Sentence examples for speaker knowledge from inspiring English sources

But the interpretations that we considered so far are world states that do not encode different amounts of speaker knowledge.

Åqvist (1965) connects questions with speaker knowledge rather than hearer knowledge by proposing that to ask a question is to command the hearer to cause the speaker to know the question's answer.

As a first approximation, a sentence has an implicature when speakers conventionally use sentences of that form with the corresponding implicature.[6] Whereas knowledge of what a speaker implicates is essential to fully understand the speaker, knowledge of what sentences implicate is a critical component of our knowledge of a language.

And Chomsky emphasizes that the neologism also implies a kind of realism about speakers' knowledge of language.

For example, what is the content of speakers' knowledge of language?[3] What sorts of facts about language are represented in speakers' heads?

On the assumption that speakers generally conform to the K-norm, which would help explain why the norm continues to hold, hearers will correspondingly ascribe to speakers knowledge that their assertions holds.

The speaker's knowledge of legislative maneuvering is nothing new.

Voice analysis of this nature, after all, can easily be conducted without the speaker's knowledge.

In contrast, a speaker's knowledge of her native language is not punctate, it is systematic.

Other critics have argued that even if it is possible to talk about a speaker's knowledge of a linguistic theory, what a language is, and what linguists do or ought to investigate, is independent of any particular speaker's knowledge of it.

It may refer only to the speaker's knowledge, word-giving (promising), and other principles that are purely testimonial (Audi 1997; related claims are made by Coady 1992; for criticisms, Fricker 1995; Graham 2000b).