of "Argumentation Schemes" in this analysis?

Argumentation schemes act as a bridge between formal logical validity and the practical, defeasible reasoning found in everyday discourse, providing the researcher with concrete tools to reconstruct the logical structure of arguments in the corpus.

How does the author distinguish between "Made" and "Triggered" Inferences?

"Made inferences" are those where the writer is in control and guides the reader to the conclusion, often visible in the text. "Triggered inferences" refer to phenomena where the reader must process textual elements (like presuppositions or implicatures) to reconstruct the implicit message.