Chapter 8 Pragmatics

Contents 8.1 Some basic notions 8.2 Speech act theory 8.3 Principle of conversation

8.1 Some basic notions Definition Pragmatics vs. Semantics Context Sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning

8.1.1 Definition — the study of language in use or language communication; the study of the use of context to make inference about meaning. — the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication.

8.2.2 Pragmatics vs. Semantics Semantics — is the study of the literal meaning of a sentence (without taking context into consideration). Pragmatics — the study of the intended meaning of a speaker (taking context into consideration), e.g. “Today is Sunday”, semantically, it means that today is the first day of the week; pragmatically, you can mean a lot by saying this, all depending on the context and the intention of the speaker, say, making a suggestion or giving an invitation…

8.2.3 Context Context is a basic concept in the study of pragmatics. It is generally considered as constituted knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer, such as cultural background, situation (time, place, manner, etc.), the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, etc.….

8.2.4 Sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning — Sentence meaning: –Abstract and context-independent meaning; –Literal meaning of a sentence; –Having a dyadic relation as in: What does X mean? — Utterance meaning: –Concrete and context-dependent meaning; –Intended meaning of a speaker; –Having a triadic relation as in What did you mean by X?

For example, “The bag is heavy” can mean a bag being heavy (sentence meaning); an indirect, polite request, asking the hearer to help him carry the bag; the speaker is declining someone’s request for help. Note: The meaning of an utterance is based on the sentence meaning; it is the realization of the abstract meaning of a sentence in a real situation of communication, or simply in a context; utterance meaning is richer than sentence meaning; it is identical with the purpose for which the speaker utters the sentence.

Correctness vs. appropriateness *“John play golf” — grammatically incorrect; ?“Golf played John” — logically incorrect; but it might be appropriate pragmatically in certain context. Note: Pragmatics can make sense out of nonsense, given a suitable context. Appropriateness is very important in linguistic communication, especially in cross-cultural communication. If you say something grammatically incorrect, you are at worse condemned as “speaking badly”, but, if you say something inappropriately, you will be judged as “behaving badly”, such as insincere, untruthful, or deceitful. (Thomas, 1983)

8.2 Speech Act Theory Austin’s model of speech acts Searle’s classification of speech acts

8.2.1 Austin’s model of speech acts

John Austin John Austin: (1911~1980), born in Lancaster, educated in Cambridge, taught Moral Philosophy in Cambridge from a British philosopher, a main member of linguistic philosophy ordinary- language philosophy

John Austin How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982 Speech Act Theory (SAT) is a philosophical explanation of the nature of linguistic communication “What do we do when using language?”

Austin’s old model of SAT Constatives are statements that either state or describe, and are thus verifiable

Austin's old model of SAT Performatives are sentences that do not state a fact or describe a state, and are not verifiable.

Examples I do. I name this ship Elizabeth. I give and bequeath my watch to my brother. I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.

SAT We are performing actions when we are speaking.

Austin’s new model A speaker might be performing three acts simultaneously when speaking: Locutionary act Illocutionary act Perlocutionary act

locutionary act A locutionary act is the act of uttering words, phrases, clauses. It is the act of conveying literal meaning by means of syntax, lexicon and phonology.

illocutionary act An illocutionary act is the act of expressing the speaker’s intention; it is the act performed in saying something.

perlocutionary act A perlocutionary act is the act performed by or resulting from saying something; it is the consequence of, or the change brought about by the utterance; it is the act performed by saying something.

Examples: Can you turn down the radio? The paths in the mountain are a maze. I will see you later.

8.2.2 Searle’s classification of speech acts

John Searle John Searle (1932~ ) American philosopher and linguist. Classification of Illocutionary Speech Acts, in Language in Society.

Searle (1989) identified five illocutionary/perlocutionary points: Assertives: statements may be judged true or false because they aim to describe a state of affairs in the world. Directives: statements attempt to make the other person's actions fit the propositional content. Commissives: statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content. Expressives: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”. Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as having been changed”.

Examples: Oh! - is an utterance (note that communication is not intended - it is just a sound caused by surprise). The black cat - is a propositional act (something is referenced, but no communication may be intended) The black cat is stupid - is an assertive illocutionary act (it intends to communicate). Please find the black cat - is a directive perlocutionary act (it seeks to change behaviour).

8.3 Cooperative Principles P. Grice

Principle of conversation (Paul Grice) Cooperative principle (CP) — According to Grice, in making conversation, there is a general principle which all participants are expected to observe. It goes as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

Four maxims of CP The maxim of quality — Do not say what you believe to be false. — Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. The maxim of quantity — Make your contribution as informative as required for the current purpose of the exchange. — Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Four maxims of CP The maxim of relation — Be relevant ( make your contribution relevant). The maxim of manner — Avoid obscurity of expression. — Avoid ambiguity. — Be brief. — Be orderly.

Conversational implicature In real communication, however, speakers do not always observe these maxims strictly. These maxims can be violated for various reasons. When any of the maxims is blantantly violated, i.e. both the speaker and the hearer are aware of the violation, our language becomes indirect, then conversational implicature arises.

Violation of Maxim of quality — A: Would you like to go movie with me tonight? — B: The final exam is approaching. I’m afraid I have to prepare for it. — A: would you like to come to our party tonight? — B: I’m afraid I’m not feeling so well tonight. — A: Who was that lady I saw you with last night? — B: That was no lady, that was my wife.

Violation of maxim of quantity At a party a young man introduces himself by saying “I’m Robert Sampson from Leeds, 28, unmarried…” “War is war.” “Girls are girls.” — A:When is Susan’s farewell party? — B:Sometime next month.

Violation of maxim of relation — A: How did the math exam go today, Jonnie? — B: We had a basketball match with class 2 and we beat them. — A: The hostess is an awful bore. — B: The roses in the garden are beautiful, aren’t they? — A: What time is it? — B: The postman has just arrived.

Violation of maxim of manner — A: Shall we get something for the kids? — B: Yes. But I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A- M.

Homework