What is pragmatics?

Pragmatics the study of speaker meaning. It is

concerned with the study of meaning as
communicated by the speaker (or writer) and
interpreted by a listener (or reader). Pragmatics is
the study of:
contextual meaning. It involves the interpretation of
what people mean in a given context and how the
context influences what is said. It requires a
consideration of how speakers organize what to say
according to who they are talking to, where, when,
and under what circumstances.
how more gets communicated that is said. It explores
how a lot of what is unsaid is recognized as part of
what is communicated.
the expression of relative closeness. Closeness,
whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies
shared experience. On the assumption of how close or
distant the listener is, the speaker determines how
much needs to be said.
the relationships between linguistic forms and the
 Distinction between sentence and utterance
meaning

Sentence meaning refers to the abstract

context-independent entity called
semantic proposition.
Utterance meaning is context-dependent.
It is generally regarded as the product of
sentence meaning and context. Therefore,
it is richer than the meaning of the
sentence from which it is derived. It is
identical with the purpose for which the
speaker utters the sentence. For example:
The bag I am carrying is a bit heavy.
 Syntax, semantics and pragmatics (1)

Pragmatics as a branch of study has its origin in

semiotics. Morris (1938) categorized pragmatics as
one of the three components of semiotics, the
other two being syntax and semantics:
Syntax: the study of the relationships between
linguistic forms, how they are arranged in
sequence and which sequences are well-formed.
Semantics: the study of the relationships
between linguistic forms and entities in the
world, how words literally connect to things.
Pragmatics: the study of the relation of linguistic
units to their users(Davis, 1991: 3)
 Syntax, semantics and pragmatics (2)

Three branches are responsible for different aspects of

language and its usage. Primarily, syntax accounts for the
grammaticality of sentence making; semantics explains
the meaningfulness of sentence building; and pragmatics
studies the felicity conditions or appropriateness
conditions governing language use. For instance, while
sentences (1) and (2) are linguistically ill-formed, the
utterance in (3) is pragmatically problematic because
come and there are inherently contradictory in the
direction of movement so that the execution of the act is
impossible.
(1) * John sing well.
(2) * John is an orphan whose father is a teacher.
(3) ?? Come there please! (Levinson, 1983: 7)
 Syntax, semantics and pragmatics (3)

People sometimes intentionally “misuse” language for some

special effect. The following sentences are telling examples:
(4) Boys will be boys.
(5) Golf plays John.
(6) I’m loving it. (McDonald’s slogan)
Not only are uses of ungrammatical sentences explicable in
pragmatic terms, but syntactic choices are also essentially a
matter of pragmatic consideration. Consider (7):
(7) a. I’m familiar with Jack.
b. Jack is familiar to me.
(7a) and (7b) communicate basically the same message,
but are different in communicative effects. They correspond
to different perspectives from which we report the message.
So “pragmatics is “the study of those relations between
language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded
in the structure of a language” (Levinson, 1983: 9).
 Syntax, semantics and pragmatics (4)

As regards the relation between semantics

and pragmatics, we tend to assign
abstract, literal, linguistic meaning, truth
conditions, etc. to the former, and the
contextual, non-literal, speaker-intended
meaning to the latter. For some scholars,
pragmatics is “the study of all those
aspects of meaning not captured in a
semantic theory (Levinson, 1983: 12).
 Deixis and distance

Deixis means “pointing” via

language. Deictic expressions are
those used to identify objects,
persons, and events in terms of
their relation to the speaker in
space and time. Classification of
deixis (see next slide).
Deictic expressions are used to
indicate the distance between the
addresser and addressee.
 Classification of deixis
classification of deixis

Deixis
Proximal terms: this, here, now
distal terms: that, there, then
deictic center: now

person deixis spatial deixis temporal deixis

you here now
me there then
he etc. etc. etc
 Classification of deixis
Person deixis: I, you, he (she, it)
Third person is not a direct participant in basic(I-
you) interaction and, being an outsider, is more
distant. Using a third person form, where a second
person form would be possible, is one way of
communicating distance and unfamiliarity. This is
done for an ironic or humorous purpose as when
one person, who is very busy in the kitchen,
address another, who is being very lazy, as in the
sentence:Would his highness like some coffee?
Third person form is also used to make potential
accusations: Somebody didn’t clean up after
himself/Each person has to clean up after him or
herself.
The above general rule can be expressed in the
following way: We clean up after ourselves around
here.
 Classification of deixis

Spatial deixes: here, there; come, go;

yonder, hither, indicating the relative
location of people and things. These
words are used to show psychological
distance. Physically close objects will
tend to be treated by the speaker as
psychologically close. Also, something
that is physically distant will generally
be treated as psychologically distant.
How will you explain the following
sentence?
I am not here now.
 Classification of deixis

Temporal deixis: the proximal form

“now” as indicating both the time
coinciding with the speaker’s
utterance and the time of the
speaker’s voice being uttered. The
distal “then” applies both to the
past and the future. Deictic
expressions like “yesterday”,
“tomorrow”, “today”, “tonight” etc.
depend for their interpretation on
knowing the relevant utterance
time.
 Presupposition and entailment
General remarks: speakers assume certain
information is already known by their listener.
Because it is treated as known, such
information will generally not be stated and
consequently will count as part of what is
communicated but not said.
A presupposition is something the speaker
assumes to be the case prior to making an
utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have
presuppositions. An entailment something that
logically follows from what is asserted in the
utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have
entailments.
Mary’s bother bought three horses. (1)there is
a person called Mary; she has a brother; Mary
has only one bother and he has a lot of money.
 Presupposition
Presupposition is also treated as a
relationship between two propositions. For
example:
a. Mary’s dog is cute. (=p)
b. Mary has a dog. (=q)
c. p>>q
a. Mary’s dog isn’t cute. (=p)
b. Mary has a dog. (=q)
c. NOTp>>q
In the latter case, it is called constancy
under negation, meaning that the
presupposition of a statement will remain
constant (i.e. still true) even when that
 Types of Presupposition (1)
Existential presupposition, one associated
with the possessive construction or any
definite noun phrase. For example: My
computer is bought two years ago. (>>I have
a computer); the King of France (>>there
exists a King in France).
Factive presupposition, one treated as a fact,
in sentences containing “know”, “regret” or
“realize” etc. For example: she didn’t realize
he was ill. (>>He was ill); we regret telling
him. (>>We told him) It isn’t odd that he left
early. (>>He left early)
lexical presupposition, the use of one form
with its asserted meaning is conventionally
interpreted with the presupposition that
another meaning is understood. For example:
he stopped smoking. (>>He used to smoke);
They started complaining. (>>they weren’t
complaining before)
 Types of Presupposition (2)
In the case of lexical presupposition, the speaker’s use
of a particular expression is taken to presuppose
another concept, whereas in the case of a factive
presupposition, the use of a truth of the information
that is stated after it.
Structural presupposition, certain structure have been
analyzed as conventionally presupposing that part of
the structure is already assumed to be true. For
example: when did he leave? (>>He left) Where did
you buy the bike? (>>you bought the bike)
Non-factive presupposition, one that is assumed not to
be true. For example: I dreamed that I was rich. (>>I
was not rich); We imagined we were in Hawaii. (>>We
were not in Hawaii).
Counter-factual presupposition, what is presupposed in
not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true.
For example: if you were my friend, you would have
helped me. (>>you are not my friend).
 Cooperation and implicature
In our daily conversations, we often imply, suggest, or
even hint what we intend to say instead of expressing
ourselves in a direct way. To understand an utterance,
we need to make certain inferences based on the
knowledge assumed to be shared by the addresser
and addressee. They should cooperate with each other
in order to keep the conversation going. For example:
when a speaker says “my car”, he really does have a
car. By cooperation, we mean it is assumed by the
listener that the speaker is not trying to confuse,
trick, or withhold relevant information. For example:
A hamburger is a hamburger.
When the listener hears this sentence, he or she has
to assume that the speaker is being cooperative and
intends to communicate something. On the other
hand, the speaker expects that the listener will be
able to work out the implicature intended in this
context.
 Cooperative Principles
Make your conversational
contribution such as is required, at
the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of
the talk exchange in which you are
engaged. That is, to say what is
appropriate at the right time, and
be relevant to what is being talked
about. It is usually stated in four
sub-principles, maxims: maxim of
quantity, quality, relation, manner.
 Maxim of quantity
Make your contribution as informative as
required (for the current purposes of the
exchange).
Do not make your contribution more informative
than is required.
Man: Does your dog bite?
Woman: No. (the man reaches down to pet the
dog.
The dog bites the man’s hand.)
Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn’t
bite.
Woman: He doesn’t . But that’s not my dog.
From the man’s perspective, the woman’s
answer provides less information than expected.
--Have you ever been there?
--Yes, I have been there five times.
 Maxim of quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate
evidence.
As far as I know, they are married.
I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a
wedding ring on her finger.
I’m not sure if this right, but I heard it was a
secret ceremony in Hawaii.
He couldn’t live without her, I guess.
The context for the above examples might be a
recent rumor involving a couple known to the
speakers. These examples show that the
speaker(s) is aware of the maxim of quality.
 Maxim of manner
Be perspicuous. Should be easily understood.
Avoid obscurity of expression.
Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Be orderly.
a. This may be a bit confused, but I remember
being in a car.
b. I’m not sure if this makes sense, but the car
had no lights.
c. I don’t know if this is clear at all, but I think
the other car was reversing.
These examples show that the speaker is aware
of the maxim of manner.
 Maxim of relation
Be relevant. Should have
significant and demonstrable
bearing on the matter being
discussed.
A. Bert: Do you like ice-cream?
Ernie: Is the Pope catholic?
B. Leila: Whoa! Has your boss
gone crazy?
Mary: Let’s go get some
coffee.
 Conversational implicature
A additional unstated meaning
that has to be assumed in order
to maintain the cooperative
principle, e.g. if someone says
‘The president is a mouse”,
something that is literally false,
the hearer must assume the
speaker means to convey more
than is being said.
 Conversational implicature
A additional unstated meaning
that has to be assumed in order
to maintain the cooperative
principle, e.g. if someone says
‘The president is a mouse”,
something that is literally false,
the hearer must assume the
speaker means to convey more
than is being said.
Types of Conversational Implicatures (1)
Generalized conversational implicature refer to
the additional conveyed meaning that can be
calculated without special knowledge in the
context. For example:
--I hope you bought the bread and cheese.
--I bought the bread. (+>not cheese)
some generalized conversational implicatures are
commonly communicated on the basis of a scale
of values and are consequently known as scalar
implicatures. For example:
<all, most, many, some few> <always, often,
sometimes>
They are sometimes really interesting. (+>not
always, often) When any form in a scale is
asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the
scale is implicated.
Types of Conversational Implicatures (2)
Particularized conversational implicatures: conveyed
meanings inferred from specific context. For
example:
Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting.
It appears that Tom flout (violate) the maxim of
relevance when he gave the above answer. Tom will
be spending that evening with his parents, and time
spent with parents is quiet (consequently +>tom
not at party). Implicatures can be calculated,
suspended, cancelled and reinforced.
You have won five dollars. (+>ONLY five)
You have won at least five dollars! (suspended)
You have won five dollars, in fact, you’ve won ten!
(cancelled)
You have won five dollars, that’s four more than
Types of Conversational Implicatures (3)
Conventional implicatures, an
additional unstated meaning
associated with the use of a specific
word, e.g. ‘A but B’ implies a contrast
between A and B, so ‘contrast’ is a
conventional implicature of ‘but’.
For example:
Even john came to the party.
He even helped tidy up afterwards.
‘Even’ implicates ‘contrary to
expectation’; ‘yet’ implicates that the
present situation is expected to be
different, or perhaps the opposite, at a
later time.
 Constatives and performatives (1)
Many philosophers believe that we use language to
represent the world, and it is essential that we make true
statements about the state of affairs in it. One of the central
argument of formal semantics as well as the philosophy of
language is thus that we will know the meaning of a
sentence if we know under what conditions the statement
expressed by the sentence is true. However, a hard fact
about language use is that we are not confined to making
true or false statements about the world. According to John
Austin (1962), whereas some instances of language use are
constative, that is, they are statements, assertions or the
like that do not change the state of affairs, other uses of
language are performative, in the sense that they bring
about some immediate change to the state of affairs. For
instance, compare the following:
(7) China is the biggest country in Asia.
(8) You’re fired. (said by a boss to his employee who has just
made a serious mistake)
Clearly, (7) makes a true statement about China. It is
informative, and the statement as such does not make China
the biggest country in Asia. By contrast, the boss’s saying of
(8) attains the immediate effect of dismissing the employee.
These are what we mean by speech acts, i.e. actions
performed via utterances (Yule, 1996: 47). Other typical
ones include thanking, apology, request, compliment,
 Constatives and performatives (2)
Austin’s dichotomy between constative and performative
uses of language won much approval. Yet, he was soon
criticized on various grounds. Among others, it was pointed
out that even constatives are performative in some ways.
For example, (7) can be said to perform the speech act of
stating, because the saying of it can at once change the
knowledge state of the addressee. In other words, all
utterances we use in context are analyzable as speech acts.
Also, an utterance involving the use of a certain type of
performative verb like promise does not necessarily appear
performative in the way indicated by the verb, as in (9):
(9) I promise I will take two points off your final score if you
are late again.
Here, a threat rather than a promise is being issued by the
speaker, because a promise is generally in the interest of
the addressee. Thus, we can perform one type of speech
act by performing another. This is what John Searle (1979)
later termed “indirect speech act”. Such examples abound
in daily communication. Language users are indirect for
various reasons, like avoiding bluntness, reducing
imposition, creating humor, etc.
 Speech act theory (1)
After the collapse of the dichotomy, John Austin
proposed a new framework for the analysis of
speech acts. Given that virtually all utterances
are explicitly or implicitly “performative”, one
might treat every single utterance as performing
three related acts simultaneously: a locutionary
act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary act.
The locutionary act is the linguistic aspect of an
utterance, i.e. the act of verbally saying
something.
The illocutionary act is the behavioral aspect of
an utterance involving the intentions of the
speaker, i.e. the act of doing something or having
someone do something.
The perlocutionary act is the consequential
aspect of an utterance in terms of the effects the
speaker achieves on the listener, i.e. the act of
bringing something to happen.
 Speech act theory (2)
Consider the following example:
(10) Mary: I’m hungry.
John: I can get you something to
eat.
Mary: Thank you.
We may just focus on Mary’s first
utterance. Its locution is the linguistic
expression itself; its illocution is an
indirect request for John to get her
some food; and its perlocution is the
outcome: John offers to get Mary
some food. to happen.
 Speech act theory (3)
IFID--illocutionary force device,
indication in the speaker’s utterance
of the communicative force of t that
utterance. It is usually a performative
verb. For example: I warn you that
you should not allow this happen.
Other IFIDs include word order,
stress, and intonation, lowered voice
quality (for a warning or a threat).
A. You’re going!
B. You’re going? (low rising tone )
C. Are you going?
 Speech act theory (4)
To guarantee the performance of a speech
act to be recognized as intended, there
should be some expected and appropriate
circumstances. These are termed felicity
conditions, the appropriate conditions for a
speech act to be recognized as intended.
General conditions, preconditions on
performing a speech act (esp. concerning
the participants), for example, they can
understand the language being used, and
that they are not play-acting or being
nonsensical.
Content conditions, in order to count as a
particular type of speech act, an utterance
must contain certain features, e.g. for both
promise and warning, the content of the
utterance must be about a future event. A
promise requires that the future event will
be a future act of the speaker.
 Speech act theory (5)
Preparatory conditions, specific requirements
prior to an utterance in order for it to count as
speech act, e.g. two preparatory conditions for a
promise: (1) the event will happen by itself; (2)
the event will have a beneficial effect.
Sincerity condition, requirements on the genuine
intentions of a speaker in order for an utterance
to count as a particular speech act, e.g. for a
warning, the speaker genuinely believe that the
future event will not have a beneficial effect.
Essential condition, in performing a speech act, a
requirement that the utterance commits the
speaker to the act performed, e.g. by act of
uttering a promise, I thereby intend to create an
obligation to carry out the action as promised; in
a similar vein, with a warning, the utterance
changes my state from non-informing of a bad
future event to informing.
 Speech act theory (6)
Performative hypothesis: proposal that,
underlying every utterance, there is a clause with
a verb that identifies the speech act. For
example:
1a. Clean up this mess.
b. I hereby order you that you clean up this
mess.
2a. The work was done by Elaine and myself.
b. I hereby tell you that the work was done by
Ellaine and myself.
In 1a and 2a, implicit performatives are
contained, whereas in 1b and 2b explicit ones are
used.
Classification of speech acts (1)
Declaration: a speech act that brings
about a change by being uttered, or in
other words, speech acts that change the
world via their utterance, e.g. a judge
pronouncing a sentence.
More examples:
1. Priest: I now pronounce you
husband and wife.
2. I now name this ship Queen.
3. Referee: you are out!
4. Jury foreman: we find the
defendant guilty.
Classification of speech acts (2)
Representatives or assertives:
speech acts in which the speaker
states what is believed or known, or
speech acts that state what the
speaker believes to be the case or
not, e.g. an assertion, statement of
facts, conclusions, and descriptions.
Examples:
1. The earth is flat.
2. Chomsky is hated by many
linguistics students.
3. It was a warm sunny day.
Classification of speech acts (3)
An expressive is speech act in which
the speaker expresses his feelings
or attitudes. They express
psychological states and can be
statements of pleasure, pain, likes,
joy or sorrow.
Examples:
1. I’m sorry.
2. Congratulations.
3. Oh, yes, great, mmmm.
Classification of speech acts (4)
Directives are speech acts used to
get someone else to do something.
They are commands, orders,
requests, suggestions.
Examples:
1. Give me a cup of coffee. Make it
black.
2. Could you lend me a pen please?
3. Don’t touch that.
Classification of speech acts (5)
Commissives are speech acts that speakers use
to commit themselves to some future action.
They are promises, threats, refusals, pledges.
Examples:
1. I’ll be back.
2. I’m going to get it right next time.
3. We will not do that.
(1)In using a declaration, the speaker changes
the world via words; (2) in using a
representative, the speaker makes words fit the
world of belief; (3) in using an expressive, the
speaker makes words fit the the world of feeling;
(4) in using a directive, the speaker attempts to
make the world fit the words via the speaker; (5)
in using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to
make the world fit the words via the speaker.
 Summary of speech act classification
Speech act types Direction of fit S= speaker
X= situation
Declarations Words change the world S causes x
Representatives Make words fit the world S believes x
Expressives Make words fit the world S feel x
Directives Make the world fit words S wants x
Commissives Make the world fit words S intends x
Direct and indirect speech acts
Another approach to distinguishing speech acts.
Direct speech act refers to speech act where a
direct relationship exists between the structure
and communicative function of an utterance, e.g.
using an interrogative form (‘Can you…’) to ask a
question.
Indirect speech act refers to speech act which an
indirect relationship exists between the structure
and communicative function of an utterance, e.g.
the use of an interrogative (Can you…) not to ask
a question , but to make a request (Can you
help me with this?).
It is believed that indirect speech acts are
associated with greater politeness in English
than direct speech acts.
 Politeness--Maxims
According to the Politeness Principle (PP for
short), one needs to minimize (other things being
equal) the expression of impolite beliefs and
maximize (other things being equal) the
expression of polite beliefs (Leech, 1983: 81).
Specifically, the principle is composed of six
maxims:
A. Tact Maxim: Minimize cost to other; Maximize
benefit to other.
B. Generosity Maxim: Minimize benefit to self;
Maximize cost to self.
C. Approbation Maxim: Minimize dispraise of other;
Maximize praise of other.
D. Modesty Maxim: Minimize praise of self;
Maximize dispraise of self.
E. Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement
between self and other; Maximize agreement
between self and other.
F. Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between
self and other; Maximize sympathy between self
 Politeness--Maxims
While the Tact Maxim may involve a scale of material or physical
benefit-cost (For instance, asking someone to take a rest is more
polite than asking someone to clean the window, because the
former maximizes benefit to toher while the latter maximizes cost to
other.), its linguistic realization as marked by a scale of indirectness
is more relevant to pragmatic study. Compare the following set of
utterances:
(11) a. Show me the way to the railway station, Tom.
b. Can you show me the way to the railway station, Tom?
c. Could you possibly show me the way to the railway station,
sir?
d. How can I get to the railway station, sir?
As the degree of indirectness increases from (11a) to (11d), the
utterances sound more and more polite. But it is to be noted that
the use of polite forms needs to be appropriate. For a person to use
(11c) as a request to someone intimate to him or her might not be
interpreted as sincerely polite.
Also, the difference between (29a) and (29b) can be explained by
the Generosity Maxim:
(12) a. Could I have some more soup?
b. Is there some more soup?
Whereas the speaker of (12a) explicitly mentions himself as the
beneficiary, that of (29b) does not. In accordance with the
Generosity Maxim, the latter utterance is more polite.
Also worthy of special mention here is the Agreement Maxim. Since
on many occasions we cannot agree with others, it is polite that we
soften the tone of disagreement by using expressions like Yes, but
 Politeness (1)
Related concept: face, the public self-image of
a person. It refers to the emotional and social
sense of self that everyone has and expects
everyone else to recognize. Politeness can be
defined as the means employed to show
awareness of another person’s face. Showing
awareness for another person’s face when the
other seems socially distant is often described
in terms of respect or deference; showing
equivalent awareness for another person’s
face when the other is socially close is often
described in terms of friendliness,
camaraderie, or solidarity. For example:
a. Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but can I talk to you for a
minite?
b.Hey, bucky, got a minute?
 Politeness (2)
Face wants refer to a person’s
expectations that his public self-image will
be respected. Utterance or action which
threatens a person’s public self-image is
called face threatening act; utterance of
action which avoids a potential threat to a
person’s public self-image is called face
saving act. For example:
Husband: I’m going to tell him to stop
that awful noise right now.
Wife: Perhaps you could just ask
him if he is going to stop soon because it’s
getting a bit late and people need to get
 Politeness (3)
Negative face refers to the need to be
independent, not to be imposed on by
others, whereas positive face means the
need to be connected, to belong to a
group. Therefore, awareness of another’s
right not to be imposed on is negative
politeness, whereas showing solidarity
with another is termed positive
politeness. For example:
A. Hi, buddy, any extra tickets? Spare
one for my girl friend.
B. I am just wondering if you have any
extra tickets? My girl friend is coming with
me to see the film.
 Politeness strategies (1)
Whenever you have any need, you may choose
either to say nothing (with your needs being
recognized by others without having to express
them in language) or to express them in different
ways. If you choose to express them, you may
express them directly or indirectly, or off record
or on record. On record means utterances
directly addressed to another, whereas off record
refers to utterance not directly addressed to
another. For example, if you are attending a
lecture, but forget your pen and you want to
borrow from the person sitting next to you.
A. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.
B. Lend me your pen. (bald on record)
C. Will you please lend me your pen? (on record)
 Politeness strategies (2)
Positive politeness strategy is an appeal
to solidarity with another; negative
politeness strategy is an attempt to
demonstrate awareness of another’s right
not to be imposed on. The former is used
among friends, peers etc., while latter is
frequently used by speakers having a
lower social position etc.
A. Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d
let me use your pen. (positive politeness
strategy)
B. Could you lend me your pen?
(negative politeness strategy.
 Politeness strategies (2)
Solidarity strategy is the tendency to use
positive politeness forms, emphasizing
closeness between speaker and hearer
(frequently marked by inclusive terms
such as ‘we’ and ‘let’s’), while deference
strategy is a feature of interactive talk
emphasizing negative politeness, the non-
personal, and freedom from imposition.
For example:
A. Come on, let’s go to the party.
Everyone will be there. We’ll have fun.
B. There is going to be a party, if you
can make it. It will be fun.
 How to get a pen from someone else
strategies used for expressing request

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

negative politeness positive politeness

Could you lend me your pen? How about letting me use your pen