{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04086021505376344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005734767025089606, 'mean_word_length': 5.149779735682819, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implications of the pragmatics of non-descriptive definition

This paper is a sequel to ‘Thematic predicates and the pragmatics of non-descriptive definition’ (Burton-Roberts, 1986, henceforth PNDD) and is best read in conjunction with it. I discuss a variety of issues arising out of the explanation there given of a phenomenon I called ‘non-descriptive definition’. In explaining non-descriptive definition, we need to explain how a definition-requesting question (e.g. What is a dandy?, (2) below) can be appropriately responded to by the utterance of a sentence that does not constitute a definition and, canonically at least, would actually presuppose knowledge of the meaning of the word to be defined (e.g. Max is a dandy?, (3) below). The explanation given depends on analysing such responses as having the predicate rather than the subject as theme. On the assumption that subject is unmarked theme, such responses thus have marked thematic structure. On the further assumption of a relation of pragmatic equivalence between an utterance with marked thematic structure and some unmarked counterpart, such responses may be straightforwardly related to strict literal ANSWERS to their definition-requesting questions; that is, they can be related to DEFINITIONS – non-descriptive in the first instance (see (4) below), and (explicit) descriptive definitions in the second (see (5) below).