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. Le
vinson 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 Bali
nese have much richer systems for grammaticali
zing 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-form
ed sentences and to recognize well-formed as well as ill-for
med sentences. Sub-subcompetences: phonological, gram
matical, lexical and phraseological competence.
 Discourse competence concerns the selection, sequencing
and arrangement of words, structures, sentences and utter
ances to achieve a unified spoken or written text.
 Actional competence: competence in conveying and under
standing communicative intent, that is, matching actional in
tent 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 t
he pragmatic factors related to variation in language use.
 Strategic competence: knowledge of communicative strate
gies 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
 conversational implicature

conventional implicature non-conventional implicature

generalized implicature particularized 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 the
Co-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 In impositives and The speaker minimizes the cost (and
maxim commisives correspondingly maximizes the benefit) to the
listener .
2. The In impositives and The speaker minimizes the benefit (and
generosity commissives. correspondingly maximizes the cost) to herself.
maxim
3. The In expressives and The speaker minimizes dispraise (and
approbatio assertives. correspondingly maximizes praise) of the
n maxim listener.
4. The modesty In expressives and The speaker minimizes praise (and correspondingly
maxim. assertives. maximizes dispraise) of herself.
5. The In assertives. The speaker minimizes disagreement (and
agreement correspondingly maximizes agreement) between
maxim. herself and the listener.
6. The In assertives. The speaker minimizes antipathy (and
sympathy correspondingly maximizes sympathy) between
maxim. 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 Prin
ciples (SIPs)
 SIPs are a development of Leech's (1983) notion o
f politeness maxims and Kim's (1994) work on con
versational/interactive constraints. Kim, Sharkey a
nd Singelis (1994: 119) define interactive constrain
ts as follows: 'fundamental concerns regarding the
manner in which a message is constructed. They t
end to affect the general character of every conver
sation one engages in, and an individual's convers
ational style in general.'
Kim’s (1994) Research into Interac
tional 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 Levinso
n's, 1987, negative face of hearer)
 3. concern to avoid negative evaluation by the hearer
(cf. Brown and Levinson's, 1987, positive face of spea
ker)
 4. concern for clarity (cf. Grice's, 1989, Maxim of Mann
er)
 5. concern for effectiveness (cf. Canary and Spitzber
g'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 negative politeness

(“How about letting me use (“Could you lend me a pen?”)
your 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 French: tu - vous referent = addressee

(Shakespeare, some dialects) Japanese ‘I’

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

verbs Japanese polite forms: addressee

(especially Taroo-ga ki-ta.
sentence-roots) ‘Taro came’ (intimate)
Taroo-ga ki-masi-ta.
‘Taro came’ (polite)

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 言之发——以言指事

illocutionary act 言外行为 示言外之力——以言行事

perlocutionary act 言后行为 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 theory
http://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 explic
it content (in relevance-theoretic terms, explicatures) vi
a decoding, disambiguation, reference resolution, and ot
her pragmatic enrichment processes.
 b. Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the in
tended contextual assumptions (in relevance-theoretic te
rms, implicated premises).
 c. Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the in
tended contextual implications (in relevance-theoretic te
rms, 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