TOPIC 6 PRAGMATICS: MEANING AND CONTENT, AND THE

INTENTION TO COMMUNICATE

6.0 SYNOPSIS

Topic 7 introduces you to pragmatics. It seeks to develop your ability to describe

how language can be used in social contexts by knowing the ways in which
context contributes to meaning. You will learn that all conversations follow a
basic set of rules which people use to express themselves when speaking. It
also aims to help you further improve your skills in listening, speaking, reading
and writing and develop your confidence and fluency in using English in a variety
of context.

6.1 LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of this Session, you will be able to:

1. explain the nature and scope of pragmatics and its place within linguistics
2. identify the key features of speech act theory, conversational maxims, and
politeness theory.
3. demonstrate understanding of the kinds of cognitive processes involved in
utterance comprehension
4. express different levels of understanding when speaking
5. follow the basic set of rules when speaking

6.2 FRAMEWORK OF TOPICS

PRAGMATICS

Pronouns and Maxims of

Deixis Implicatures Speech Acts
discourse Conversation

Direct Indirect

1
6.2.1 What is Pragmatics?

A branch of linguistics concerned with the use of language in social contexts and
the ways in which people produce and comprehend meanings through language.
In other words, it is language use to perform speech acts.

Examples:
Assert, inform, claim, declare, state
Predict, forecast,
Describe, assess, classify,
Offer, propose, .
Apologize, condole, congratulate, greet, thank, ...

In pragmatics, two kinds of contexts are relevant. The first is linguistic context
the discourse that precedes the phrase or sentence to be interpreted; the second
is situational context virtually everything non-linguistic in the environment of the
speaker.

Speakers know how to combine words and phrases to form sentences, and they
also know how to combine sentences into a larger discourse to express complex
thoughts and ideas. Discourse analysis is concerned with the broad speech
units comprising multiple sentences. It involves questions of style,
appropriateness, cohesiveness, rhetorical force, topic/subtopic structure,
differences between written and spoken discourse, as well as grammatical
properties.

Within a discourse, preceding sentences affect the meaning of sentences that

follow them in various ways. For example, the reference or meaning of pronouns
often depends on prior discourse. As well, prior discourse often disambiguates
words like bank, in that situation the discussion may be about rafting on a river or
interest rates.

Situational context, on the other hand, is the nonlinguistic environment in which a

sentence or discourse happens. It is the context that allows speakers to
seamlessly, even unknowingly, interpret questions like Can you pass the salt?
as requests to carry out a certain action. Situational context includes the
speaker, hearer, and any third parties present, along with their beliefs and their
beliefs about what the others believe. It includes the physical environemnt, the
subject of conversation, the time of the day, and so on, ad infinitum. Almost any
imaginable extralinguistic factor may, under appropriate circumstances, influence
the way language is interpreted.

2
Pronouns provide a good way to illustrate the two kinds of contexts linguistic
and situational that affect meaning.

6.2.2 Pronouns and Discourse

Pronouns may be used in place of noun phrases from prior discourse or may be
used to refer to entities presumably known to the participants of a discourse.
When that presumption fails, it may result in miscommunication.

In a discourse, prior linguistic context plays a primary role in pronoun

interpretation. In the following discourse:

It seems that the man loves the woman.

Many people think he loves her.

the most natural interpretation of her is the woman referred to in the first
sentence, whoever she happens to be. But it is also possible for her to refer to a
different person, perhaps one indicated with a gesture. In such a case her would
be spoken with added emphasis:

Many people think he loves her!

Similar remarks apply to the reference of he, which is ordinarily co-referential

with the man, but not necessarily so. Again, intonation and emphasis would
provide clues.

When semantic rules and contextual interpretation determine that a pronoun is

co-referential with an NP (Noun Phrase), we say that the pronoun is bound to the
noun phrase antecedent. If her in the previous example refers to the woman it
would be a bound pronoun. Reflective pronouns are always bound. When a
pronoun refers to some object not explicitly mentioned in the discourse, it is said
to be free or unbound. The reference of a free pronoun must ultimately be
determined by the situational context.

First and second person non-reflexive (Are, you) pronouns are bound to the
speaker and hearer respectively. They therefore depend on the situational
context, namely, who is doing the talking and who is being addressed. With
third-person pronouns, as in the preceding example, semantic rules permit her
either to be bound to the woman, or to be a free pronoun, referring to some
person not explicitly mentioned. The ultimate interpretation is context-
dependent.

3
Referring to the previous discourse, strictly speaking, it would be ungrammatical
if the discourse went this way:

It seems that the man loves the woman.

Many people think the man loves the woman.

However, most people would find that the discourse sounds stilted. Often in
discourse, the use of pronouns is a stylistic decision, which is part of pragmatics.

6.2.3 Deixis

In pragmatics (linguistics), deixis is a process whereby words or expressions

rely absolutely on context. The Origo is the context from which the reference is
made, in other words, the "point of view" that must be to be understood in order
to interpret the statement. (If Tom is speaking and he says "I", he refers to
himself, but if Tom is hearing Betty and she says "I", then the origo is with Betty
and the reference is to Betty.) A word that depends on deictic clues is called a
deictic or a deictic word.

Pronouns are generally considered to be deictics, but a finer distinction is often

made between personal pronouns such as I, you, he, she, it and pronouns that
refer to places and times such as now, then, here, there. In most texts, the word
"deictic" implies the latter but not necessarily the former.

It is common for languages to show at least a two-way referential distinction in

their deictic system: one category of deictics refers to things and places near or
closer to the speaker, while the other refers to things and places far from the
speaker and/or closer to the hearer. English exemplifies this with such pairs as
this/that, here/there. In other languages the distinction is a three-way one: near
the speaker vs. near the hearer vs. far from both. This is the case in Romances
and Japanese.

Closer-to-speaker deictic references are often termed proximal, while the others
are named distal.

Spatial deictics are often reused as anaphoric pronouns that stand for phrases or
propositions (that is, items of discourse, not items of the outside reality).
Consider the following statement:

"There may be ice hidden in unexplored places of the Moon. This ice could be

4
useful for future lunar expeditions."

In the above example, this ice is not near the speaker in the physical sense, but
the deictic doesn't refer to real ice. This refers to the phrase ice hidden in
unexplored places, which is "near" the speaker in the discourse flow.

6.2.4 Maxims of Conversation

A conversation is communication by two or more people, or sometimes with

ones self, on a particular topic. Conversations are the ideal form of
communication in some respects, because they allow people with different
views on a topic to learn from each other.

Paul Grice, a British-educated philosopher of language who spent the final two
decades of his career in the U.S., noted that all conversations follow a basic set
of rules which people use to express themselves when speaking.

Imagine what would happen to language if there were no rules to follow

during conversations.

It would be perfectly acceptable to follow Hi, how are you doing? with birds
fly in the sky, or to simply lie with every statement you make. But then
conversations would be impossible to have. And while everyone follows Grices
rules, it doesnt necessarily mean that people are aware of what the rules are
or how they work. In fact, Grices maxims often work outside of our immediate
awareness.

The question now is, what exactly are these rules?

One of the most basic assumptions we must make for successful communication
to take place is that both people in a conversation are cooperating this is called
the Cooperative Principle. Grice further identified 4 groups of maxims (a maxim
is kind of like a rule of thumb) which people implicitly obey when communicating.

5
The four Conversational Maxims

A. Maxims of quality

According to the first rule, people are expected to say what they know to be
true. When talking with each other we expect the others to tell us the truth. If
your friend asks, have you seen my dog? an honest answer is expected.

1. Do not say what your belief to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

It is also possible to violate the first maxim by being too informative. For example,
some of my students occasionally invite me to eat with them in the campus
dining halls. When we arrange a luncheon date, they often ask something like
"Where should we meet?" My response ought to be something on the order of
"How about if you come to my office?" rather than something much more detailed
like "Please come to my office door, and I will be standing 27 centimeters inside
of it." The latter is bizarre, presumably by virtue of being overly specific.

B. Maxims of quantity

According to this rule, when talking, we are expected to provide just enough
information to get our point across. We usually assume that people are telling
us everything we need to know. If they dont say something, then we assume
they simply dont know that information.

1. Make your contribution as informative as required.

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

The second maxim has to do with truthfulness. Generally, conversation partners

assume that the other is telling the truth, or at least what the speaker believes to
be the truth. On some occasions, it is permissible to violate this maxim-for
example, to be ironic. Imagine that a friend who's missed a lecture in a class in
which you are both enrolled asks, "How was class today?" You can respond,
"Utterly fascinating!" even if it really was dry as toast, if you somehow signal that
your answer isn't to be taken literally. Rolled eyes, exaggerated intonation, winks,
and the like help to communicate that your violation of the maxim of quality is
itself meant to communicate something-in this case, ironic humor. If you simply
utter an untruthful response without letting your listener know that you aren't
being candid, then your conversation will not be successful, and your
conversation partner could legitimately complain about your conversation skills.

6
Someone who consistently violates the maxims of quantity or quality may well be
perceived as uncooperative or obnoxious and, after a while, may find it difficult to
attract conversation partners.

C. Maxim of relation

According to this rule, you are expected to stay on the topic. In other words,
make sure that what you say is relevant for what is talked about. If asked, Isnt
Larry the biggest jerk you ever met? you certainly wont be on topic if you
answer by saying Uh, it sure is nice for this time of year, eh?

1. Be relevant.

Someone who consistently violates the third maxim of relation by responding with
irrelevant utterances will have a bigger problem: He or she will simply be
regarded as, at best, very bizarre. To illustrate, imagine a conversation between
Tom and Joe, two college roommates:

TOM (looking around): Hey, Joe, have you seen my sweater?

JOE (looking at Tom, and smiling): Lo, a flaming squirrel!

If Joe persists in violating the maxim of relation, he will likely find himself at a
complete loss for conversation partners, if not roommates and friends.

D. Maxims of manner

The last rule states that your comments should be direct, clear, and to the
point. This maxim relates to the form of speech you use. You shouldnt use
words you know your listeners wont understand or say things which you know
could be taken multiple ways. You should also not state something in a long,
drawn-out way if you could say it in a much simpler manner. As an example,
we have Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the
score of The Star-Spangled Banner vs. Miss Singer sang The Star-Spangled
Banner.

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief.
4. Be orderly.

7
The fourth maxim, the maxim of manner, generally governs the way you choose
to construct your conversation contributions. The general idea is that you should
speak as clearly as possible, using language appropriate to your listener and the
context. Among other things, this maxim forbids you to answer your professors in
pig Latin or your younger siblings in "academese." It also prevents you from
holding a filibuster (unless you are a congressperson) and requires that you at
least try to organize what you say before you begin speaking.

Why should you follow them

These maxims allow you to be more brief in communicating, since you dont
need to say everything you would need to if you were being perfectly logical
you dont say John has 4 and only 4 children. Also, by exploiting or flouting a
maxim, they allow you to say things indirectly to avoid some of the discomfort
which comes from saying unpleasant things directly. They can also show you
how to read between the lines.

Grice did not assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims.
Instead, he found it interesting when these were flouted or violated (either
purposefully or unintentionally breaking the maxims) by speakers, which would
imply some hidden meaning. Why imply instead of just saying what you mean?
Well, implication can get across a great deal of meaning with relatively little
actual speech. Thinking of what you want to get across and interpreting what
other people have said seems to take much quicker than the relatively slow
process of actually verbalizing all the necessary sounds. So saying a little,
while implying a lot, is a way to avoid phonological bottleneck and
communicate more efficiently.

What is interesting to note is the fact that these maxims may be better
understood as describing the assumptions listeners normally make about the
way speakers will talk, rather than prescriptions for how one ought to talk. And
the implications of this fact can be a powerful and creative way to get across a
point.

Violations of the maxims produce conversations that are noticeably odd. For
instance, if someone asks, "Do you have a watch?" and you respond, "Yes, I do,"
you are violating the first maxim of quantity: You are being less informative than
is required. Your conversation partner is not, in all likelihood, taking a census for
Timex or Rolex; he or she probably wants to know the time. As a member of the
language community that you live in, you are expected to know that the question
asked is really a request for the time and to respond appropriately.

8
Gricean maxims are not always obeyed, but the assumption is that people try to
obey them most of the time. When the maxims are violated, the speaker
apparently wishes to end the conversation, wishes to avoid the conversation, or
expects the listener to understand that the violation is occurring and why (Miller &
Glucksberg, 1988). Again, though, it is doubtful that the average person is
consciously aware of the rules. As with most linguistic rules, maxims are implicitly
understood even if they can't be precisely stated.

6.2.5 Implicature

In pragmatics, it means an indirect or implicit speech act: what is meant by a

speaker's utterance - that is not part of what is explicitly said. It is the act of
suggesting that something is true, although you do not say it directly. You are
being careful about what you say: imply, get at, convey, hedge, fudge, evade,
skirt, parry, intimate, mince (your) words. In other words, what a speaker intends
to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses.

The probabilistic character of conversational implicature is easier to

demonstrate than define. If a stranger at the other end of a phone line has a
high-pitched voice, you may infer that the speaker is a woman. The inference
may be incorrect.

Generally speaking, a conversational implicature is an interpretive procedure

that operates to figure out what is going on. . . . Assume a husband and wife are
getting ready to go out for the evening:

1. Husband: How much longer will you be?

2. Wife: Make yourself a drink.

To interpret the utterance in Sentence 2, the husband must go through a series

of inferences based on principles that he knows the other speaker is using. . . .
The conventional response to the husband's question would be a direct answer
where the wife indicated some time frame in which she would be ready. This
would be a conventional implicature with a literal answer to a literal question.
But the husband assumes that she heard his question, that she believes that
he was genuinely asking how long she would be, and that she is capable of
indicating when she would be ready. The wife . . . chooses not to extend the
topic by ignoring the relevancy maxim. The husband then searches for a
plausible interpretation of her utterance and concludes that what she is doing is
telling him that she is not going to offer a particular time, or doesn't know, but
she will be long enough yet for him to have a drink. She may also be saying,

9
 'Relax, I'll be ready in plenty of time.'"

6.2.6 Speech Acts

We use the term speech act to describe actions such as 'requesting,'

'commanding,' 'questioning,' or 'informing.' We can define a speech act as the
action performed by a speaker with an utterance. If you say, I'll be there at six,
you are not just speaking, you seem to be performing the speech act of
'promising.' It is an utterance defined in terms of a speaker's intention and the
effect it has on a listener.

In order to explain what can go wrong with statements we cannot just

concentrate on the proposition involved (whatever that is) as has been done
traditionally. We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued-
-the total speech-act--if we are to see the parallel between statements and
performative utterances, and how each can go wrong.

When an interrogative structure such as Did you . . .? Are they . . .? or Can we . .

.? is used with the function of a question, it is described as a direct speech act.
For example, when we don't know something and we ask someone to provide
the information, we usually produce a direct speech act such as:

Can you ride a bicycle?

Compare that utterance with Can you pass the salt? [Here] we are not really
asking a question about someone's ability. In fact, we don't normally use this
structure as a question at all. . . . This is an example of an indirect speech act.

Several categories of speech acts have been proposed, viz. directives

(speakers try to get their listeners to do something, e.g. begging, commanding,
requesting), commissives (speakers commit themselves to a future course of
action, e.g. promising, guaranteeing), expressives (speakers express their
feelings, e.g. apologizing, welcoming, sympathizing), declarations (the speaker's
utterance brings about a new external situation, e.g. marrying, resigning, etc).

10