FG from its inception 49Our next concern is PR3, i.e. the problem of verbal interaction. FG 4 at-
tempts in part to solve the problem of verbal interaction by creating a
pragmatic module that interacts with the grammar. While I would like to
see a pragmatic module developed, I suggest that it may not work the way
Hengeveld proposes, for two reasons. Firstly, let us consider Hengeveld’s
example (9), here numbered (24):
(24) a. If you behave well, I’ll let you read my poems.
b. Is that a threat or a promise?
Let us break this down into a rough approximation of an FG 4 account of
how this could work for our two participants, PA and PB, each with their
Pragmatic Module, PMA and PMB respectively.^40
(25) a. PA forms: M 1 : A 1 : [Decl (C: [letV (IPro) (e: [readV (youPro) (my
poems)Go]) [(behaveV: wellAdv (youPro)]Cond]]]
b. The ERs produce S 1 : “If you behave well, I’ll let you read my poems.”
c. PA copies UR 1 and its expression (as m 1 and s 1 ) into PMA
d. PB hears: “If you behave well, I’ll let you read my poems.”
e. PB copies s 1 and m 1 into PMB
f. PB forms: M 2 : [A 2 : [Int (C: [{threatN or promiseN} (Am 1 )Ø]]]
g. The ERs produce S 2 : “Is that a threat or a promise?”The problem lies with the use of the ‘copies’ in step (c) and particularly
(e). Such an approach to pragmatic interaction is too reductionistic: what
feeds into the communicative context is not abstract underlying structures
but interpretations and inferences based on linguistic expressions. And since
each participant constructs their own communicative context, we must as-
sume some Gricean principle of mutual trust whereby each participant is
doing a faithful job in tracking participants, identifying discourse moves, es-
tablishing deictic reference points, and so forth. Much communication
involves checking that everyone is ‘doing his or her job’ properly. But like
interpretations and inferences, communicative principles and conventions
resist formalization. Implementing these into the model is no simple task.
Secondly, let us consider Hengeveld’s example (13), here number (26):
(26) This concert, if you want to call it that, isn’t exactly what I was waiting for.
Hengeveld writes that “[t]he word that refers to the preceding word
concert, which is a case of reference to the code rather than the message”