1. Chapter 7 Pragmatics English Linguistics: An Introduction

2. Chapter 7 Pragmatics 0. Warm-up Questions 1. Basic Notions 2. Speech Act Theory 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 4. Relevance Theory

3. 0. Warm-up Questions  What is context? What are the components?  How do you understand the statement “Speaking is more than uttering words”?  Why do listeners sometimes give indirect or passive response?  What are your suggestions for polite conversations?

4. 1. Basic Notions 1.1 What is pragmatics?  Definition: The study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication, or simply the study of language in use.  Related topics: deixis, speech acts, indirect language, conversation, politeness, cross-cultural communication, and presupposition

5. 1. Basic Notions 1.2 Context  Definition: the relevant constraints of the communicative situation that influence language use. It is generally considered as constituted by the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer.  Components of shared knowledge: language knowledge, co-text knowledge, situational knowledge and world knowledge.

6. 1. Basic Notions 1.3 Sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning  Sentence meaning: abstract, intrinsic, de-contextualized, conventional  Utterance meaning: concrete, variable, context- dependent, contextual E.g. The sentence My bag is heavy [BAG (BEING HEAVY)] can be uttered as a straight forward statement, an indirect, polite request for help, or declining someone’s request for help.

7. 2. Speech Act Theory 2.1 Perfomatives and constatives (Austin, 1950s) (p172)  Performatives are unverifiable statements that are uttered to perform acts. E.g.1. I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth. 2. I promise to finish it in time.  Constatives are verifiable statements that either state or describe. E.g.1. I pour some liquid into the tube. 2. I believe there is a cat on the mat.

8. 2. Speech Act Theory 2.2 Three kinds of speech act (Austin, 1962) (p174)  Locutionary act: of conveying literal meaning (What is done?) 言内  Illocutionary act: of expressing the speaker’s intention (What is meant?) 言外  Perlocutionary act: the effect of the utterance (What is effected?) 言后 E.g. By uttering Morning!, a speaker performs three senses of acts: i. producing a number of sounds and conveying a greeting message (locutionary act), ii. greeting someone (illocutionary act), and iii. exerting effect on the hearer by means of a locutionary act and a consequential action on the hearer’s part.

9. 2. Speech Act Theory 2.3 Classification of illocutionary acts (Searle, 1976)  Representatives: state, believe, swear, hypothesize, assert, claim, deny, etc. e.g. The earth is a globe.  Directives: request, ask, invite, suggest, advise, warn, order, tell, etc. e.g. Open the window! It is stuffy in here.  Commissives: promise, vow, undertake, pledge, refuse, guarantee, etc. e.g. I promise to come.

10. 2. Speech Act Theory 2.3 Classification of illocutionary acts (Searle, 1976)  Expressives: apologize, boast, thank, congratulate, greet, etc. e.g. I’m sorry for the mess I have made.  Declarations: declare, appoint, fire, nominate, bless, christen, etc. e.g. I now declare the meeting open.

11. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) (p176) “Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (Grice 1975:47)  The maxim of quantity: Make your contribution as informative as required; Do not make your contribution more informative than required.

12. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) (p176)  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 relation: Make your contribution relevant.  The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous, and specifically: avoid obscurity avoid ambiguity be brief be orderly.

13. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.2 Violation and implicatures (p178)  Violation of the maxim of quantity — Boys are boys. CI: Boys are naughty and mischievous by nature.  Violation of the maxim of quality — He had a lioness at home. CI: His wife is dominant at home.  Violation of the maxim of relation — What do you intend to do today? — I have a terrible headache. CI: I don’t intend to do anything.

14. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.2 Violation and implicatures (p178)  Violation of the maxim of manner — Shall we get something for the kids? — Yes. But I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M. CI: I don’t want the kids to know we are talking about getting them ice-cream.

15. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.3 Characteristics of implicature (p181)  Calculability: CI can be inferred on the basis of some previous information.  Cancellability (defeasibility): CI changes as context changes. a. John has three cows. CI: John has only three cows. b. John has three cows, if not more. CI: John has at least three cows.

16. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.3 Characteristics of implicature (p181)  Non-detachability: CI is attached to the semantic content of the utterance. John’s a genius / a big brain said ironically will implicate John’s an idiot.  Non-conventionality: different from the conventional meaning of words John has three cows necessarily entails John has three animals and may implicates John can get 100 RMB.

17. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.4 The Politeness Principle Leech (1983) proposed the Politeness Principle which is formulated in a general way from 2 aspects:  1) to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs  2) to maximize the expression of polite beliefs To be specific, there are six maxims:  Tact maxim: minimise cost to other; maximise benefit to other

18. 3. Conversational Principle and Implicature 3.4 The Politeness Principle  Generosity maxim: minimise benefit to self; maximise cost to self  Approbation maxim: minimise dispraise of other; maximise praise of other  Modesty maxim: minimise praise of self; maximise dispraise of self  Agreement maxim: minimise disagreement between self and other; maximise agreement between self and other  Sympathy maxim: minimise antipathy between self and other; maximise sympathy between self and other

19. 4. Relevance Theory 4.1 Relevance (of an input, in a context)  The greater the cognitive effects, the greater the relevance Cognitive effects: a. Strengthening existing assumptions; b. Contradicting and eliminating existing assumptions; c. Combining with existing assumptions to yield contextual implications.

20. 4. Relevance Theory 4.1 Relevance (of an input, in a context)  The smaller the processing effort, the greater the relevance. Processing effort: The effort of perception, memory and inference needed to represent the input, access a context and derive the cognitive effects (of that input, in that context).

21. 4. Relevance Theory 4.2 Outline of Relevance Theory  Utterances automatically create expectations of relevance.  Different interpretations of an utterance are relevant in different ways.  A rational hearer would choose the interpretation that best satisfies his expectations of relevance.

22. 4. Relevance Theory 4.3 Cognitive Principle of Relevance  Human cognitive processes are aimed at processing the most relevant information available in the most relevant way. OR Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance, or achieve the greatest possible cognitive effect using the smallest effort. 4.4 Communicative Principle of Relevance  Every utterance (or other ostensive stimulus) / every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance.