Abduction And Pragmatic Inference

"In the eyes of many, pragmatic inference has often been seen as a subject that defies formal characterizations and is describable only in non-formal, sometimes metaphorical terms. The study of pragmatics, including the study of pragmatic inference, has received much less formalization than formal semantics and syntax" (Jiang Yan, 2002: 19). Ever since Grice (1975), utterance interpretation has been generally understood to be inferential in nature. However, Grice's theory of conversation, especially the mechanisms of inference from sentence meaning to conversational implicature, has not received a principled formal account. Likewise, only a few works have been carried out on the formalization of Relevance Theory, being developed as a post-Gricean theory of pragmatics. Much more work needs to be carried out in order to reveal the exact nature of logical inference in pragmatics (Jiang Yan, 2002).This dissertation explores the logical nature of pragmatic inference. After contrasting abduction with the pragmatic principles in Grice's theory and Relevance Theory, we drew a conclusion that pragmatic inference is no more than abductive reasoning as applied to verbal communication and that pragmatic principles are just special forms of abductive principles. Pragmatic inference which incorporates abduction,deduction and induction is a dynamic logic process.Abduction is first clearly suggested by Charles S. Peirce (1868), whose abductive theories have undergone great changes. Charles S. Peirce argued that, besides deduction and induction, there is a third mode of inference which he called "hypothesis" or "abduction". It is neither deduction which moves from a general rule to specific cases nor induction which moves from specific cases to a generality. It is the inference of the case from the rule and result. In Peirce's later works, abduction, deduction and induction become interacting aspects with different epistemological functions. According to Peirce, abduction constitutes the "first stage" of scientific inquiries (CP 6.469) and of any interpretive processes. The first stage, abduction comes up with a hypothesis to explain the initial observations; predictions are derived from a suggested hypothesis by deduction; and the credibility of that hypothesis is estimated through its predictions by induction (Fann, 1970: 10). Abduction is referred to as inference to the best explanation.In order to further understand abduction, Chapter Three discusses the relationship between induction, deduction, abduction and falsification so as to answer two questions: 1) which one can produce the truth, induction, deduction, abduction or falsification; 2) what roles do abduction and falsification play in scientific discovery?According to Peirce's theory, abduction is instinctive and rational at the same time. It is non-demonstrative inference. It aims to form and select the plausible hypotheses, which cannot be guaranteed to be true, must be calculated by deduction and tested by induction. If hypothesis is not in accordance with facts, then hypotheses not previously considered can be suggested and a new abduction-deduction-induction circle take places till the new information emerges or the best explanation is found out finally.Qian Guardian (2002, 2004) insists theory (truth) is invented by people instead of being induced from facts. He says fmity cannot prove infinity and the past cannot prove the future; facts are changing with time and place. Then, he concludes theory produced by induction is accidental and "theory should be deduced by people" (2002: 114). However, from Peirce's point of view, both abduction and induction can produce the truth. Although abduction does not necessarily yield truth nor does induction, it offers a theory of the facts that is at least plausible with respect to past experiences and future...