Lecture 8

Language and its user: pragmatics

An outline

What’s pragmatics?

(a) Pragmatics studies the context-dependent aspects of verbal communication and comprehension.

(b) Pragmatics studies the role of non-linguistic factors in verbal communication and comprehension.

When does it become an independent science?

Semantics and pragmatics

Two distinct but complementary disciplines Semantics is concerned with the cognitive meaning of sentences,

the meaning that is context-free; Pragmatics is concerned with the meaning of speech acts, the

meaning that is context-dependent. Semantics reveals the sentence meaning of dyadic relation,

answers the question “what does x mean?”; while pragmatics reveals the speaker’s meaning of triadic relation, answers the question “what do you mean by x?”

What do you mean by “a fool”?

Some Chinese idioms

言下之意；弦外之音 指桑骂槐；声东击西，旁敲侧击 微言大义

What does pragmatics study?

Deixis Conversational implicature Presupposition Speech act Conversational structure

Deixis ： Charles Fillmore 1971; S. Levinson 1983; J. Saeed 1997

Person deixis Time deixis Place (spatial) deixis Discourse (textual) deixis Social deixis

Examples

You, you and you, come over here. He does not like that. 当日生产，保证新鲜 On the house tomorrow. 一刻钟后回来。 Put that here and then move this over there.

Discourse deixis

Here our argument runs into some difficulties. At this point we have to look back to our initial

premise.

Social deixis

tu / vous distinction in European languages• tu / vous in French• du / Sie in German• tu / usted in Spanish

Asian languages like Japanese, Korean and Balinese have much richer systems for grammaticalizing social relations. (Saeed 1997:180)

Sentence meaning and speaker’s meaning

the central problem for pragmatics is that the meaning a speaker conveys by uttering a sentence on a particular occasion typically goes well beyond the (context-independent) linguistic meaning assigned to that sentence by the grammar. One way of putting this is to say that sentence meaning typically underdetermines speaker’s meaning.

some of the many ways in which speaker’s meaning can go beyond sentence meaning, and the goal of pragmatics should be to explain how the gap between sentence meaning and speaker’s meaning is bridged

Communicative competence

Subcomponents/subcompetences: Canale and Swain (1980):

• grammatical competence• strategic competence• sociocultural competence

Canale (1983): • + discourse competence

Celce-Murcia & Dörnyei • +actional competence (pragmatic c.) (1995)

Linguistic competence: competence in producing well-formed sentences and to recognize well-formed as well as ill-formed sentences. Sub-subcompetences: phonological, grammatical, lexical and phraseological competence.

Discourse competence concerns the selection, sequencing and arrangement of words, structures, sentences and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text.

Actional competence: competence in conveying and understanding communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with linguistic form.

Sociocultural competence: the speaker’s knowledge of how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance with the pragmatic factors related to variation in language use.

Strategic competence: knowledge of communicative strategies and how to use them.

Grice’s theory

1975, Logic and conversation

The cooperative principles Quantity;

• 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

• 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Quality:

• Supermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true.• 1. Do not say what you believe to be false.• 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation:• 1. Be relevant.

Manner:• Supermaxim: Be perspicuous• 1. Avoid obscurity of expression.• 2. Avoid ambiguity.• 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)• 4. Be orderly.

The observation and flout of the CP:Jenny Thomas(1995: 72)

follow/fulfill non-observance

• Flouting （蔑视）• Violating （不张扬地故意违反，意在误导）• Infringing （不经意间违背）• opting-out （离避）• Suspending （搁置）

Pragmatic implicature

conventional implicature non-conventional implicature

generalized implicature particularized implicature

conversational implicature

The calculation of pragmatic implicature

Is Rome the capital of Romania? Yes, and then Beirut is the capital of Peru.

Properties of conversational implicature

Cancelability 可取消性 Non-detachability 不可分离性 Calculability 可推导性 Non-conventionality 非规约性 Indeterminacy 不确定性

Tautology

Boys are boys. History is history; friendship is friendship. 你的就是你的，别人的就是别人的。

Politeness Principles

Leech (1983) argues that there is a Politeness Principle that works in conjunction with theCo-operative Principle, and identifies six associated politeness maxims

The politeness principles A.     得体准则 (Tact Maxim) ：减少表达有损于他人的观点。

• a.    尽量少让别人吃亏； • b.    尽量多使别人得益；

B ．慷慨准则 (Generosity Maxim) ：减少表达利己的观点。 • a.    尽量少使自己得益； • b.    尽量多让自己吃亏；

C ．赞誉准则 (Approbation Maxim): 减少表达对他人的贬损。 • a.    尽量少贬低别人； • b.    尽量多赞誉别人；

D ．谦逊准则 (Modesty Maxim) ：减少对自己的表扬。 • a.    尽量少赞誉自己； • b.    尽量多贬低自己；

E ．一致准则 (Agreement Maxim): 减少自己与别人在观点上的不一致。 • a.    尽量减少双方的分歧； • b.    尽量增加双方的一致；

F ．同情准则 (Sympathy Maxim): 减少自己与他人在感情上的对立。 • a. 尽量减少双方的反感； • b.  尽量增加双方的同情；

Maxim Where Found Description

1. The tact maxim

In impositives and commisives

The speaker minimizes the cost (and correspondingly maximizes the benefit) to the listener .

2. The generosity maxim

In impositives and commissives.

The speaker minimizes the benefit (and correspondingly maximizes the cost) to herself.

3. The approbation maxim

In expressives and assertives.

The speaker minimizes dispraise (and correspondingly maximizes praise) of the listener.

4. The modesty maxim.

In expressives and assertives.

The speaker minimizes praise (and correspondingly maximizes dispraise) of herself.

5. The agreement maxim.

In assertives. The speaker minimizes disagreement (and correspondingly maximizes agreement) between herself and the listener.

6. The sympathy maxim.

In assertives. The speaker minimizes antipathy (and correspondingly maximizes sympathy) between herself and the listener.

Gu (1990): Politeness in Chinese

1. THE SELF-DENIGRATION MAXIM• a. denigrate self• b. elevate other

2. THE ADDRESS MAXIM• a. address your interlocutor with an appropriate address

term 3. THE TACT MAXIM (in impositives)

• a. At the motivational level, minimize cost to other• b. At the conversational level, maximize benefit received

4. THE GENEROSITY MAXIM (in commissives)• a. At the motivational level, maximize benefit to other• b. At the conversational level, minimize cost to self

Sociopragmatic Interactional Principles (SIPs)

SIPs are a development of Leech's (1983) notion of politeness maxims and Kim's (1994) work on conversational/interactive constraints. Kim, Sharkey and Singelis (1994: 119) define interactive constraints as follows: 'fundamental concerns regarding the manner in which a message is constructed. They tend to affect the general character of every conversation one engages in, and an individual's conversational style in general.'

Kim’s (1994) Research into Interactional Constraints

1 . concern to avoid hurting the hearer’s feelings (cf. Brown and Levinson's, 1987, positive face of hearer)

2. concern to avoid imposition (cf. Brown and Levinson's, 1987, negative face of hearer)

3. concern to avoid negative evaluation by the hearer (cf. Brown and Levinson's, 1987, positive face of speaker)

4. concern for clarity (cf. Grice's, 1989, Maxim of Manner)

5. concern for effectiveness (cf. Canary and Spitzberg's, 1989, goal achievement/task accomplishment)

Communicative Goal • resolution of the problem/achievement of own (task-relate

d) goal • minimisation of bother/inconvenience to oneself • minimisation of bother/inconvenience to the other person • maintenance or enhancement of one’s own face • maintenance or enhancement of the other person’s face • minimisation of conflict and maintenance of smooth relatio

ns • acknowledgement of one’s own rights • acknowledgement of the other person’s rights • fulfilment of one’s own obligations • fulfilment by the other person of their obligations

Communicative Style

preference for clarity and directness compared with preference for hinting and indirectness

preference for warmth and friendliness compared with preference for restraint and respectfulness

preference for light-heartedness and humor compared with preference for seriousness

Social distance

The face theory

Face Face wants Face threatening act Face saving act

'Face' Abstract ‘face’ is a valuable commodity which I can ‘lose’ or

‘save’: "‘Face’, the public self-image that every member [person] wants

to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects:• a. Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal

preserves, rights to non-distraction - i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

• b. Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed."

• (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61)

It's my public 'face', and need not be true to my real personality or abilities.

I have to claim my 'face', because it depends on your respect for my rights (negative) and for me (positive).

You can easily damage my 'face' by rejecting my claim. But I can damage yours equally easily; so we all benefit from

respecting each other’s 'faces': “Do to others as you would like them to do to you.” (NB This

is basic morality.) Why ‘FACE’? Because: your face shows what you think of my 'face' (Ok, aggression,

contempt); my face shows how I react to your treatment of me (Ok, annoyance,

embarrassment).

Threats to face and politeness (See Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, Politeness, based on Goffman's theory of

'face'.) My intended behaviour can threaten your face: asking you for a service threatens your negative face; criticizing you threatens your positive face. Alternatives for me: 'bald on-line': I just do it regardless of consequences. politeness: I try to minimize the threat. Language offers various ready-made

politeness devices for doing this, e.g. PLEASE - protects your negative face. SEE YOU LATER - protects your positive face. 'off-line': I just hint at my intended behaviour and leave you to decide, e.g. "It's cold

here." I abandon the plan as too risky.

Positive and Negative politeness

Positive politeness Negative politeness

How to get a pen from someone else

say something say nothing

(but search in bag)

on record off record

(“I forgot my pen”)

face saving act bald on record

(“Give me a pen.”)

positive politeness

(“How about letting me use your pen?”

negative politeness

(“Could you lend me a pen?”)

Pre-sequence

Pre-request Pre-invitation

Spot the politeness devices and decide whether they protect the addressee's positive or negative face: 1. Hi, mate, can you lend me a pound? 2. Excuse me, sir, can I help you? 3 A: I saw a child run over this morning. B: No, really? You're kidding. 4. I'm afraid I can't accept this essay, Mary. 5. A: Which way to the post office, please? B: Just down the road and you'll see it. A: Great. Thanks a lot. B: That's alright. Bye. 6. A: Hello. B: Hi. 7. I wonder if you could tell me the time? 8. I suppose you wouldn't by any chance know the time, would you? 9. A: I think you may have left the door open. B: Woops - sorry! Silly me. A: That's alright - easily done. 10. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to leave at ten to four. 11. I know you must be terribly busy, but could you just glance through my essay draft? 12. I regret to inform you that your overdraft limit has been exceeded. 13. Do you know what I heard today? Bill and Ann are getting married.

The relation between CP and PP is a matter of advance and retreat. If one cares about CP more, then he has to care PP less; and contrariwise, if one has to weigh politeness more, he has to sacrifice CP.

Linguistic signals of power and solidarity

Word class English examples other languages shows relation of speaker to:

names John - Mr Brown - Dad Japanese: Taroo-san referent

personal pronouns thou - you (Shakespeare, some dialects)

French: tu - vousJapanese ‘I’

referent = addressee

Common nouns friend - boss - stranger Japanese: honorific prefix o- referent

verbs (especially sentence-roots)

Japanese polite forms:Taroo-ga ki-ta. ‘Taro came’ (intimate)Taroo-ga ki-masi-ta. ‘Taro came’ (polite)

addressee

vocabulary level try - attempt Javanese style levels addressee

Greetings Hi! - Good morning addressee

Politeness devices Please – Thank you addressee

Austin’s theory

locutionary act 言中行为

illocutionary act 言外行为

perlocutionary act 言后行为

言之发——以言指事

示言外之力——以言行事

收言后之果——以言成事

The speech act theory

Performatives and constatives

Searle’s theory

Categorizing speech acts

1. representatives 2. directives 3. commissives 4. expressives 5. declarations

Conditions for an act

Preparatory condition Propositional Sincerity essential

Direct and indirect speech acts

The relevance theoryhttp://www.dan.sperber.com/

Dan Sperber is also the co-author, with Deirdre Wilson (Department of Linguistics, University College, London) of Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Blackwell 1986 - Second Revised Edition, 1995). Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson have developed a cognitive approach to communication known as "Relevance Theory".

The Relevance Theory The Relevance Theory (simplified) Relevance and Understanding

Cognitive Principle of Relevance Human cognition tends to be geared to the

maximization of relevance.

Ostensive–inferential communication • a. The informative intention:

The intention to inform an audience of something. • b. The communicative intention:

The intention to inform the audience of one’s informative intention

Communicative Principle of Relevance Every ostensive stimulus conveys a presumption

of its own optimal relevance.

Optimal relevance

An ostensive stimulus is optimally relevant to an audience iff: • a. It is relevant enough to be worth the audience’s pr

ocessing effort; • b. It is the most relevant one compatible with commu

nicator’s abilities and preferences.

Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure

a. Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects: Test interpretive hypotheses (disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility.

b. Stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied.

Sub-tasks in the overall comprehension process

a. Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about explicit content (in relevance-theoretic terms, explicatures) via decoding, disambiguation, reference resolution, and other pragmatic enrichment processes.

b. Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the intended contextual assumptions (in relevance-theoretic terms, implicated premises).

c. Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the intended contextual implications (in relevance-theoretic terms, implicated conclusions).

Conversational structure

Pre-sequences Inserted sequences Turn, turn-taking Adjacency pair Overlap; interruption; pause; silence; Side sequence Repair

Video clips Sample papers

Repair; self-repair

Types of conversational repair