Introduction to linguistics

2014-04-03

Lecture 7: Pragmatics (2)

Sources

• Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, Nina

Hyams. 2003. An introduction to language.

– Chapter 5: The meaning of language, pp. 214-216

• Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia

of language, p. 121.

Functions of utterances

• People communicate not only to announce

facts.

• Apart from utterances that communicate

information,

• there are utterances which are

like actions

– When one says, e.g.

I apologise, I promise, I name

this shi

p, s/he performs an action:

– an action of apologising, promisig, naming, etc.

Speech acts

• Speech act

– an act that a speaker performs

when making an utterance.

• John L. Austin (1962) said that speech acts can

be analysed on three levels:

– Locutionary act
– Illocutionary act
– Perlocutionary act.

Speech acts

• Locutionary act

– what we literally say.

• Illocutionary act

– the real action performed

by the utterance;

– the real intended meaning: e.g. praising,

criticising, agreeing.

• Perlocutionary act

– an attempt to achieve a

response from the hearer: frighten, amuse,
etc.;

– the effect achieved on listeners.

A three-level analysis

• Example: the child won't go to sleep, the

parent says,

I'll turn your light off

– The locutionary act:

just uttering the sentence.

– The illocutionary force of the utterance:

a threat.

– The perlocutionary effect:

getting the child to

quiet down and go to sleep.

• The illocutionary force of an utterance and its

perlocutionary effect

may not coincide

: the

child may not go to sleep.

2014-04-03

Implicature

• Implicature

– 'hidden' meaning; explains how it is

possible to mean more than what is actually said.

• It refers to the

implications

which can be

deduced

from the utterance and context:

• John is meeting a woman this evening

– Implication: the woman is not his mother, sister or

wife.

• Implicatures are part of what the speaker

means

but not part of what is said.

Implicature

• Implicatures depend on context, e.g.:

He’s never been convicted of a crime

• Context 1:

– A: Can I trust him?
– B: Well, he’s never been convicted of a crime

(you can’t

trust him: the best thing you can say about him is that he
hasn’t been convicted).

• Context 2:

– A: Can he join the police academy?
– B: Well, he’s never been convicted of a crime

(yes he can;

he fulfils one of the requirements of the academy).

Grice's theory of implicature

• The success of a conversation depends on

– what speakers actually say and
– their whole approach to the interaction (their

cooperation).

• The principles include four basic

maxims of

conversation

which jointly express a general

co-operative principle

(Grice 1975).

• The maxims are not rules – they just describe

what happens in a conversation.

The co-operative principle (CP)

• Co-operative principle:

a speaker’s

conversation should be

as effective and

cooperative as possible

• It includes four basic maxims:

1. Maxim of Quality

– make your contribution

one that is true, specifically:

– Do not say what you believe to be false.
– Do not say that for which you lack adequate

evidence.

The co-operative principle (CP)

2. Maxim of Relevance

– make your

contribution relevant (to the point).

3. Maxim of Quantity

– make your contribution

as informative as it is required.

– Do not make your contribution more informative

than it is required.

4. Maxim of Manner

– be clear:

– Avoid obscurity or ambiguity.
– Be brief and orderly.

The co-operative principle (CP)

• The maxims can

be observed, violated

flouted

• Violating the maxims can lead to

conversational break-down

– a speaker that is obscure, unclear or ambiguous

can be misinterpreted.

• However, people may wish to

flout

one of the

maxims (disobey them on purpose).

2014-04-03

Observing the maxims

A. Do you have any children?
B. I have one son

• If B really has

only one child

, B is

observing

the maxim of quantity:

– B says just enough to answer the question.

• If B

also has daughters

, B is saying less than

required to answer the question,

– then B

violates

the m. of quantity (and possibly

the m. of quality if B is lying).

Flouting the maxims

A. Can you tell me the time?
B. Well, the news has just begun

• Semantically, B’s answer makes no sense.
• But there's a lot of information implied.

Speaker A means:

– Do you have the ability to tell me the time of the

present moment, as indicated on a watch, and if
so please tell me the time.

Flouting the maxims

• Speaker B means:

– No, I don't know the exact time of the present

moment, but I can provide some information from
which you may be able to deduce the appropriate
time, namely

the news has just begun

• On the surface, the maxims are violated, but

in fact speaker B is following the CP.

– thanks to our ability of understanding

implicatures, most of the information does not
have to be stated.

Flouting the maxims

A. Teheran is in Turkey, isn't it?
B. And London's in Armenia, I suppose?

• B deliberately utters a falsehood (flouts the

m. of quality) to indicate the obvious
incorrectness and ignorance of A.

• B is not uncooperative – pretends to violate

the maxim to achieve a certain goal: to imply
that A is uneducated.