Introduction to Pragmatics

INTRODUCTION TO PRAGMATICS.THE SCIENCE OF/FOR LANGUAGE USERS CONTENTS Foreword…………………………………………………………………………4 Course description……………………………………………………………….5 Thematic areas…………………………………………………………………...5 Unit One – The cooperative principle and conversational implicature. Speech act theory…………………………………………………………………………6 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………6 Timing…………………………………………………………………………….6 A. The hybrid nature of pragmatics…………………………………..……….….7 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………11 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………12 B. Speech act theory…………………………………………………………14 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………18 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………19 C. Co-operation and conversational implicature…………………………….22 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………29 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………30 Unit Two -Presupposition triggers and characteristics. Presupposition vs implicature………………………………………………...…………………….35 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..35 Timing……………………………………………………………………………35 Bibliography………….......………………………………………………41 Evaluation……………………………………………………………......42 Unit Three -Strategies of politeness. The face management view........................................................................................................................45 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..45 Timing……………………………………………………………………………45 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………52 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………53 time..Deixis – person.…………………………………………………………………………….Unit Four . space.. social deixis. empathetic.69 . discourse.55 Timing……………………………………………………………………………55 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………64 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………65 General bibliography………………………………………………………….55 Objectives………………………………………………………………………. . UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE I THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE. • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intra i interculturala. analiza a actelor de limbaj. Timp alocat: 6 ore . • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale întelegerii si aplicarii noiunilor pragmatice fundamentale de implicatura. Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate circumscrierea domeniului pragmaticii. presupozi. strategii de polite.e i deixis.ie. SPEECH ACTS THEORY. another COMPONENT of a theory of language with its own well-defined object…Nor does it fit into the contrast set .1992: 3) One of the three major divisions of semiotics (along with SEMANTICS and SYNTACTICS). the CONSTRAINTS he encounters in using language in social interaction. [1956]. In LINGUISTICS. then we assign it to the field of pragmatics. (Carnap. semantics merges with what one would nowadays call “pragmatics”: word-meaning is now seen as an epiphenomenon of sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning.should start from the following programmatic statements: We distinguish three fields of investigation of languages. the term has come to be applied to the study of LANGUAGE from the point of view of the user. to the user of a language. If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker. (Nerlich. 1985:278-9) *…+ if our starting point is to be situated at Morris’s level of generality. (Crystal and Davy. or. especially of the choices he makes.A. to put it in more general terms. INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF PRAGMATICS Any attempt to investigate the nature and scope of pragmatics – an allinclusive term for all kinds of research focused on language and its use in context . 1942:9) In the third stage (of its evolution). pragmatics cannot be viewed as another layer on top of the phonologymorphologysyntax-semantics hierarchy. and the effects his use of language has on the other participants in an act of communication. in general.containing sociolinguistics. in harmony with the requirements of people. is a PERSPECTIVE on any aspect of language. etc. psycholinguistics. at every level of linguistic structure. at any level of structure…One could say that. neurolinguistics. Rather. the PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE centers around the ADAPTABILITY OF LANGUAGE. the fundamental property of language which enables us to engage in the activity of talking which consists in the constant making of choices. their . anthropological linguistics. pragmatics. but that there are specific societal factors (such the institution of the family.beliefs. the school. the peer group and so on) which influence the development and use of language. as others believe them to be. whereas pragmatics has to do with meaning as a triadic relation between speaker. both general and specific. both in . is requesting something to eat). The speaker. and the real-world circumstances in which they interact. 1987:5) the study of meaning of linguistic utterances for their users and interpreters a minimal way of distinguishing semantics from pragmatics is to say that semantics has to do with meaning as a dyadic relation between a form and its meaning: “x means y” (e. (Verschueren. shared by the interactants. in uttering the words “I’m hungry”.g. desires and intentions. as some have postulated. (Leech and Thomas. it is difficult to exclude the addressee. 185) *…+ pragmatics places its focus on the language users and their conditions of language use. However. *…+ Moreover. or a combination of both) which have to be developed through a process of individual growth and evolution. since the utterance has meaning by virtue of the speaker’s intention to produce some effect in the addressee. meaning and form/utterance: “s means y by x” (e. “I’m feeling somewhat ensurient” means “I’m hungry”. the speaker’s meaning *…+ cannot exclude reference to the context of knowledge. This implies that it is not sufficient to consider the language user as being in possession of certain facilities (either innate. or acquired. 1990:173.g. once the speaker is introduced into the formula. which is primarily concerned with the study of word and sentence meaning. pragmatics concerns itself with the meaning of utterances in specific contexts of use.the acquisition stage and in usage itself. (Jaworski & Coupland. It is an . (Mey. 1995:22) Closely related to semantics. 1996:287) *…+ the study of meaning in interaction (Thomas. pragmatics takes into consideration the need for training language awareness. for structuring meaning potential. 1999:14) As seen from these definitions. investigating the relevance of language to ordinary people in various situations. pragmatics deals with the subtleties of implied meaning and with inference mechanisms. Language in use performs several functions simultaneously . comprising either cultural general knowledge “that most people carry with them in their minds.oriented to linguistic and social understanding. but also cross-fertilization of ideas and speakers and hearers establish a common ground (social togetherness) which guarantees that failure in communication is unlikely to occur. the informative function is coupled with the phatic (relational) and with the aesthetic functions.and collectively-regulated language behaviour. proactive and meaning is continually coordinated due to the particular cluster of the contextual factors. Besides.outward-looking discipline. for individually. Language and society interrelate in the conscious use of language which ceases to be a neutral medium for the transmission and receiving of information. Furthermore.for example. we can speak of arenas of language use where users display a wide range of strategies which are in fact the rules of the game. Metaphorically. Pragmatics is committedly quality. deconstructed and reconstructed inter-subjectively when the speaker and the hearer take turns in the process of communication. Meaning is negotiated. According to Cutting (2002: 5). the context in which the interaction takes place is dynamic. participants in the communicative event construct and derive meaning based on their background knowledge (what they know and believe that the others know). about areas of life” or interpersonal knowledge. searching for motivation (a sort of forensic activity). made up of “specific and possibly private” . There is not only exchange of information. constructed. In fact she equates such knowledge to folk taxonomy. pragmatics deals with implicature. deixis etc. The sentence. whereas the utterance is a sentence analogue in context.information about their interlocutors. presupposition. is to be defined as an abstract theoretical entity to which truth conditions are assigned. The author further considers such knowledge culture-bound and varying intraculturally from group to group (p. the minimal unit of analysis in semantics. 109). In other words. illocutionary force. . since it is “either scientifically unwarranted or very superficial” (p. being limited to “abstractions based on certain kinds of experiences which apparently typify some kind of general behaviour” (p. Hence.109). 109) as “measures of agreement” The distinction sentence – utterance is of paramount importance at this point. We shall therefore postulate that pragmatics is a hybrid science. This holistic view is an indicator of the fact that we dissociate from any approach to pragmatics as a science that can be divided into several distinct branches. an interdisciplinary project. . a linguistic. an integrated approach.pragmatics actualizes both linguistic and extra-linguistic (encyclopaedic) knowledge. cultural and social affair. Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. London: Arnold Kecskes. 2005. Horn. Pragmatics. A. T. Oxford: OUP . An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. et al. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. I. Linguistics. 1996. Doing Pragmatics.. Meaning in Language. 2005. 2000. 2007. C. A Resource Book for Students. 2000. Pragmatics. Explorations in Pragmatics. S. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. (eds. P. Pragmatics and Discourse. G. L.. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Oxford: OUP Cutting. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Levinson. 2002.C. The Dynamics of language Use. 1983. J.Bibliografie minimala: Butler.). Craiova: Universitaria Yule. Pragmatics.S. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. (Monaghan. indeed. As we learn to use them. They are hand-me-downs. As an artist knows. It is a form which functions in context. which is acquired in a social context and through practice. linked to its conditions of acquisition sand its conditions of use. This means that competence. is inseparable from the practical mastery of situations in which this usage of language is socially acceptable. Just like art-works. we find out that those around us have strong ideas about what can be drawn. But the canvas and the colors come from the past. The language token is not a thing with a form and a function. our linguistic . in what combinations. but is used to mean. 1979: 186) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… b) Having a language is like having access to a very large canvas and to hundreds and even thousands of colors.EVALUARE Enlarge upon pragmatic competence components starting from the following statements: a) The (linguistic) habitus is. in which proportions. It has no meaning. there is an ethics of drawing and colouring as well as a market that will react sometimes capriciously. but many times quite predictably to any individual attempts to place a mark in the history or representation or simply readjust the proportions of certain spaces at the margins. and for what purposes. has created new media for language use. (Duranti. such as satellite and digital television and radio. desktop publishing. 1997:334) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… c) Rapid growth in communications media. It is not surprising that language . telecommunications (mobile phone networks. information provision and entertainment. e-mail. videoconferencing).products are constantly evaluated. recycled or discarded . internet-mediated sales and services. Under these circumstances. within school curricula and by self-styled experts and guardians of so-called “linguistic standards”). while simultaneously being shaped and honed (e. 1999:5) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… .(Jaworski & Coupland.g. by advertisers.g.is being more and more closely scrutinized (e. language itself becomes marketable and a sort f commodity and its purveyors can market themselves through their skills of linguistic and textual manipulation. journalists and broadcasters) in a drive to generate ever-more attention and persuasive impact. when smashing a bottle against the stem. It is Austin (1962) who distinguishes between constative and performative utterances. I name this ship Queen Elizabeth. A speech act is not an act of speech in the sense of parole (in Saussure’s terminology) or performance (if we adopt Chomsky’s distinction between language competence or knowledge about the language and performance or the actual use of language). I do (take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife). the doing of an action”. whereas the latter category utterances “do not describe or report or constate anything at all. Speech act theory analyses the role of utterances in relation to the behaviour of speaker and hearer in interpersonal communication.g. We are dealing in fact with the uttering of the words of the performative or speech act under particular circumstances (in the course of a marriage ceremony. when drawing a will). and the uttering of the sentence is. SPEECH ACT THEORY Even if almost 50 years older.B. it is a communicative activity (locutionary act) connected to the intention of the speakers (illocutionary force) and to the effect(s) they achieve on the hearers . are not true and false. “It is pouring”). or part of it. 1. I give and bequeath my watch to my brother. 3. Speech Act Theory is worth investigating in depth as speech acts are identifiable in many of the utterances of routine verbal exchanges (besides formulaic language). 2. E. He defines the former as statements that “record or impart straightforward information about the facts” (“The earth is flat”. (perlocutionary effect). they have a different marital status now). Speech acts bring about a change in the current state of affairs (in the first example. . the two persons involved become husband and wife. and further C. Where.2. the act is performed. completely. must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.1. whether physical or mental.1. and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves. i. the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts and feelings. C. There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect. The author postulates “the doctrine of the things that can be and go wrong. we say that the act is purported (or perhaps an attempt). that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances and further. or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant. .e. The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and B.2. the doctrine of the infelicities” and proposes the following scheme of the felicity conditions to be met for the “smooth or happy functioning of a performative”: A.1. the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked. it is an abuse of the procedure.Austin further discusses the question of appropriate circumstances since the speaker and other participants should also perform some other actions. B. then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts and feelings. The infelicities related to A-B are called misfires and those related to C are termed abuses. but it is insincere. as often. A. the act is not achieved while in the C case. When dealing with a misfire.2. If rules A-B are violated. . E. the affirmative form. it implies a professed or hollow act. -they contain a second person pronoun which may be preceded by a preposition. As far as the abuse is concerned. Yet. The explicit performative utterances are assigned a particular formula: -they have a first-person subject. “I bet”) and implicit ones. we normally utter “Go!” instead of “I order you to go!” to achieve the same effect. Moreover.void or without effect and the procedure is misinvoked. which is not consummated. -the have a performative (illocutionary) verb in the present simple tense. I hereby declare this bridge to be opened.g. in face-to-face interactions we do not utter “I hereby declare to . -they embed a clause expressing the propositional content of the utterance. I (hereby) promise you to be there in time. Performatives fall into two categories: explicit (which include some unambiguous expression also used in naming the act – such as “I bequeath”. love you” as a performative indicating device. Instead. E. we are dealing with a performativity continuum ranging from the conventional speech acts to the non-conventional ones. You are fired. illocutionary and perlocutionary . but this does not mean that performativity is denied. There is a further distinction made by Austin with respect to the kind of action associated to an utterance: locutionary.g. Thank you for your support. Locutionary action is equated to the mere act of uttering a sentence and meaning what you say (the literal meaning of a sentence). i. Perlocutionary action or effect is what you produce on the hearer by saying what you say (at this point language plays a persuasive role and the hearer is manipulated to act in the way intended by the speaker). please? (the utterance really counts as a request). . The illocutionary action. Illocutionary act: Will you open the window. Consider the following utterance: It’s so hot in here. the extra-meaning which is conventionally associated to the sentence).e. Perlocutionary act: The hearer complies with the request and opens the window. (Although it is hard to believe that the speaker imparts information to the hearer or that the utterance simply counts as a constative). speech act has force (the intended meaning which is to be inferred by the hearer. Locutionary act: It is so hot in here.action. (eds. Oxford: OUP Cutting.C. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. London: Arnold Kecskes.. A Resource Book for Students. Morgan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. Doing Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge Grice. Pragmatics. J. (eds. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. H.. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. 2000. 2002. Speech Acts. J. S. London: Longman Levinson. 1983. 1975. “Logic and conversation” in Cole P. Pragmatics. G. Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. 1983. I. 2005.). C. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. J. Pragmatics and Discourse. Horn.). 2007.C..S.Bibliografie minimala: Butler. 2005. et al. Explorations in Pragmatics. 1969. Meaning in Language. New York Grundy. T.L. J. MA: MIT Press Searle. 1996. S.P. 2000. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. L. P. Principles of Pragmatics. The Dynamics of language Use. Oxford: OUP . Presumptive Meanings. 2000. Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. A. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Cambridge. Pragmatics. thank you. the illocutionary act (force) and the perlocutionary effect of the following utterances: a) In an art gallery.....EVALUARE 1. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… 2. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… b) Billy. Comment on the following performatives and their felicity conditions: a) I withdraw my complaint. Identify the locutionary act.. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………. . what do big boys when they enter into a room? Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………... Official: Would the lady like to leave the bag here? Woman: No. Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………. It’s not heavy. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… c) Would users please refrain from spitting. Condition C2. . Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………..Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. ... Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition A2……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….. Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………... I absolve you from your sins.. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….I plead not guilty. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………... Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2. Thank you for your attention.. .. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. .. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. .………………………………………………………………………………... Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. b) Will you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife? Absolutely. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………..Condition C2. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. e) Your employment is hereby terminated with immediate effect. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2..... Condition A2……………………………………………………………………………….Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….... Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2.. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2.. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………...………………………………………………………………………………. . Condition B2……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition A2……………………………………………………………………………….. c) I challenge you to pistols at dawn.. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………. d) The court finds the accused not guilty. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. I decline to take up the challenge. ……………………………………………………………………………….Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2.. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. . g. q: If you scratch my back. to imply means “to fold something into something else”. The term implicature is used in order to contrast it with logical implication which refers to inferences derived from logical or semantic content. whereas in the latter case. The logical implication relation is: if p. Logically. the same implicature arises regardless of the context of utterance. Etymologically. Instead. E. H. between what is actually said /expressed meaning and the additional implied/intended meaning. while the hearer infers or deduces something from evidence. the implicature is generated by the context of utterance. .P. worked with Austin at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s and delivered the William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1957. The speaker implies or conveys some meaning indirectly. Grice. I’ll scratch yours. implicature is based on the content of what has been said and on the assumptions about the cooperative nature of verbal exchanges. who developed the pragmatic theory of implicature. in the former case. Grice identifies two types of implicature: conventional implicature and conversational implicature. p: you scratch my back q: I’ll scratch yours p . then q.C. non-p does not imply non-q. CO-OPERATION AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE Literature distinguishes between sense (literal meaning/ logical form) and force (intended meaning). The woman was in her forties. but still attractive.E. .g. The link word “but” directs us to something that runs counter to the previous statement. He burnt a finger. Would you like a drink? No. Furthermore. thanks. E. there is the implicature is that a woman in her forties is no longer attractive. this implicature is encoded linguistically. calculated or processed due to the context of utterance. E. conversational implicature falls into generalized and particularized implicature. particularized implicature is that ‘in which an implicature is carried by saying that p on a particular occasion in virtue of special features of the context. cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature of this sort is normally carried by saying that p’ (Grice 1975: 37). Furthermore.g. Generalized implicature: his finger. . Generalized implicature underpins “the use of a certain form of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature” (Grice 1975: 37). On the other hand. I’m driving. The implicature is that a person who is driving should not drink and such implicature is workable out by both the speaker and the hearer.g. In different specific contexts this could implicate ‘He goes there to visit somebody who is ill’. ‘His girl friend is there”.E. and this distinguishes it from linguistic meaning. Recanati (1993: 245 ff) emphasizes the psychological layer of ‘what is said’. “He goes there on business”. We have only tacit. sub-doxastic (unconscious) knowledge of linguistic meaning. In this climate of opinion. which we cannot have access to via such conscious act. we develop awareness of this level.g. etc. as we do of many other language aspects . In other words. He goes there every week. morphological. Admittedly. . In other words. ‘we have distinct conscious representations for “what is said” and for “what is implicated” by a given utterance: both are consciously accessible. the whole interaction is based on the Principle of Relevance as highlighted by Grice (1975) and further developed by Sperber and Wilson (1986). that is. Let us remember at this stage that the context is a dynamic entity and does not consist of a pre-determined set of assumptions. (Recanati 1993: 248) The ongoing discussion allows us to state that communication is a successful process because the participants try to make a fair contribution. assumptions that are part of the speaker’s and hearer’s background knowledge and these assumptions establish the common ground (shared assumptions) which secures the success of the ongoing exchange(s). which reads: In deciding whether a pragmatically determined aspect of utterance meaning is part of what is said.(phonological. to the direction in which the exchange takes place. in making a decision concerning what is said. because the verbal exchange is governed by the willingness to take part in the process and because speaker and hearer alike try to optimally fit the information they provide to the context. and are consciously accessible as distinct’ (Recanati 1993: 245). There are. syntactic). The author postulates the Availability Principle. of course. we should always try to preserve our pre-theoretic intuitions on the matter. In his famous book “Logic and Conversation” (1975). Grice puts forward The Cooperative Principle (CP) to explain the mechanisms by which people unfold conversational implicature. and to account for the relation between sense and force. Grice’s theory explains how there can arise interesting discrepancies between speaker meaning and sentence meaning. between explicit and implicit meaning. The CP runs as follows: . Make your 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. The four conversational maxims are: 1. The maxim of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. The maxim of Quality1: Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 3. The maxim of Relation: Be relevant. 4. The maxim of Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly. Grice identifies a number of characteristic traits of implicatures (contextual effects) which arise from non-observance (whether deliberate or not) of one or several maxims: 1. they are cancellable or defeasible, i.e. by adding some further information it is possible to cancel them, i.e. explicitely denied). 1 Harnish (1976:362) favours the combination of the first two maxims, arguing that the amount of information that the speaker gives depends on the speaker’s wish to avoid telling something that is not true. He proposes the Maxim of Quantity-Quality: “Make the strongest relevant claim justifiable by your evidence” E.g. A: Would you like some wine? B: No, thanks. I’ve been on whisky all day. A: All right. (The hearer infers that the speaker doesn’t feel like a drink). B: I mean, I’ll stick to whisky. (Thus, the implicature is cancelled or proved to be false by this further specification). 2. they are standardly non-detachable (apart from those derived from the Maxim of Manner that are related to the form of the utterance), i.e. they are attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form. The replacement of a word or phrase by its synonym will trigger a different implicature. E.g. John is a genius. John is a mental prodigy. John is an exceptionally clever human being. John has an enormous intellect. John has a big brain. (Levinson, 1983:116-7) There will be ironic reading of the utterances that re-state the first one. 3. they are calculable, i.e. it can be shown that the hearer can derive the inference in question starting from the literal meaning of the utterance and from the co-operative principle and the maxims of conversation. Father: Where are the car keys? Mother: Billy is dating Sue tonight. i. E. 5. the same linguistic expression can give rise to different implicatures on . Mother implies that Billy has taken the car.4. they are non-conventional.g. they are not part of the conventional meaning of the linguistic expressions that are used (they are not to be found in dictionaries).e. the utterance can be interpreted as “a mean unpleasant woman”. Flouting a maxim – the speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim. Infringing a maxim – it occurs when a speaker who. “she likes currying favour with people” etc.g. 3. 2. “very nervous or anxious”. Therefore. with no intention of deceiving. • Non-observance of the maxims There are five distinct cases of failing to observe a maxim: -flouting a maxim -violating a maxim -infringing a maxim -opting out of a maxim -suspending a maxim - 1. a conversational implicature deliberately achieved.e. There is an additional meaning i. multifaceted: E. fails to observe a maxim. According to context. we can speak of a certain degree of indeterminacy. If a speaker violates a maxim he/she “will be liable to mislead” (1975:49). utterances seem to be of a protean nature.different occasions (in different contexts of utterance). The non-observance stems from imperfect . She is a cat. Violating a maxim – Grice defines it as the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim. not with the intention of deceiving/misleading. Suspending a maxim – sometimes there are certain events in which there is . nervousness.linguistic performance (imperfect command of language. 5. excitement) rather than from a deliberate choice. 4. It is very frequent in public life when the speaker cannot. Opting out of a maxim – by indicating unwillingness to co-operate in the way the maxim requires. for legal or ethical reasons. reply in the way normally expected. drunkenness. Suspension of the maxims can’t be culture-specific or specific to particular events. .no expectation on the part of any participants. 2002. Principles of Pragmatics. P. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. London and New York: Routledge Grice. Pragmatics and Discourse. Explorations in Pragmatics. S. London: Longman Levinson.. (eds. New York Grundy. Linguistics. Pragmatics. Cambridge. Morgan. A. L. The Dynamics of language Use.. 2007. et al. Oxford: OUP Cutting. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. “Logic and conversation” in Cole P. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. H. 2005. 2000. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. 1975. MA: MIT Press . 1983. 2000.P. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. 2000. Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. (eds.). Horn. A Resource Book for Students. J. J.L.C. Doing Pragmatics.C. 1983. Presumptive Meanings. I. London: Arnold Kecskes. C.Bibliografie minimala Butler.). J.S. S. 1996. Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. Craiova: Universitaria Yule.. 1969. T. Oxford: OUP .Recanati. Pragmatics. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. G. Oxford: Blackwell Searle. J. F. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. 1993. Pragmatics. 2005. EVALUARE 1. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. Work out implicature in the following cases: A: Would you like a cup of coffee? B: It would keep me awake. ……………………………………………………………………………………… Would you like tea or coffee? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Have you seen your daughter’s haircut? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Are you with me? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Do you sell apples by the pound? ……………………………………………………………………………………… . Show the steps to be followed in calculating the implicature of the utterance below: I saw Mary carrying a piece of heavy luggage at the station. B: I’ve got a terrible headache. ……………………………………………………………………………………… . ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Come here! We’ve got work to do.I am hungry. can I ask you a serious question? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Also available at weekends. ……………………………………………………………………………………… I am a man. ……………………………………………………………………………………… The bell is ringing. ……………………………………………………………………………………… He told me about your intentions. ……………………………………………………………………………………… . Identify each type. State whether the following examples are cases of observance of the conversational maxims or not. They have finished. 2000: 7) ……………………………………………………………………………………… Who cares? (Grundy. (Grundy. 2000: 59) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 3.The last bus leaves in 10 minutes. ……………………………………………………………………………………… Now. ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… How old are you. by the way? ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… .……………………………………………………………………………………… She is too short. 2000: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… BA better connected person (British Airways advertisement) (Grundy.Sit down with care Legs can come off (Grundy. 2000: 76) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… . 2000: 14) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… New York murder – local man arrested (Grundy. 2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Money doesn’t grow on trees but it blossoms at our branches (Lloyd Bank’s advertisement) (Grundy. 2000: 79) .First and fourmost (Land Rover Advertisement) (Grundy. 2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… You just can’t help yourself (McCain pizzas advertisement) (Grundy. 2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… It was dead funny – if you see what I mean (Grundy. But don’t be long. A (Bends down to stroke the dog and it gets bitten) Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite! B: That isn’t my dog. dinner’s nearly ready. 2002: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Husband: How much did that new dress cost. said Gates would not routinely attend .……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Where are you off to? B: I was thinking of going out to get some funny white stuff for everybody. 2002: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Bush. himself a former director of the CIA. (Cutting. darling? Wife: Less than the last one. (Cutting. (Cutting. 2002: 39) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Does your dog bite? B: No. A: OK. Cabinet meetings but would take part in sessions where intelligence was necessary for making decisions. (Cutting. A: What weekend? B: Next weekend. How does that work? You just turn up for the shuttle service? . there’s a shuttle service sixty pounds one way. When do you want to go? B: At the weekend. 2002: 41) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Well. 2000 in Cutting. 2002: 43) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… . Than that’s fifty. (Grundy.A: That might be cheaper. PRESUPPOSITION VS IMPLICATURE Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de presupoziia logica i presupoziia pragmatica. Timp alocat: 6 ore .UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE II PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS AND CHARACTERISTICS. • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii presupoziiei i a mecanismelor lingvistice ce o genereaza. • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. on the linguistic form of the utterance. presupposition is dependent. Originally.PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS AND CHARACTERISTICS. Its negation reads: . PRESUPPOSITION VS IMPLICATURE Presupposition may be rightly considered as one of the most controversial concepts in pragmatics. unlike conversational implicature which is situated. The former is attached any kind of background assumption against which the utterance makes sense or is rational. to a higher degree. As seen from the definition. Survival of the negation test distinguishes presupposition from entailment. Presupposition is another type of implicature. Let us now focus on more complex sentences: Sue denies that she saw Mary yesterday. Presuppositions refer and remain constant if the sentences are negated (they survive the negation test). Levinson is cautious in identifying the nature of pragmatic presupposition. the term was restricted to reference. but it soon expanded its scope. whereas the latter is restricted to “certain pragmatic inferences or assumptions that seem at least to be built into linguistic expressions and which can be isolated using specific linguistic tests (constancy under negation)”. Levinson (1983: 167-8) draws our attention to the two distinct uses of the term presupposition: as an ordinary term and as a technical one. respectively.Sue does not deny that she saw Mary yesterday. . The presuppositions that hold true under negation are: -There are two identifiable persons Sue and Mary (proper names). 1971): to be aware that. i. Implicative verbs (Karttunen. and they are triggered by the verb to deny. to realize. .-Sue saw Mary yesterday. the question arises: What are the linguistic expressions that engender presupposition? Levinson (1983:181-4) discusses Karttunen’s (1973) collection of 31 presupposition triggers and claims that they pertain to “the core of phenomena that are generally considered presuppositional”. presupposition which is not characterised by behaviour under negation alone. Factive verbs (Kiparsky and Kiparsky. ought to 4. regret 3. Change of state verbs (Sellars. Definite descriptions (Strawson. Levinson pleads for a loose definition of presupposition. manage.e. 1973): 5. Therefore. In what follows. to be glad that. 1950. to happen to. it is odd. 2. forget. there exists a man with two heads. to be sorry that. In fact. 1952): John saw / didn’t see the man with two heads . 1971b): to be expected to. Karttunen. to be proud that. we shall cater this useful checklist (although in a simplified version): 1. to know. to be sad that. 1954. begin. take. finish. enter. carry on. continue. go. arrive . leave. start. come.cease. stop. whenever. Iteratives: to come again.6. Sperber and Wilson. Verbs of judging (Fillmore. Cleft sentences (Atlas and Levinson. 1972. after.To call him a liar is to insult him. 1971a): accuse. before. Tom is nice. 12. for the nth time 7. during. 1981): 9. after. is 22. who studies law. to restore. while. Implicit clefts with stressed constituents (Chomsky. anymore. 11. Counterfactual conditions (Type 3) . criticize 8. to repeat. Temporal clauses (Frege. as 8. since. to come back. 1971): She called him a liar and insulted him . 1892) introduced by: before. 1979): Linguistics was/wasn’t invented by Chomsky! 9. Mark is nicer than Tom . to return. Comparisons and contrasts (Lakoff. Non-restrictive clauses The president’s daughter. another time. But there also the projection problem (presupposition behaviour in complex sentences) and the question of defeasibility (presupposition cancellation in certain contexts). constancy or survival under negation is the acid test of presupposition. Questions (Lyons. 13. Presuppositions are determined compositionally (as a function of their sub-expressions) by virtue of the principle that the global meaning is the sum of the meanings of the component parts. The projection problem is doublefold: on the one hand. On the other hand. The boy kicked the ball There is a boy The boy kicked the ball.If he had been there. he would have helped her. If we negate the sentence. 1977): alternative questions and WH-questions: Are there students interested in pragmatics? Who is interested in pragmatics? In all the above mentioned cases. we have: The boy did not kick the ball and The . presuppositions survive in contexts where entailments do not. they disappear in contexts where they are expected to survive. We should rather speak of common ground dynamics as it can be modified in the course of interaction – utterances are interpreted as context change potentials. This common ground account (Stalnaker. 1983) of presupposition envisages presupposition as pre-conditions of situations in which a sentence can be uttered. of some background assumption and common ground against which the utterance makes sense (set of propositions constituting the current context. Pragmatic presupposition becomes a question of appropriate usage.boy kicked the ball does not survive whereas There is a boy survives. 1973) or context selection account (Heim. pragmatic presuppositions are context-embedded). They are functions that map an input context (common ground . therefore. before the utterance is accepted by the hearer) to an output context (common ground after the utterance is accepted by the hearer).(Thomason. Presuppositions define for an utterance whether or not an input context is admissible. In fact. clues are dropped about what is presupposed. during the communicative exchange. Lewis (1979) labels this process accommodation since it rescues an utterance from inappropriateness by providing a required presupposition. It is part of the concept of presupposition that a speaker assumes or pretends that the hearers presuppose everything that s/he presupposes (ideally). the speaker will try to eliminate discrepancies among the presuppositions (for communicative efficiency). If context perceived to be defective. 1990:344) . namely the dispositional definition of pragmatic presupposition. The principle of accommodation is best summed up in Thomason’s words: Adjust the conversational record to eliminate obstacles to the detected plans of your interlocutor. This is the second view endorsed by Stalnaker. J. 2007. 2005. The Dynamics of language Use. Pragmatics. 2000. Cambridge: CUP Levinson.S. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. Pragmatics.. 2002. (eds.. A Resource Book for Students. 1996. Horn.Bibliografie minimala Butler. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.C. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. I. Presumptive Meanings. P. Oxford: OUP Cutting. L. MA: MIT Press Vilceanu. Cambridge. Meaning in Language. J. Pragmatics. T. A. 2000. S. et al. Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. Explorations in Pragmatics. G. Pragmatics and Discourse.C. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. Doing Pragmatics. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Arnold Kecskes. C. 1983. London: Longman Levinson. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. S. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. 2005. Oxford: OUP .). 1983. 2000. Thank you for your support. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… e. Twelfth Night) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… . darling? Wife: Less than you expect. Were you married to Mike when you left the country?. It was Mary who called the ambulance. Husband: How much is the dress. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… c. At least we won’t have to give up studying. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… b. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… d.EVALUARE 1. Discuss presupposition-related aspects in the following examples: a. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… f. play on (Shakespeare. If music be the food of love. Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… . It’s him again. Even Presidents have private lives (Bill Clinton’s TV address. / He went to a college. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… k.g. He went to college. Marion praised them for storing old wine bottles. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… j. . I enjoy English lessons when we have no home assignment. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… l. I am enjoying life in the countryside more than ever. 18 August 1998) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… m. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… h. Sorry for the delay. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… i. / He went to the college. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… . n. I began jogging after a visit to the doctor. (Grundy, 2000: 123) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… o. My friend didn’t bother to open a bank account until she stated earning money. (Grundy, 2000: 123) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… p. Do you have any dogs going cheap? (Grundy, 2000: 126) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… r. It was the Scots who invented whisky. (Grundy, 2000: 136) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE III STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS. THE FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de strategiile de politee pozitiva i negativa; • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii noiunilor de face i face threatining act în cadrul teoriei face management view; • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. Timp alocat: 6 ore STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS. THE FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW The Basics of the Theory of Politeness Politeness as well as co-operation is fundamental to interpersonal communication. As a linguistic phenomenon, politeness has drawn considerable attention from linguists, sociologists and language philosophers over the last 40 years: Lakoff (1973, 1977), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), Hill et al. (1986), Ide(1989), Fraser (1990) and Gu (1990). Despite the efforts of these practitioners, however, there was little consensus on the nature of politeness and cross-cultural implications. Politeness refers, separately but also jointly, to the following aspects: promotion of harmonious relations, deference, register, politeness as a surface level phenomenon - locutionary act, and politeness as a deep level phenomenon - illocutionary act. Pragmatic approaches to politeness fall into four categories: • The face management view (Brown and Levinson); • The conversational maxim view (Leech); • Brown and Levinson suggest that speakers. in face-to-face interactions. • The pragmatic scales view (Spencer-Oatey). The present unit attempts an elaboration of the concept of positive and negative politeness considering these universal phenomena. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) claims its pancultural validity. actually build relationships. The face management view Of the various models of politeness which have been advanced. At the very foundation of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory lies the assumption that speakers in any given language do not just convey information through their language.The conversational contract view (Fraser). even if it is not . Communication is negotiation of meaning. they use the language to do things. Brown and Levinson theory rests on the assumption that all competent language users have the capacity of reasoning and have what is commonly known as face. 1978:66) the public self-image that everyone lays claim to. (Brown and Levinson. Face is defined as: Something that is emotionally invested. Hence we may infer that the term politeness is not used in its conventional sense of having and showing good manners. In fact Brown and Levinson propose that an abstract underlying social principle guides and constrains our choice of language in everyday discourse. and that can be lost.necessarily a conscious act. maintained or enhanced. and must be constantly attended to in interaction. displaying courtesy and correct social behaviour. but rather it is intended to cover all aspects of language usage which serve to establish.negative face: the basic claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition -positive face: positive consistent self-image or ”personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. consisting of two related aspects: . maintain or modify interpersonal relationships. 1987:61) Brown and Levinson’s notion of face follows on from Goffman (1967 [1955]) in using it to denote the desire which everybody has that their self- . (Brown and Levinson. it is in general in every participants’ best interest to maintain each other’s face.image will be taken into account in interaction with others (face is linked to the notions of being embarrassed. and if defending their own to threaten other’s faces. co-operation vs. 1978: 66) . Brown and Levinson then develop this concept by relating it to Durkeim’s “positive and negative rites” . humiliated or losing face).e. distancing as two basic sides of politeness. i. (Brown and Levinson. and since people can be expected to defend their face if threatened. …everyone has face and everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s face being maintained. one who. The authors go further and say that these two kinds of face-want give rise to two corresponding types of interactive behaviour. a person who does not often share the same goals. since “aspects of face *are+ basic wants (ibid: 62) these definitions may be glossed as “the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions (negative face) and the desire to be approved of (positive face)” (Brown and Levinson. and territories uninfringed upon (negative face-wants) and the second is the want to be respected and liked by other people (positive face-wants). interests. Brown and Levinson construct their interactional model around a model person (MP). beliefs. attitudes. possesses two basic. somewhat conflicting face-wants (1987:60). Conflict can be understood as a potential ingredient of any interaction simply because social interaction by its very nature presupposes an intrusion into another person’s domain. Since the satisfaction of MP’s wants is. as . possessions. to a large extent. from the outset.And. There are acts that we. it is in the MP’s best interest to develop linguistic strategies that acknowledge and recognize the face wants of the other participants. dependent on the actions of the others’. 1987:13). The first is to have one’s individual rights. These are positive politeness strategies and negative politeness strategies. in addition to demonstrating a command of the language and a rational capability for determining the means needed to accomplish end goals. The concept of positive and negative face as universal human attributes and the consequent concept of positive and negative politeness as characteristic of human interaction are also referred to as face dualism. or values of the speaker. and threatens threaten the hearer’s negative face acts of criticism. disapproval.g. orders. E.g. the expression of thanks or the acceptance of an offer are acts that impinge on the speaker’s negative face as they impel future obligation .speakers. must do and that threaten the wants of another individual. and disagreement threaten the hearer’s positive face Speakers can also perform self-threatening acts E. requests. reduce the positive self-image of the speaker. one that reveals to H that S is attempting to minimize the threat of the act. S considers strategic balancing options and may choose a redressive one. Figure 1 depicts the types of FTA: FTA Speaker Face Hearer Face Negative Positive Negative Positive excuse apology request complaint thanking crying compliment boasting When the speaker intends to perform an act that threatens the positive or negative wants of H. among other selfhumiliating acts. Strategic options in order of increasing face-threat: . These acts which are inherently threatening to the speaker or hearer become face-threatening acts-FTAs. They are “acts that by their very nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (1987:65). confessions.Apologies. S may choose the following strategic options demonstrating the highest risk (face loss) or the least risk (face saving). admissions of guilt. but off record. .e. i. be ambiguous. Brown and Levinson draw up a list of strategies for performing offrecord politeness: give hints.g. etc. be vague. Do carry the FTA. failing to congratulate somebody or to express condolences. allowing for a certain ambiguity of intention.g. presuppose.Do not carry out the FTA at all. understate. use ellipsis etc. association clues. The soup is a bit bland. be ironic. E. overstate. E. by hedging. Excuse me. Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train. I’d be eternally grateful if you did that for me. give deference. Boys will be boys.. minimize the size of imposition. Do the FTA on record with redressive action . etc. be pessimistic. expressing agreement.negative politeness. apologize. e. This will involve paying attention to the H’s positive face by.I’ve got that terrible headache again. You must be very busy. We look forward to dining with you. impersonalize the speaker and the hearer. etc. E.g. Husbands sometimes help to wash up. but I need your help.g. The letter must be typed immediately. . I wonder if you know the truth. maintaining distance. nominalize. E. question / hedge. Brown and Levinson identify several strategies: be conventionally indirect. but it is not your turn. Do the FTA on record with redressive action – positive politeness. This will involve reassuring the H he/she is being respected by expressions of deference and formality.g. sympathy or approval. I must tell you that I like your dress very much. . without redressive action. the FTA is in the hearer’s best interest. power differential is great. Mind the step! Yes. baldly. This strategic choice is likely to appear in the following situations: emergency cases.I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him before. E. you may use the dictionary.g. taskoriented situations (instructions). 5. the speaker decides to be maximally offensive etc. We are favourably impressed by your performance. Do the FTA on –record. Give me your pen. Three factors are involved /calculated to determine the weight of the FTA: the social distance between H and S. Politeness strategies have not only verbal realization.g.g.g. etc Harris (1984) suggests that the disfunction between the institutional statusbased requirements of face and the more individual side of face involved in the notion of kindness correlates with on-record vs. some can transform a negative into a positive .g. some gradable (e. off-record strategies of politeness.g. Positive politeness strategies are addressed to H’s positive face wants and are described as expressions of solidarity.Take care! Have a cake. avoid disagreement Negative strategies conversely are addressed to H’s negative face and are characterized as expressions of restraint. give deference) are mixed with linguistic strategies (e.g. but also non-verbal e. nominalization). sympathize with H. nominalize) (see Ide. and the rank of imposition. 1989). apologize We are thus confronted with politeness strategies and markers of different status: behaviour strategies (e.g. exaggerate interest in H. be conventionally indirect. formality and distancing. intensifiers). giving a gift. Some are countable (e. give deference. E. H’s power over S. informality and familiarity. E. stumbling. Brown and Levinson interestingly state.strategy (e. contraction and ellipsis).g. that ”politeness is implicated by the semantic structure of the whole utterance. however. . not communicated by “markers” or “mitigators” in a simple signaling fashion which may be quantified” (1987:22). 2000. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. 2002. The politics of Interpretation. The Dynamics of language Use. C. MA: MIT Press . Cambridge: CUP Cottom. Pragmatics. Levinson. London: Arnold Kecskes. Doing Pragmatics. D. S. Linguistics. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. P.C. (eds. Text and Culture. 1999. 1983. 2007. L.Bibliografie minimala: Butler.C. Presumptive Meanings. London & New York: Routledge Levinson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Cutting. Politeness Phenomena. 1998. Universals in Language Usage. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Jaworski. Horn. Explorations in Pragmatics. S. et al. Pragmatics and Discourse. A Resource Book for Students. N.. S.). 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Brown. A.S. Cambridge... The Discourse Reader.. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. 1978. 2000. Coupland. J. P. I.C. S. 1992.. G. Ehlich. Ide. R. T.. Theory. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. Politeness in Language. (eds).J. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter .. Studies in Its History. 2005. 1996. K. Pragmatics.Vilceanu. Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP Watts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… c) . we’ll all miss George.EVALUARE Comment on the following sentences in terms of face wants and FTAs: a) A: We’ll all miss George and Caroline. won’t we? B: Well.I wouldn’t mind a cup of coffee. C: It wasn’t me. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… b) P: Someone’s eating the icing off the cake. -Could you spare me a cup of coffee? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… d) A: Her performance was outstanding! . ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… . wasn’t it? A: Your performance was outstanding! B: Yes. wasn’t it? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… e) A: Do you like these apricots? B: I’ve tasted better.B: Yes. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… g) I’m terribly sorry to hear that your cat died. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… i) Basil’s wife is in hospital: You just lie there with your feet up and I’ll go and carry you up another hundredweight of lime creams… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… j) In a very expensive gourmet restaurant. Please read it and comment on.f) Please accept this large gift as a token of our esteem. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… h) This is a draft of chapter 4. a notice reads: If you want to . naturally.enjoy the full flavour of your food and drink you will. if you did smoke you would also be impairing the enjoyment of other guests. not smoke during this meal. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… . However. EMPATHETIC. discursiv i social. TIME. Timp alocat: 6 ore . • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii noiunilor referitoare la deixis personal. temporal. empatic. • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. DISCOURSE.UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE IV DEIXIS – PERSON. SOCIAL DEIXIS Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de deixis. SPACE. spaial. EMPATHETIC. Deixis is often equated to indexicality. second and third person). it is concerned with the linguistic encoding of the context of utterance (speech event). DISCOURSE. time deixis. i. it covers all phenomena of context sensitivity whereas deixis has a narrower scope. from the Greek word deiknyai – to display. SPACE. Therefore. to show. but not all indices are deictic. TIME. indexicality has a broader scope. • Person deixis It is about deictic reference to the participant role of a referent: speaker.they pick out referents in the real world / extra-linguistic context. empathetic deixis. discourse deixis and social deixis. Person deixis is instantiated in the system of personal pronouns (first. addressee2. all deictic expressions are indexical . we – represents the . dealing with the linguistically relevant aspects of indexicality. Deixis can be further divided into six types: person deixis. place deixis. bystanders – ratified participants which are neither the speaker nor the addressee. The first person pronouns – I. is one of the most obvious ways of indicating how the contribution of the context of utterance is actually managed by the speaker.e. SOCIAL DEIXIS Deixis. As a pragmatic phenomenon. In fact.DEIXIS – PERSON. Bell (1984) coined the phrase audience design which he defines as the extent to which the speakers accommodate to their addressees. they – are the grammatical encoding of reference to bystanders.grammatical encoding of the reference to the speaker(s).represents grammaticalization of reference to the addressee(s) and the third person pronouns – he. she. He makes a useful distinction between addressees (ratified participants directly addressed) – auditors (ratified participants. so accommodation does not apply to this case) . not directly addressed) – overhearers (neither ratified participants nor directly addressed) – eavesdroppers (the speaker is not aware of their presence. the second person pronoun – you. 2 A. You optionally allows for gestural use: E. (optionally gestural) Customarily. we can draw a cline of deficiency on which indefinite and personal pronouns are ranked as deficient to the highest degree: E. turntaking in conversations. she – the woman – the beautiful woman – Anne In the course of the interaction. – and the deictic centre (or origo if we feel indebted to Bühler) shifts with them. we distinguish between the inclusive-of-addressee and the exclusive-of-addressee use of the first person plural pronoun we: E.g. (symbolical) You have to go there at once. their descriptive content does not suffice to identify a referent. taking the floor at conferences etc. i.g. inclusive we) We shall leave in two hours’ time. (exclusive we) As far as the second person pronoun is concerned.g. the third person referring expressions are regarded as semantically deficient or residual.Furthermore. someone. United we stand. participant roles undergo shifts – e. (President George Bush’s speech on the 11 September events.e. In this respect. which is unmarked for the second person singular and marked for the second person plural.g. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. there is the unique form you. The deictic centre is organized around the speaker at the place and time of speaking (Coding . Reference to the person involved in the speech event also becomes manifest in the use of possessive pronouns and adjectives.g. many deictic expressions can be transposed or relativized to some other deictic centre. English verbs add –s in the 3rd person singular. the verb “to be” displays different forms for different persons. Yet.Time in Fillmore’s terms). and verb conjugation (e. In Romance . present simple tense. languages there are different endings attached to verbs when conjugated – e. Romanian present tense: eu lucrez. • Empathetic deixis It refers to the metaphorical use of deictic forms to indicate attitude. The grammatical realizations of place deixis are adverbs of place.e. But also I like that. ei-ele lucreaza etc). typically the speaker. emotional or psychological distance between the speaker and the referent. Denny (1978) proposes the term boundedness to refer to the presence / absence of meaning indicative of a border at the location. (empathy) That man! (distance) • Place deixis It can be defined as deictic reference to a location relative to the location of a participant in the speech event. el/ea lucreaza. voi lucrati.g. i. expressions such as in . there are numerous instances when the distinction is neutralized: E. demonstrative pronouns. Broadly speaking. However. spatial prepositions and motion verbs. tu lucrezi. This is what I like.g. noi lucram. the demonstrative pronoun this is invested with empathy or solidarity while that indicates emotional distance. there. Authors (notably Levinson) identify several frames3 of spatial reference: -intrinsic or pure place-deictic words: the adverbs here and there. 3 Goffmann (1967) sees frame as individual conceptualization of the structure within which participants are interacting . the demonstrative pronouns this and there (proximity vs. in here. non-proximity). out there belong to bounded deixis while here and there pertain to unbounded deixis (lack of a defined border). west. away from. (symbolical) Bring it here. upstream.g. e.g. there. which is typically distal from the speaker’s location at CT. proximal to the speaker’s location at CT. Billy is behind the tree. north. downstream.-absolute: east. E.) distinguishes between gestural (as a way of securing the addressee’s attitude to a feature of the extra-linguistic world. across river etc. south. Spatial prepositions have deictic and non-deictic values. that includes the point of location gesturally indicated”. -relative: to the right/left of.g.g. can serve to indicate proximity to the speaker’s location at CT (e. on the phone) or RT (receiving time. behind. (gestural) Sometimes. I’m in Madrid and I love it here. next to etc Levinson (1983: 79 ff. here indicates “the pragmatically given unit of space that includes the location of the speaker at CT (coding time. see the ongoing discussion)” and gesturally it refers to “the pragmatically given space. when receiving a letter). in front of. pointing at something constitutes an ostensive definition) and symbolical usages of place deictic words. They are deictic when there is reference to the speaker location: E. Used symbolically. (non-deictic) . typically the speaker. (deictic) Verbs of motion or come-and-go verbs indicate direction relative to the location of participants.Billy is behind the tree. The verbs belonging to the go class serve to show movement away from the speaker’s location at CT whereas the verbs of the come type gloss as movement towards the speaker’s location at CT. . Levinson draws our attention towards the fact that some other time can be involved when performing the movement and he cautiously suggests to use the broader term reference time. hiding from me. 1997) calls Coding Time (CT) or temporal ground zero as different from the Receiving Time (RT) when there is no temporal deictic simultaneity or there is deviation from the canonical situation of utterance. Time deixis is encoded in adverbs of time. • Time deixis It refers to time relative to a temporal reference point. (reference time does not coincide with CT) Some other verbs of the above mentioned type are: bring.g. take etc. tenses and other deictic expressions (greetings).g. Typically this is the moment of utterance – what Fillmore (1975. The verb come can also indicate not the speaker’s current location but his/her home-base: E. I came at 10 o’clock. Come to me! (reference time coincides with CT) Go there! (reference time coincides with CT) You can come to see me when I return from England. fetch. Special mention needs to be made of the fact that place deixis always incorporates a time-deictic element (CT) while the converse does not hold true.E. but you were not at home. The basic distinction concerns the use of now – “the time at which the speaker is producing the utterance” or broadly “the . 1983: 73-74) – and then as marking departure from the moment when the utterance is produced (anteriority or posteriority). . Do it now! I’m now reading an interesting article on traditions.g. E.pragmatically given span including CT “ (Levinson. months. yesterday. – the utterance allows for both a calendrical and non-calendrical interpretation. next month etc). this year. while calendrically the adverb refers to the span of time running from midnight to midnight. you’ll have to repeat the procedure. Starting from this example we can state that today systematically varies reference (the reference of today will be different tomorrow etc). Sunday. Some other examples include: E. it is useful to remember that time is measured in days. the deictic use of the time adverb today serves to indicate the diurnal span in which the speech event takes place.I was very young then. it guarantees achievement within the calendar unit beginning on Sunday and including utterance time (CT) or within 7 days from the utterance time. I wrote this yesterday and wanted you to receive it today. For instance. this afternoon. I’ll be back in an hour. seasons. Then. – CT and RT are distinct. years – these temporal divisions are measured against a fixed point of reference (including the deictic centre).g. May. I’ll go there this week. tomorrow. i.e. Before discussing the deictic use of the adverbs of time (today. (notice on the office door) – the exact time when the person comes back is hard to be guessed as there is no indication . being non-calendrical in use or they are used calendrically to locate events in absolute time (non-relationally). the present tense represents the time span including CT. . the past tense is the relevant time span before CT and the future tense is the time span following CT.of CT and RT are not identical. Tenses are a mixture of deictic temporal distinctions and aspect. Seen in this light. Tenses are classified into absolute and relative (perfect tenses indicate anteriority to a specified moment of time). The British Prime . This and that are discourse deixis elements (we can speak of a re-categorization of these placedeictic elements which become multifunctional). . although the two are not mutually exclusive. This is what I’ll tell you. This refers to the forthcoming portion of the discourse and that: E. the previous chapter. the next chapter.g. It is worth mentioning that Good morning. Levinson claims that the phenomenon of anaphora should be kept distinct from discourse deixis. this chapter. Good afternoon and Good evening are uttered only when meeting the addressee whereas Good night is used only as a parting formula. That was the only word she could say in Chinese. greetings function as time-deictic elements since they are time-restricted: Good morning is used in the morning. The British Prime Minister delivered a speech yesterday. Tony Blair / He pointed to the importance of the event. as mentioned before).Last but not least. Good afternoon is used in the afternoon etc. Anaphoric elements refer outside the discourse to other entities by connecting to prior referring expressions: E.g. • Discourse deixis It concerns deictic references to a portion of the unfolding discourse relative to the speaker’s current location in the discourse (e.g. Minister . let us mention that cataphora connects to referring expressions that are present later in the discourse: . For the sake of distinction. Tony Blair / He are co-referential expressions (they pick out the same referent in the external world. Pronouns are prototypical exemplars as far as anaphora is concerned. mum) terms of endearment (My dear. editorial we for authorized speakers and Your Honour. Mr. Billy). • Social deixis It is concerned with direct or oblique reference to the social status and role of the participants in the speech event. Your Majesty. moreover. The Honourable Member for authorized recipients – see Fillmore. insults etc. therefore. actually etc) relate a current contribution to the prior portions of discourse (we have already discussed these terms as giving rise to conventional implicature). In front of her. darling. royal we. Linguistic encodings of social deixis include honorifics. 1975) and relational social deixis (reference to the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee). E. Jane noticed a girl playing with a doll.g. nevertheless. – contrast is thus established between the two portions of the utterance. President. She acknowledged his presence but pretended not to.g.E. Social deixis falls into two categories: absolute (reference to some social characteristics of a referent apart from any relative ranking of referents e. Discourse markers (anyway. kinship terms (mother. but.g. . London: Arnold Kecskes. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. 1999. Coupland. Pragmatics and Discourse.Bibliografie minimala Butler. Doing Pragmatics. Pragmatics. I. P. Pragmatics. The Discourse Reader. 2000. 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cutting. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. The Dynamics of language Use. 2007. L. 1996.C. Pragmatics. S. G. Horn.C. 2000. 2005. 1983. N. C. S. London & New York: Routledge Levinson. MA: MIT Press Vilceanu. (eds.. A. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Jaworski. 2002. Oxford: OUP . et al. A Resource Book for Students.S.. Explorations in Pragmatics. J.). Cambridge.. Linguistics. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. T. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. ........ This is a non parking area ............ Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… ........ 3........ I’m visiting my parents next week and tell them the news. Monday morning feeling Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..................EVALUARE Identify deictic elements in the following utterances and discuss their nature: 1.......................................................................................... 2......................................Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........................................... ...... ............Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:............................................................................................. ..............................4...... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:................. 5............... Just along the corridor on the right............................ I love you..... mummy................ You are not supposed to say that to an old lady.... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........................................................................................................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..... ..... 7........................................ How do you like it?.......... 6.................................................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… . .................. 2000: 4) Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… ..... I am coming to your office.............................................................................. Are we all here? (Grundy......... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........................ This book was published two years ago..Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:............. 8........................................................................ 10.................................. 9.......................................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........................................ .................................Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:................................... ........................................... ............................................11...................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........... Lay your hands off her! Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:. 12...................................................................................... You’ll be fine tomorrow............................................................ P. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota . Cambridge: CUP Aronoff. 2002. The Politics of Interpretation. C. The Handbook of Linguistics. Thoughts and Utterances. et al.. London: Routledge Carston.. 2005. Levinson. 1996. Cambridge: CUP Bussmann. 2002. Rees-Miller. M. A. 1978. Text and Culture. D. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. The Dynamics of language Use.Bibliografie generala Ariel..C. 2008. 2000. M. H. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Brown. Universals in Language Usage. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Cottom. J. (eds.. 1998.. Pragmatics and Grammar. R. S.)..S. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Byram. London: Routledge Butler. Politeness Phenomena. M. E. Doing Pragmatics. 2002. Language as Social Action. A. London: Arnold Holtgraves. (ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . London and New York: Routledge Cutting. A Glossary of Applied Linguistics. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.Cruse. A. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Grundy. 2000. Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Oxford: OUP Cummings. London and New York: Routledge Davies. Sanders.. (eds.). C. H. Pragmatics and Discourse. 2007 (2nd ed. Meaning in Language. (eds).) 2010. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. K. P.. T. Elder. A Resource Book for Students. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Davies. 2005. An Introduction to Applied Linguistics.L. J. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. L. 2005. A. A. 2004. 2002. Davies. 2000. The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. Fitch. R. H.Hornberger. 2008 (2nd ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. N. Springer Science . I.Jaworski. 1993. F. Johnson. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. L. London & New York: Routledge Johnson. 1999. Principles of Pragmatics. 2000. London: Longman Levinson. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. R. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Explorations in Pragmatics. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied linguistics: a handbook for language teaching. Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP. A.. S. 1983. New Jersey: Lawrel Erlbaum Associates Recanati. B. P.H. H. Coupland. Oxford: OUP Kecskes.C. Horn. 1983. Presumptive Meanings. MA: MIT Press Matthews. A. J. Pennycook..C. 2001. Cambridge. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. K. 2007. Linguistics. 2002.). 2007 (2nd ed. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. S.. 1999. (ed). Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing . The Discourse Reader. N. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Kaplan. R. Kasper. Studies in Its History. London and New York: Routledge Vega Moreno. Pragmatics. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter Yule. 1992. 1969. Change and Continuity in Applied Linguistics. G. R. Theory.). (eds). K.. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Oxford: OUP . Cambridge: CUP Trappes-Lomax. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. E. 2002 (3rd ed. (eds. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. R. 2000.). Ide.K. R. 2007. Cambridge: CUP Searle. G. Speech Acts.L. J. Ehlich. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Watts. H. 1999. 2001. S. Creativity and Convention. Politeness in Language.Richards.. C.. Schmidt. London: Multilingual Matters Ltd. London: Pearson Education Limited Rose. (eds).J.. 1996. Trask. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics and Teaching.. R. J.