Introduction to LinguisticsChapter 6: Pragmatics

Instructor: LIU Hongyong

Review: What is semantics?

Semantics is the study of meaning. More specifically, semantics is the study

of the meaning of words and sentences in particular.

Review: Semantics

Lexical semantics word meaning

Compositional semantics phrase/sentence meaning

Review: Summary

Lexical semantics sense and reference sense relations Componential analysis

Compositional semantics sense relations between sentences Principle of compositionality Predication analysis

Review: Different conceptions of meaning

The naming theory The conceptulist view Contextualism Behaviorism

Review: Contextualism: definition

Contextualism（语境论） holds the position that meaning should be studied in terms of situation, use, and context. According to this view, one can derive meaning from observable contexts.

Language is always used in a certain context. It is the context that determines the meaning of a paritcular word.

Situational context VS. linguistic context

1. Situational context refers to the particular spatiotemporal situation in which an utterance occurs, the main components of which include, apart from the place and time of the utterance, the speaker and the hearer, the actions they are performing at the time, the various objects and events exising in the situation.

2. Linguistic context, some times known as context, is concerned with the probability of a word’s co-occurrence or collocation with another word, which forms part of the ‘meaning” of the word, and also concerned with the part of text that precedes and follows a particular utterance.

Pragmatics

To fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we must understand the context in which it is used.

Pragmatics is concerned with how people use language within a context and how they use language in particular ways.

This chapter examines how factors such as time, place, and the social relationship between speaker and hearer affect the ways in which language is used to perform different functions.

Origin and development of pragmatics

Development in linguistics(1) Saussure: 语言学所要研究的是“语言”（ langue ），而不是“言语”（ parole ），因为语言是一个手一定规则制约的体系，而言语则不是，只有语言才能经得起严谨的、科学的分析，而言语则不能。

(2) Chomsky: 以句法为中心，把语言的意义排除在语言研究之外。

(3) The rise of semantics.(4) The rise of Contextualism: Malinowsky, Firth, Halliday

Semantics: The meaning of language was considered as something intrinsic , and inherent, i.e., a property attached to language itself. Therefore, meanings of words and sentences are studied independent of language use.

Pragmatics: It would be impossible to give an adequate description of meaning if the context of language use is left unconsidered. Therefore, context is taken into consideration.

Pragmatics vs. semantics

Both semantics and pragmatics study the meaning of a linguistic form. However, they are different. What essentially distinguishes them is whether the context is considered.

If it is not considered, the study is in the area of semantics; if it is considered, the study is in the area of pragmatics.

Definition of “context”

As a comprehensive concept, ‘context’ refers to all the elements of a communicative situation: the verbal and non-verbal context, as well as the social context of the relationship between the speaker and hearer, their knowledge, and their attitude.

Context: linguistic context situational context cognitive context

Cognitive Context

It refers to the knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer:

(1) knowledge of the language they use, (2) knowledge of what has been said before,(3) knowledge about the world in general, (4) knowledge about each other.

Importance of Context

Context determines the speaker’s use o language and also the hearer’s interpretation of what is said to him.

1. Sentence meaning: BAG (BE HEAVY)

2. Possible pragmatic meanings: An indirect, polite request, asking the hearer

to help him carry the bag. (When?) A declining of someone’s request for help.

(When ？ )

“My bag is heavy”

More examples

Try to think of contexts in which the following sentences can be used for other intentions or purposes than just stating facts.

(1) The room is messy.

(2) Oh, it is raining.

(3) The music of the movie is good.

(4) You have been keeping my notes for a whole week now.

What is a speech act?

Just as people can perform physical acts, such as hitting a baseball, they can perform mental acts, such as imagining hitting a baseball. People can also perform another kind of act simply by using language; these are called speech acts.

We use language to do a lot of things.

Some common speech acts

Speech Act Function

Assertion conveys information

Question elicits information

Request (more or less politely) elicits action

Order demands action

Promise commits the speaker to an action

Threat commits the speaker to an action that the hearer does not want

Sentence types

Certain speech acts are so central to communication that we have special sentence types to mark them.

Sentence Type Example

Declarative He is cooking in the kitchen.

Interrogative Is he cooking in the kitchen?

Imperative Cook the chicken!

Sentence types

Certain speech acts are so central to communication that we have special sentence types to mark them.

Sentence Type Speech Act

declarative assertion

interrogative question

imperative order or request

Notice that interrogative sentences typically express questions, but this association does not always hold.

Speech act theory

1. John Austin’s model of speech acts

Speech act theory: a philosophical explanation of the nature of linguistic communication. It aims to answer this question: “What do we do when using language?”

Austin’s three speech acts:

Traditional philosopher’s view: a statement is used to state a fact or describe a state; therefore, it has truth value.

John Austin’s “constatives” (述事话语 ) and “performatives” (行事话语 )

Austin’s classical examples: assuring marriage, naming, bequeathing and betting

I do. I name this ship Elizabeth. I give and bequeath my watch to my brother. I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.

Example: promise

I promise to take him to a bar tonight.

(performative use of the verb PROMISE) John promises to take me to a bar tonight.

(not performative, because the subject is not I or we.) I will promise to take him to a bar tonight.

(not performative, because the tense is not “present”.) I promise to tell Mom if you touch my toys again.

(not promise, but a threat!)

The model of three speech acts: Later on, the “constative-performative” model is replaced by the model of three speech acts, according to which a speaker might be performing three acts simultaneously when speaking: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary

Locutionary act: act of uttering words, phrases, clauses Illocutionary act: the act of expressing the speaker’s

intention Perlocutionary act: the act performed by or resulting fro

saying something, the consequence of the utterance

Searle’s classification of speech acts

Representatives: stating or describing, saying what the speaker believes to be true. The speaker is making a statement or giving a description which he himself believes to be true. Stating, believing, swearing, hypothesizing are the typical representatives.

(I swear) I have never seen the man before.

(I state) The earth is a globe.

Directives: Trying to get hearer to do something. Inviting, suggesting, requesting, advising, warning, threatening, ordering are the typical ones.

Open the window!

You’d better go to the clinic.

Your money or your life!

Would you like to go to the picnic with us?

Commissives: Committing the speaker himself to the future course of action. Promising, undertaking, vowing are the most typical cases.

I promise to come.

I will bring you the book tomorrow without fail.

Expressives: Expressing feelings or attitude towards an existing state. Typical ones: apologizing, thanking, congratulating.

I’m sorry for the mess I have made.

It’s really kind of you to have thought of me.

Declarations: bringing about immediate changes by saying something. They are like Austin’s classical examples. More examples:

I now declare the meeting open.

I appoint you chairman of the committee.

I fire you!

All the acts that belong to the same category share the same purpose but differ in their strength or syntactic forms.

Close the door.

Will you close the door!

Can you close the door!

Do you mind closing the door?

I would be very grateful if you could close the door!

The door is open!

The door please!

Principles of conversation The philosopher Paul Grice formulated a Cooperative

Principle, which he believed underlies language use, according to which we must make sure that what we say in conversation satisfy the purposes of the conversation.

Grice argued that there are a number of conversational rules, or maxims, that regulate conversation in the spirit of the Cooperative Principle.

Four maxims

The maxim of quantity Make your contribution as informative as required. No

more and no less. The maxim of quality Do not say what you believe to be false and do not say

what you lack evidence for. The maxim of relation Be relevant The maxim of manner Avoid obscurity, ambiguity. Be brief and orderly.

A: When is Susan’s farewell party? B: Sometime next month. — (flouting the maxim of quantity)

A: Would you like to join us for the picnic on Sunday? B: I’m afraid I have got a class on Sunday. — (flouting the maxim of quality)

A: How did the math exam go today, Jonnie? B: We had a basketball match with the other class and we beat them. — (flouting the maxim of relation)

A: Shall we get something for the kids? B: Yes. But I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M. — (flouting the maxim of manner)

Violating conversational maxims blatantly, and revealing conversational implicatures