+ All Categories
Home > Documents > [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

[Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Date post: 18-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: jose-lopez
View: 1,429 times
Download: 15 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
‘This is an ideal b o o k for anyone b eg in n in g th e stu d y o f discourse an d pragmatics; itis tran sp a ren tly w ritten w ith o u t being simplistic o r pa tro n isin g , an d is th o ro u g h anddetailed w ith o u t being o b scure o r mystifying’.
Popular Tags:
200
Pragmatics and Discourse A resource book for students Joan Cutting
Transcript
Page 1: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Pragmatics and DiscourseA resource book for students

Joan Cutting

Page 2: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

S a r i» fdUnr: P*lVT Slockurtll $ a r i a * Ü o i i « u l * t M v j j; l|

H Q U lltdge E n g lish L a n g u a g e tn tr ù d u r tiu itS nover coteh re a s of language study and are one-stop resourcas

ffif students

“T h is ¡9 u n id e a l b o o k fo r a n y o n e b e g in n in g th e s tu d y O l

d isco u rs« e n d p ra g m a tic s : i l is t r i n i p * n i t l l | f w r it te n vuittnw il b e in g s im p lis tic o r p d tro n iu n q a n d I f ih o f d u j t i an d ritM .nlpd w ith ci til b e in g o b scu re * r m y s tify in g "

m l - ■■ ; 'V .I'J5£TjT 7 ? fF -

J o s h C u ttin g 's b o o k p ro v id e s gn e x c e lle n t in tro d u c tio n

1o |>r«9m i i t iH an d d isco u rse an a lys is ft o H ers th e no v ice

in th e f ie ld « c i t in g , c re a tiv e and access ib le w a y s in

w h ic h lo g a in a il u n d e rs ta n d in g o) th e m o s t im p o rta n t

is s .l l« , a n d ft »Isq g ives Lis a id lu n d i s t im u la t in g n e w

fo o d (or th o u g h t '

A ssu m in g no prior know ledge, books in the series offer an accessib le overview of the subject, with a d iV ilia s . ilu d y questions, sam ple analyses, co m nien faries and key readings - fell in Ihe sam e volum e. Tht? ihrtovati^e and Flexible 'tw o-dim ensionel' structure is huilt ar-tj-und four sections - in iio d ird io n , developm ent. t x p lo it t i ir t and extension - w hich offer self-contained » t a g « foi study. Each topic can also tie read across these seciio ns. enabling ih e reader to build gradually on the know ledge gained

Pragmatics and Discourse-■ is a comprehensive introduction to pragmelics

and discourse■ covers, the core areas of the subject: cornem. co-tern,

speech sets, converge [¡on s-tructure, ihe cooperative principle, and politeness

■ draws on a weaifti o f reel teirt5r fifom Pride and Prefudice and Winnie the Pooh to Wfio Wants ro 6e a M illk m t in and mobile te*( messages

- provjdes classic readings from Ihe key names in (he discipline, from Sperber and W ilson to Falreksugh. Wodak and Gum per?.

The accompanying website to this book can be found at http//Mr ww.raulledge.corn/teittbotHts/pragrnaticf

Written by an experienced feather, this accessib le Textbook 13 an essential resource for a ll students of English language and linguistics.

Joan Cutting is Reader in Applied Linguistic* at ibe

University of Sunderland.

Page 3: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

i. ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=1

PRAGMATICS AND DISCOURSE

‘T h is is an ideal b o o k fo r anyone b eg inn ing th e study o f d iscourse an d p ragm atics; it is tran sp a ren tly w ritten w ith o u t be ing sim plistic o r pa tron ising , an d is th o ro u g h and deta iled w ith o u t be ing obscure o r m ystify ing’.M ichael M cC arth y , U n iv e rs ity o f N o ttin g h a m .

‘lo an C u ttin g ’s bo o k p rov ides an excellent in tro d u c tio n to o n e o f th e m ost in tensively researched areas in linguistics an d co m m u n ica tio n stud ies — pragm atics an d d iscourse analysis. It offers th e novice in th e field exciting, creative an d accessible ways in w hich to gain an u n d ers tan d in g o f the m ost im p o rta n t issues, an d it also gives us o ld hands s tim u la tin g new food for th o u g h t.’R ich a rd W a tts , U n iv e rs ity o f B erne , S w itze rlan d

R o u tled g e English L anguage In tro d u c tio n s cover core areas o f language study an d are o n e -s to p resources fo r s tuden ts.

A ssum ing no p rio r know ledge, books in th e series offer an accessible overview o f th e subject, w ith activities, study questions, sam ple analyses, com m en taries an d key read ­ings - all in the sam e volum e. T he innovative and flexible ‘tw o -d im en sio n a l’ s tru c ­tu re is bu ilt a ro u n d fo u r sections - in tro d u c tio n , developm ent, exp lo ra tion an d ex tension - w hich offer self-con ta ined stages fo r study. Each to p ic can also be read across these sections, enabling th e read e r to bu ild gradually o n the know ledge gained.

P ragm atics a n d D iscourse:

□ is a com prehensive in tro d u c tio n to p ragm atics an d d iscourse□ covers the core areas o f the subject: context, co-text, speech acts, conversation struc­

tu re , th e cooperative p rincip le , a n d politeness□ draw s o n a w ealth o f real texts, from Pride an d Prejudice and W innie the Pooh to

W ho W ants to be a M illionaire an d m obile text m essages□ p rovides classic readings from th e key nam es in th e d iscip line, from S perber and

W ilson to Fairclough, W o d ak and G um perz .

T he accom pany ing w ebsite p rov id ing w eblinks an d extra resources for lecturers, teachers and students, can be found at: h ttp ://w w w .routledge.com /textbooks/pragm atics

Jo an C u ttin g is R eader in A pplied L inguistics at th e U niversity o f Sunderland .

S eries E d ito r: P e te r S tockw ell Series C o n su lta n t: R o n a ld C a r te r

Page 4: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

ii.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

2

ROUTLEDGE ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTRODUCTIONS

SERIES EDITOR: PETER STOCKW ELLP e te r S tockw ell is Sen ior L ecturer in the School o f English S tud ies at th e U niversity o f N o ttin g h am , UK, w here h is in terests inc lude sociolinguistics, stylistics an d cogn i­tive poetics. H is recen t p ub lica tions include C ognitive Poetics: An In tro d u c tio n (R outledge, 2002), T he Poetics o f Science Fiction, Investigating English Language (w ith H ow ard Jackson), an d C on tex tualized Stylistics (ed ited w ith T o n y Bex an d M ichael Burke).

SERIES CONSULTANT: RONALD CARTERR onald C a rte r is Professor o f M odern English Language in the School o f English Studies at the U n iversity o f N o ttin g h am , UK. H e is th e co-series ed ito r o f the fo rthcom ing Routledge A pplied Linguistics series, series ed ito r o f Interface, an d w as co -fo u n d e r o f th e R outledge In tertex t series.

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES:

S o cio ling u is tics P eter S to c k w e ll

G ram m ar and V o cab u la ry

H ow ard Jackson

FO R TH CO M IN G :

P ragm atics and D iscourse Joan C u ttin g

W orld Englishes J e n n ife r Jenk ins

P h onetics and P honology

B everley C ollins & Inger M ees

P sycho lingu is tics John Field

C h ild Language

Jean S tilw e ll Peccei

S ty lis tics

Paul S im pson

Page 5: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

iii.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

3

Page 6: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

iv.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

4

First published 2002 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

© 2002 Joan Cutting

Typeset in 10/12.5pt Minion by Graphicraft Limited, Hong KongPrinted and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library o f Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ISBN 0-415-25357-8 (hbk)ISBN 0-415-25358-6 (pbk)

Page 7: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

v.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

5

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

T he R outledge English Language In tro d u c tio n s are ‘flexi-texts’ th a t you can use to su it yo u r ow n style o f study. T he books are d iv ided in to fou r sections:

A In t ro d u c tio n - sets o u t th e key concep ts fo r th e area o f study. T he u n its o f th is sec­tio n take you step -by-step th ro u g h the fo u n d a tio n a l te rm s and ideas, carefully p ro ­v id ing you w ith an in itial too lk it for y o u r ow n study. By the end o f th e section , you will have a good overview o f th e w hole field.

B D e v e lo p m e n t - adds to y o u r know ledge an d bu ilds on the key ideas a lready in tro ­d uced . U n its in th is section m igh t also d raw to ge ther several areas o f in terest. By th e e n d o f th is section , you will a lready have a good and fairly detailed grasp o f th e field, a n d will be ready to u n dertake yo u r ow n exp lo ra tion and th ink ing .

C E x p lo ra tio n - p rov ides exam ples o f language da ta and guides you th ro u g h you r ow n investigation o f th e field. T he un its in th is section will be m ore o p en -en d ed and exp lo ra to ry , an d you will be encou raged to try o u t y o u r ideas an d th in k fo r yourself, u sing y o u r new ly acqu ired know ledge.

D E x ten s io n — offers you th e chance to com pare yo u r expertise w ith key read ings in th e area. T hese are taken from the w ork o f im p o rtan t w riters, an d are p rov id ed w ith gu idance and questions fo r y o u r fu r th e r th o u g h t.

Y ou can read th is book like a trad itio n a l tex tbook , ‘vertically’ stra igh t th ro u g h from beg inn ing to end . T his will take you com prehensively th ro u g h th e b ro ad field o f study. H ow ever, the R outledge English Language In tro d u c tio n s have been carefully designed so th a t you can read th em in a n o th e r d im ension , ‘ho rizon ta lly ’ across th e n u m b ered un its. F or exam ple, U n its A l, A2, A3 an d so on co rrespond w ith U n its B l, B2, B3, and w ith U n its C l , C2, C3 and D l, D2, D3, and so on . R eading A5, B5, C5, D 5 will take you rap id ly from th e key concep ts o f a specific area, to a level o f exper­tise in th a t precise area, all w ith a very close focus. Y ou can m a tch y o u r w ay o f re ad ­ing w ith th e best way th a t you w ork.

T he glossarial index a t th e end , to g e th e r w ith th e suggestions for fu r th e r reading, will help to keep yo u o rien ta ted . Each tex tb o o k has a su p p o rtin g w ebsite w ith extra co m m en tary , suggestions, ad d itiona l m ateria l an d su p p o rt for teachers an d studen ts .

P R A G M A T IC S A N D D IS C O U R S E

In th is book , six n u m b ered sub -sec tions in Section A in tro d u ce you to the key c o n ­cep ts in p ragm atics an d d iscourse study. T erm s and ideas are in tro d u ced quick ly and

Page 8: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

vi.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

6

vi H O W TO U S E T H I S B O O K

clearly, so th a t if you read th is section as a w hole, you can rap id ly s ta rt to link together th e d ifferen t approaches to th e study o f language. T hen you can use th e n u m b ers for each area to follow a th em e th ro u g h th e book . For exam ple, U n it A4 sets o u t key ideas in th e study o f th e s tru c tu re o f conversation . In Section B, you will find th a t U n it 4 p resen ts a real conversation , toge ther w ith m y com m en tary . T he idea beh ind th is is to show you in as practical a w ay as possible th a t you can develop a n und ers tan d in g o f th e ap p roach an d th e skills needed to u n dertake a study o f language using p rag ­m atics an d discourse analysis in a fairly sh o rt space o f tim e.

T he best way to lea rn ab o u t language in use is to investigate th e area for yourse lf and th ink ab o u t y o u r ow n place in it. Section C gives you a chance to do th is, and follow ing o n from A4 an d B4, fo r exam ple, U n it C4 prov ides you w ith som e genu ine data o f conversa tions and som e questions to consider. Finally, in Section D, U n it 4 offers som e published reading and suggestions for fu rther study, to com plete your th o r­ough u n d ers tan d in g o f th e s tran d .

T he sam e p a tte rn applies fo r every n u m b ered section th ro u g h o u t th e book. In general, I have tried to increase the cum ulative difficulty th ro u g h each section , and giving you gu idance at th e beg inn ing an d th en help ing you to w ork m ore in d ep en ­den tly as the book advances. M y h o p e is th a t you will becom e en th u sed by th e study o f language in use. If, by th e end , I have encou raged you to d iscover m ore ab o u t p ragm atics and d iscourse, an d if you are encouraged to take issue critically w ith ex­isting stud ies in the area, and w an t to co n tin u e to explore m ore , th en th is b o o k will have served its pu rpose . I hope you will find y o u r study stim ula ting , en ligh ten ing , and enjoyable.

T ran sc rip tio n conventions:

= Interruption

// Overlap/ . . . / Lines from original om itted to make example quoted simpler

(0.5) Pause (number of seconds in brackets)

Page 9: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

vii.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

7

CONTENTS

C o n ten ts cross-referenced viiiList o f tables xA cknow ledgem ents xi

A Introduction: concepts in pragmatics and discourse 1

1 C on tex t 12 C o-tex t 83 Speech acts 154 C onversa tion 235 T he coopera tive p rincip le 336 P oliteness 44

B Development: studies in pragmatics and discourse 551 A nalysing th e d iscourse in co n tex t 552 A nalysing th e co -tex t 593 U sing speech acts 634 T he p ragm atics o f conversa tion 665 C oo p era tio n an d relevance 706 T he princip le o f po liteness 73

C Exploration: data for investigation 771 E xploring th e con tex t o f w riting 772 Investigating co -tex t 833 E xploring speech acts 874 T he analysis o f conversa tion 935 Follow ing the cooperative p rinc ip le 976 A pplying po liteness 102

D Extension: readings 1081 C ontex t: know ledge an d stereo types 1082 C o-tex t: repe tition an d reference 1133 Speech acts a n d pow er 1194 C onversa tion an d race 1235 C o m m u n ica tio n and relevance 1276 R eadings in po liteness 156

References 181G lossarial index 185

Page 10: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

viii.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=8

Page 11: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

ix.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

9

Page 12: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

x.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

10

LIST OF TABLES

D5.1 F requency d is tr ib u tio n o f A m erican English co m p lim en tresponse types 166

D 5.2 F requency d is tr ib u tio n o f Syrian A rabic co m p lim en t response types 170

Page 13: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

xi.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sho u ld like to th an k M r Jo Reed o f the U niversity o f B irm ingham and M arjory M oore o f th e H igher In s titu te o f M edical Sciences o f H avana fo r in tro d u c in g m e to lingu is­tics an d in particu la r, to p ragm atics and discourse analysis. I am in d eb ted to P rofessor Alan Davies an d D r H ugh T rappes-L om ax o f the U niversity o f E d inburgh fo r tra in in g m e in m y research. In w riting th is book , I have been insp ired by M ike M cC arthy , and gu ided an d encouraged by R on C arter, H ilary N esi, Louisa Sem iyen an d P eter Stockwell. I w ould like to say thanks to m y s tu d en ts an d colleagues in the U niversity o f S underland for the good tim es spen t ta lk ing ab o u t language, a n d also th an k s to m y fam ily an d friends fo r th e ir u n d ers tan d in g an d to lerance.

T his book is ded ica ted to M eim i Sanchez C u tting , w ith o u t w hom I w ou ld be ju s t a linguist.

F u rth e r acknow ledgem ents:

R. W ard au g h , H ow Conversation Words © Blackwell P ublishers Ltd, 1985 M. H oey, Patterns o f Lexis © O xford U niversity Press, 1991R. W odak , Disorders o f Discourse © Pearson , 1996, rep rin ted by p erm iss io n o f

Pearson E ducation Ltd N. Fairclough, Language and Power © Pearson, 1989, reprin ted by perm ission o f Pearson

E ducation LtdJohn G um perz , Discourse Strategies © C am bridge U niversity Press, 1982 S perber and W ilson , Relevance © Blackwell P ub lishers Ltd, 1995 D. T an n en , G ender and Discourse © O xfo rd U niversity Press, Inc., 1994 N elson, A l-Batal and Echols, ‘A rabic an d English co m p lim en t responses: po ten tia l for

p ragm atic fa ilu re’ © O xford U niversity Press, 1996 D elia Sm ith, H ow to Cook, courtesy o f D ebo rah O w en L iterary Ltd

Page 14: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

1. ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

INTRODUCTION

C O N C E P T S IN P R A G M A T I C S A N D D I S C O U R S E

C O N T E X T

U n d ers tan d in g concepts

□ in tro d u c tio n□ situa tional con tex t□ cu ltu ra l an d in terpersonal back g ro u n d con tex t□ exopho ra , deixis and in tertex tuality

In tro d u c tio n to p rag m atics and d iscourseSom e o f th e approaches to language descrip tion th a t a re described in th is book involve b o th p ragm atics an d discourse analysis, o thers involve e ither one o r the o ther. T he first section o f th is u n it defines th em , an d shou ld serve as a reference gu ide to all th e u n its o f th is book.

First, let us look at w hat they are not, by using an exam ple. In Q ueen V ic to ria’s fam ous w ords ‘W e are n o t am u sed ’, if w e analyse th e g ram m ar an d say th a t ‘w e’ is th e n o u n phrase sub ject o f th e sen tence co n ta in in g a first person p lu ra l p ro n o u n , ‘a re ’ is th e m ain verb agreeing w ith ‘w e’, ‘n o t’ is a negative m arker, and ‘am used ’ is an adjec­tival co m p lem en t, we are d o ing an analysis o f the syn tax . Syntax is the way th a t w ords re late to each o th e r, w ith o u t tak ing in to accoun t th e w orld ou tside; it includes g ram ­m ar, an d does n o t consider w ho said it to w hom , w here, w hen o r why.

R etu rn ing to the Q ueen V ictoria exam ple, if we analyse th e m ean ing o f h e r w ords in iso lation , an d say tha t ‘we’ indicates the person speaking, ‘are’ identifies a state ra ther th a n an action , an d ‘am used ’ has a sense synonym ous w ith ‘en te rta ined ’ o r ‘d is trac ted ’, we are look ing a t the sem an tic s . Sem antics is th e study o f w hat th e w ords m ean by them selves, o u t o f con tex t, as they a re in a d ic tionary . S em anticists w ou ld no t consider, here, th e con tex tual back g ro u n d features ab o u t Q ueen V ictoria an d her co u rtie rs , o r w hy she said this.

M oving on to w hat p ra g m a tic s and d isco u rse an a ly s is are, we can s ta rt by say­ing th a t they are approaches to study ing language’s re la tion to the co n tex tua l back­g ro u n d features. T hey w ould take in to accoun t th e fact tha t, in the exam ple, V ictoria h ad been in a p ro longed depression , caused by th e dea th o f h e r h u sb an d A lbert, an d h e r cou rtie rs knew th is, an d th a t h e r w ords w ere a response to a joke w hich they had

A 1 .1

JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
Page 15: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

2.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

14

ju s t m ade. A nalysts w ould in fe r th a t th e Q u een ’s in ten tio n was to s top th em try ing to m ake her laugh and lift h e r o u t o f th e depression , an d th a t h e r s ta tem en t im plies a rem in d er th a t she has to be respected as Q ueen . P ragm atics an d d iscourse analysis have m u ch in com m on : they b o th study contex t, tex t an d func tion .

First, let us look at con tex t. B oth pragm atics and discourse analysis study the m ean ­ing o f w ords in con tex t, analysing the parts o f m ean ing tha t can be explained by know ­ledge o f the physical an d social w orld , and the socio-psychological factors in fluencing co m m u n ica tio n , as well as th e know ledge o f th e tim e and place in w hich the w ords are u tte red o r w ritten (Stilwell Peccei 1999; Yule 1996). B oth approaches focus o n the m ean ing o f w ords in in te rac tion an d how in te rac to rs co m m u n ica te m o re in fo rm a­tion than the w ords they use. T he speaker’s m ean ing is d ep en d en t o n assum ptions o f know ledge th a t a re shared by b o th speaker a n d hearer: th e speaker co n stru c ts the linguistic message an d in tends o r im plies a m eaning, an d th e hearer in te rp re ts th e m es­sage and infers th e m ean ing (B row n an d Yule 1983; T hom as 1995). This aspect is first exp lored in th is book in th is u n it, an d is follow ed u p in U n its B l, C l , and D1 C ontex t.

T he second feature th a t p ragm atics a n d discourse analysis have in co m m o n is tha t they b o th look at d isco u rse , o r th e use o f language, an d tex t, o r pieces o f spoken o r w ritten discourse, co ncen tra ting on how stretches o f language becom e m eaningfu l and unified for th e ir users (C ook 1989). D iscourse analysis calls th e quality o f being ‘m ean ­ingful an d un ified ’ co herence ; p ragm atics calls it re levance. Both app roaches w ould take in to accoun t th e fact th a t V ic to ria’s w ords w ere in ten d ed to be seen as relevant to the co u rtie rs’ joke an d to any th ing th a t they shou ld say afterw ards. U n its A2, B2, C2 an d D2 C o-tex t, co n cern ed m o re w ith the d iscourse analysis, focus on co h esio n , how w ords relate to each o th e r w ith in the text, referring backw ards o r fo rw ards to o th e r w ords in th e text. U n its A5, B5, C5 and D 5, dealing w ith the cooperative p r in ­ciple, an area o f p ragm atics, also exam ines re levance th eo ry , w hich is th e study o f how th e assu m p tio n o f relevance holds texts toge ther m eaningfully .

Finally, pragm atics and discourse analysis have in com m on the fact tha t they are both concerned w ith fun c tio n : the speakers’ sh o rt-te rm purposes in speaking, and long-term goals in interacting verbally. In the example, the Q ueen’s purpose was to stop the courtiers try ing to m ake h e r laugh and to m ake th em respect her. U n its covering fu n c tio n are A3, B3, C3 and D3 Speech Acts. Speech act th eo ry describes w hat utterances are in tended to do , such as p rom ise, apologise an d th rea ten . T hese un its also in tro d u ce c ritic a l d is ­c o u rse ana ly s is, an ideological ap p ro ach th a t exam ines th e p u rp o se o f language in th e social con tex t, an d reveals how d iscourse reflects and d eterm ines pow er structu res.

W here d iscourse analysis d iffers from pragm atics is in its em phasis on th e s tru c ­tu r e o f text. D iscourse analysis studies how large ch u n k s o f language beyond th e sen t­ence level are organised , how the social tran saction im poses a fram ew ork on discourse (C o u lthard 1986). It has trad itionally covered th e topics o f exchange s tru c tu re , o r how certa in s itua tions have fixed sequences in th e overall fram ew ork o f th e exchange, and conversa tion s tru c tu re o r how w hat o n e speaker says can in fluence th e next speaker’s response. C o n v e rsa tio n analy sis , w hich exam ines conversa tion stru c tu re , w ould show th a t V ic to ria’s response to the joke was n o t th e p referred response: som eone telling a joke expects a response co n ta in in g laughter. S im ilarly, it w ou ld show th a t her rep rim an d p red ic ts an apology in response: so m eth in g like ‘I’m so rry Y our M ajesty’.

JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
JLO
Resaltado
Page 16: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

3.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

15

C O N T E X T

T he un its concerned w ith these tw o ways o f ap p roach ing th e s tru c tu re o f d iscourse are A4, B4, C4 and D4 C onversation . T hey also discuss in te ra c tio n a l socio lingu istics , w hich com bines th e conversation analysis ap p ro ach , in th a t it stud ies th e s tru c tu ra l p a tte rn s o f conversation , w ith a p ragm atics app roach , study ing social in te rac tio n , and giving im p o rtan ce to contex t, func tion , a n d social n o rm s, conven tions an d princip les.

P ragm atics differs from d iscourse analysis in th e im p o rtan ce given to th e social p r in c ip le s o f d iscourse. P ragm atics can explain the exam ple thus: th e Q ueen c o m ­plied w ith the social m axim s o f being relevant, precise, clear and sincere, and her courtiers expected h e r to do so, an d she obeyed th e social p rinc ip les o f po liteness in th a t h e r request fo r th e courtiers to stop is ind irec t, w hich aim s to avoid offence. P ragm atics takes a socio -cu ltu ra l perspective o n language usage, exam in ing the way th a t th e p r in ­ciples o f social b ehav iou r are expressed is d e te rm in ed by the social d istance betw een speakers. It describes th e u n w ritten m ax im s o f conversa tion th a t speakers follow in o rd e r to coopera te and be socially acceptable to each o ther. In th is book , un its dealing w ith these issues o f p ragm atics are: A 3-D 3 Speech acts, A 5-D 5 C oopera tive princip le , a n d A 6-D 6 Politeness p rincip le .

C o n te x t o uts id e te x tW e said th a t U n its A1 to D1 deal w ith th e m ean ing o f w ords in con tex t ( th e phys­ical a n d social w orld ) and assum ptions o f know ledge th a t speaker an d h ea re r share. T ake a look a t th is excerpt from a conversa tion betw een MSc s tu d en ts in th e co m ­m o n ro o m o f th e A pplied Linguistics d ep a rtm en t o f th e U niversity o f E d inburgh . D M , an E nglishm an, had p lanned to go to Spain for Easter bu t could n o t afford th e tickets; he tells AF, a Scottish w om an , th a t he en d ed up go ing hill w alking in A rran , an island o ff th e w est coast o f Scotland. W hat know ledge do they assum e th a t th ey share?

A 1 . 2

AF

DMAF

DMAF

DMAF

DM

AF

(2) So you w ent to Arran. A bit of a come-down isn't it! ((laughing))

It was nice actually. Have you been to Arran?No I've not. (1) Like to go.

Did a lot of climbing./ / (heh)// I w ent w ith Francesca (0.5) and David.Uhuh?

Francesca's room-mate. (2) And Alice's - a friend of Alice's from London (1).There were six of us. Yeah w e did a lot of hill walking. (0.5) W e got back (1) er

(2) Michelle and I got home she looked at her knees. (0.5) They were like this. Swollen up like this. Cos we did this enormous eight hour stretch.Uhm.

(Students on hill walking 1996)

Typically, the re are th ree sorts o f con tex t to observe here:

□ the s itu a tio n a l co n tex t, w hat speakers know ab o u t w hat they can see a ro u n d them□ the back g ro u n d know ledge contex t, w hat they know about each o ther and the world□ th e co -tex tu a l co n tex t, w hat they k now ab o u t w hat they have been saying. W e

will com e to th is last so rt in U n its A 2 -D 2 C o-tex t.

JLO
Resaltado
Page 17: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

4.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

16

I N T R O D U C T I O N

A 1 . 3 S itu a tio n a l co n tex tIn the excerpt ab o u t hill w alking in A rran , th ere is an exam ple o f w ords tak ing on m ean ing in th e situational contex t: ‘T hey w ere like this. Swollen up like th is .’ D M m ust be m ak ing a gesture th a t he know s AF can see, ho ld ing his hands o p en an d ro u n d ed to show w hat M ichelle’s knees looked like. Y ou m ay have seen peop le talk ing on the te lephone an d m ak ing gestures w ith th e ir h an d s o r face; w hat is fu n n y ab o u t th is is th a t hearer and speaker do n o t share th e situa tiona l con tex t, so th e gestures do no t add m ean ing to th e w ords. T h e situa tional co n tex t is th e im m ed ia te physical co ­presence, the situ a tio n w here th e in te rac tion is tak ing place a t th e m o m e n t o f speak­ing. It is n o t by chance th a t D M uses th e w ords ‘like th is’. ‘T h is’ is a dem onstra tivep ro n o u n , used fo r p o in tin g to som eth ing , an en tity , th a t speaker an d hearer can see. A ny overhearer w ho can n o t see D M ’s hands w ou ld n o t know h ow badly his w ife’s knees w ere sw ollen.

Let us look a t an o th e r exam ple, th is tim e from the c lassroom , (taken from the B ritish N ationa l C o rpus, a da tabase o f 100 m illion w ords o f na tu ra lly o ccu rring w rit­ten an d spoken text). A m ale lec tu re r from L ondon is exp lain ing a m athem atical p ro b ­lem to a m ale pup il from L ondon, nam ed Berkam :

Lecturer Forty-nine? W hy do you say forty-nine?

Pupil Cos there's another one here.Lecturer Right, w e 've got forty-nine there, haven't we? But here there 's two, okay?

Now, what is it that w e 've got tw o of? Well, let me give you a clue. Erm,

this here is forty, that's four tens, four tens are forty.(BNC: jjs Bacons College lesson, date unknown)

T he situa tional con tex t is obviously th e c lassroom , an d p resum ab ly th e lecturer a n d the pupil a re p o in tin g to e ith e r th e b lackboard o r an exercise b ook . T he ir ‘h ere ’ and ‘th e re ’ are d em onstra tive adverbs ind ica ting a figure in an eq u a tio n , and the ‘th is h ere ’ is a dem onstra tive p ro n o u n an d adverb together em phatica lly ind ica ting w hat is be ing puzzled over. W ith o u t th e su rro u n d in g s itua tion , th e exchange m akes little sense.

Let us take an exam ple from w ritten language, now . You m ay be fam iliar w ith The English Struww elpeter, a b o o k from the beg inn ing o f th e tw en tie th cen tu ry tha t con ta ins m oralistic, h u m o ro u s tales ab o u t naughty children w ho are pun ished for their b ad behav iour. T here is one such tale called The story o f A ugustus w ho w ould no t have any soup. T he tale begins w ith A ugustus as ‘a chubby lad w ho ate an d d ran k as he was to ld , and never let h is soup grow co ld ’. T hen one day he scream s ‘I w o n ’t have any so u p today .’ H ere is verse two:

N ext day, now look, the picture showsH ow lank and lean Augustus grows!Yet, though he feels so weak and ill,The naughty fellow cries out still -'N ot any soup fo r me, I say:0 take the nasty soup away!1 w on’t have any soup today.’

Page 18: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

5.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

17

C O N T E X T

N eedless to say, by the fifth day, he was dead . T he poem is m ean t to be read to a child w ho can look at th e book in fro n t o f them : the w ords ‘th e p ic tu re ’ refer to th e one in th e book , a n d th e nam e ‘A ugustus’ refers to th e boy in the p icture . T he ch ild w ho does n o t look at th e p ic tu re will n o t k now exactly ‘how lank and lean ’ the b o y is. T he p ic tu re adds a visible s itua tiona l con tex t.

B ackground kn o w led g e co n te x tT he second type o f context is th a t o f assum ed background know ledge. This can be either

□ c u ltu ra l general know ledge tha t m ost people carry w ith them in the ir m inds, about areas o f life

□ in te rp e rso n a l know ledge, specific a n d possibly p rivate know ledge ab o u t th e h is­to ry o f the speakers them selves

A 1 . 4

CulturalIn th e h ill-w alk ing-in -A rran excerp t, AF and D M share cu ltu ra l b ackg round k now ­ledge ab o u t the low m o u n ta in s on the island: AF does n o t ap p ea r su rp rised tha t D M an d his friends w ent ‘hill w alking’, th a t they cou ld w alk fo r eight h o u rs there , o r th a t th e w alk was s tren u o u s enough to m ake som ebody’s knees swell. If in te rlo cu to rs establish th a t they are p a rt o f th e sam e g ro u p , they can assum e m u tu a l know ledge o f every th ing no rm ally know n by g roup m em bers (S perber and W ilson 1995). H ere, the c o m m u n ity o f people w ho cou ld be assum ed to know ab o u t the m o u n ta in s are B ritish people, o r peop le w ho have v isited o r stud ied th e B ritish Isles.

G roups w ith m u tu a l know ledge vary in size. T he c o m m u n ity o f people w ho share know ledge o f th e cu ltu ra l backg round con tex t can be m u ch larger th an th e o n e in the h ill-w alk ing excerpt. F or exam ple, m ost na tionalities o f the w orld w ou ld u n d ers tan d a conversation assum ing know ledge o f th e fact th a t stars com e o u t at n ight, the sun is h igh at m idday o r the w orld is ro u n d . T he c o m m u n ity can also be relatively small: in th e h ill-w alking exam ple, o u t o f all th e fo rty o r so s tu d en ts o n th e course, m aybe o n ly AF and D M know th a t ‘F rancesca’ is D av id ’s g irlfriend, an d th a t ‘A lice’ is from L ondon . T ake th e nex t exam ple, from Saw yer’s b o o k B. B. King:

Rock m usic was bo rn twins: there were two sibling styles, one derived from country

and western, one from rhythm and blues. These two sources were distinct and separ­ate corners o f the m usic industry, one w hite, stem m ing from Nashville, Tennessee, and W heeling, W est Virginia, the o th er black, stem m ing from Chicago, M em phis,

H ouston , St. Louis, and Kansas City. But o f course, there was an overlap betw een the

two styles and their locations, especially bo th had wide national followings.(Sawyer 1992: 82)

T he co m m u n ity w ho cou ld fully apprecia te th e m ean ing o f these w ords w ou ld be peop le w ith an in terest in N o rth A m erican p o p u la r m usic. W ith in th a t c o m m u n ity there will be a sm aller g roup o f people w ho know all abou t rhy thm and blues, its singers an d bands, its h is to ry an d geography. W ith in th a t co m m u n ity , there will be an even sm aller g ro u p o f people w ho know every song th a t a p a rticu la r rhy thm an d b lues ban d has recorded , as well as the life h is to ries o f each o f the b an d m em bers. These sm aller

Page 19: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

6. ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

g roups m ay fo rm w hat Swales ( 1990) calls d isco u rse c o m m u n itie s , if they have the b road ly agreed co m m o n public goals, special m echanism s for com m un ica tion and they have a special lexis o r vocabulary .

G oing back to th e h ill-w alk ing excerpt, AF and D M th in k th a t they share the cu ltu ra l back g ro u n d know ledge ab o u t ‘A rran ’ itself, b u t in any conversa tion the partic ipan ts will have d ifferen t k inds o f know ledge ab o u t a lm ost any th ing th a t is m en tio n ed (W ardhaugh 1985: 18). AF assum es th a t D M shares h e r know ledge o f it as ‘a b it o f a com e-dow n after Spain’. A rran is po rtrayed in books as beau tifu l b u t cold , ra iny an d m o sq u ito -rid d en . N one o f th is con tex t is m en tioned ; som eth ing neg­ative is assum ed. AF is w rong; D M finds th a t ‘It was nice actually .’ D M th en w onders if they do in fact share experience o f A rran o r if AF ju s t know s abou t A rran from books. It em erges th a t she has n o t been there.

T alk assum ing shared know ledge o f cu ltu ra l con tex t o ften show s an assum ption o f shared a ttitu d e tow ards tha t cu ltu ra l context. O nce AF know s th a t D M found A rran ‘n ice’, she m odifies h e r a ttitu d e to m ake it less hostile to A rran , saying th a t she w ould ‘Like to go.’ W hen speakers m odify their expressions to reflect that o f their interlocutors, they can be seen as a cco m m o d a tin g th e ir a ttitu d es in o rd e r to be accepted an d be seen as be longing to th e sam e g ro u p . In th is case, it is th e g ro u p o f people w ho can over­look th e m osqu itoes an d see th e beau ty o f th e island.

It is this cu ltu ral con tex t an d shared a ttitu d e o f a g roup th a t can m ake the h u m o u r o f one co u n try difficult to u n d e rs tan d fo r people o f an o th e r co u n try , an d th e h u m o u r o f one genera tion incom prehensib le to a n o th e r genera tion . T here is a ca rto o n from Punch, th e h u m o ro u s L ondon m agazine, da ted 1894, th a t depicts a young girl in a g rocer’s shop ; the cap tion reads: ‘A rf a p o u n d e r m argarine, please, a n ’ m o th e r says will yer p u t th e cow on it, ‘cos she’s go t com pany !’ T he con tex t seem s to be th a t the g rocer had barrels o f m argarine an d b u tte r , an d w hen he m ade up a packet o f b u tte r , he w ould p u t a stam p w ith th e shape o f a cow o n it. T he g rocer an d th e m o th e r w ould have know n th a t m argarine was cheaper, th a t the m o th e r cou ld n o t afford b u tte r, and th a t she w an ted to im press h e r guests by m ak ing th em th in k th a t she cou ld afford it. T oday, w e m igh t n o t find th is funny . T his 1894 h u m o u r reflects a m iddle-class a tt i­tu d e o f the tim e, th a t it is am u sin g th a t th e p o o r try to h ide th e ir poverty , in vain.

InterpersonalIn th e h ill-w alking excerpt, w e see th a t AF an d D M k now w ho ‘M ichelle’ is. T his is th e in te rpersona l con tex t. D M will have to ld AF in a p rev ious conversa tion th a t his w ife’s nam e is ‘M ichelle’; he m igh t also have to ld her w here ‘h o m e ’ is — AF m igh t have actually been to D M ’s h o m e an d learn t qu ite a lo t ab o u t M ichelle. Shared in te r­personal know ledge is know ledge acqu ired th ro u g h p rev ious verbal in te rac tions o r jo in t activities an d experiences, an d it includes privileged personal know ledge ab o u t th e in te rlocu to r.

T here was a US television advertisem ent tha t featured a te lephone dialogue like this:

Her How are you?Him OK.Her Did you have friends in and get a video last night?

Page 20: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

7. ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

C O N T E X T

Him Oh, I had friends in, but we just watched a little TV.Her Ah right.

H im That was great. How do you feel?Her OK.

It is on ly w hen she says ‘O K ’ a t th e end th a t there is a flashback an d we see th a t she w on a gold m edal in an O lym pics event. A t this p o in t, we u n d ers tan d th a t ‘O h , I had friends in , b u t we ju s t w atched a little T V ’ m eans ‘I h ad friends in to w atch you play­ing on TV and I know you w o n .’ T he in te rpersona l know ledge shared by a h u sb an d a n d wife is obviously en o rm o u s: th is is w hy reference to any p art o f it can be so vague, im p lic it an d m in im al.

R eferrin g to co n te x tT he act o f using language to refer to en tities in th e con tex t is know n as re ference: an act in w hich a speaker uses linguistic fo rm s to enab le th e hea re r to identify som eth ing . T he speaker uses linguistic form s, know n as re fe rr in g exp ressions, to enable th e hearer to iden tify the en tity being referred to , w hich is in tu rn know n as the re fe re n t. For exam ple, in the w ords 7 w ent w ith Francesca (0.5) an d D avid ', the first pe rson singu ­lar personal p ro n o u n ‘I’ is a referring expression w hich refers to th e person speaking, w ho is th e referen t. S im ilarly, the p ro p e r n o u n s ‘F rancesca’ an d ‘D avid’ are th e refer­ring expressions th a t refer to th e tw o peop le w hose nam es are Francesca an d David, th e la tte r be ing th e referents.

W hen th is is th e first m en tio n o f th e referen t, in th e sense th a t th e re is n o p rev i­ous m en tio n o f th e reference in the p reced ing text, we call it e x o p h o ric reference. E xopho ra is dep en d en t on th e con tex t o u ts id e the text. T hus, in

DM // I w ent w ith Francesca (0.5) and David.AF Uhuh?

DM Francesca's room-mate. (2) And Alice's - a friend of Alice's from London (1).There were six of us Yeah we did a lot of hill walking.

th e ‘us’ and th e Sve’ are n o t exophoric because they refer back to DM , Francesca, David, Francesca’s ro o m -m ate , the friend o f A lice’s, and M ichelle, w ho are all m en tio n ed else­w here in th e text. T he n o u n s ‘F rancesca’ and ‘D avid’ are used as exophoric reference because they p o in t to people w ho are in th e cu ltu ra l con tex t an d are n o t referred to prev iously in th e text.

In th is un it, we have said th a t som e w ords actually p o in t to th e en tity th a t they refer to . I f th e referring expression p o in ts to the referen t in the con tex t (w hether in te r­lo cu to rs can see it o r n o t) , it is know n as deix is. T here are th ree types o f deixis: p e r­son , place an d tim e. W h en we ta lk o f p e rs o n de ix is we m ean th e use o f expressions to p o in t to a person, w ith the personal p ro n o u n s ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘h e ’, ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘w e’ an d ‘they’:

- W e are n o t am used- So yo u w en t to A rran .- W e got back (1) er (2) M ichelle an d I got h o m e sh e looked at h e r knees. (0.5)- T h ey w ere like this.- Yet, th o u g h h e feels so w eak and ill.

A 1 . 5

Page 21: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

8.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

20

a 8 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Spatial o r p lace deix is is w ords used to p o in t to a location , the p lace w here an en tity is in th e con tex t, as in th e d em o n stra tiv e adverbs ‘th ere ’, ‘h e re ’, th e dem onstra tive adjectives an d p ro n o u n s ‘th is ’, ‘th a t’, ‘these’, ‘those’:

- T hey w ere like th is.- T h a t was great.- C os th e re ’s a n o th e r o n e here .- R ight, w e’ve go t fo rty -n ine th e re , haven’t we?

T im e de ix is is expressions used to p o in t to a tim e, as in ‘nex t day’, ‘th e n ’ and ‘n o w ’:

Next day, now look, the picture shows

All o f these take p a rt o f th e ir m ean ing from the con tex t o f u tterance .Finally, w hen a referring item refers to en tities in th e back g ro u n d know ledge,

w hether cu ltu ra l o r in te rpersona l, th a t have obviously been m en tio n ed in a prev ious conversa tion o r text, o r have occu rred in a previously shared situ a tio n o r activity, we call th is in te r te x tu a l ity (de B eaugrand and D ressier 1981). In th e te lephone call ab o u t the O lym pic m edal, the ‘th a t’ o f ‘T hat was g rea t’ is an exam ple o f in te rtex tu ­ality because it refers back to th e wife’s p e rfo rm ance in the O lym pic event w hich she w on. T he p rev ious tex t becom es p a rt o f back g ro u n d know ledge. Since ‘T h a t was g rea t’ refers to an event th a t m illions o f view ers a ro u n d th e w orld w ou ld have seen, it is in the cu ltu ra l con tex t. I f th e h u sb an d h ad been referring to a ro m an tic evening beside th e fire w ith his wife, th e in tertex tuality w ould have been in te rpersona l. In te r­textuality is m ore often in terpersonal than cu ltu ral, since it usually refers to know ledge gained in previous conversations betw een the people w ho are speaking. C om m on g round is a result o f th e in te rp en e tra tin g b iographies o f th e p artic ipan ts , o f w hich th e c o n ­versation o f the m o m en t is on ly a p a rt (C o u lth a rd 1986).

C O -T E X T

U n d ers tan d in g concepts

□ g ram m atical cohesion— en d o p h o ric reference- su b s titu tio n an d ellipsis

□ lexical cohesion

W e saw in U n it A1 th a t th ere are th ree so rts o f context: th e s itua tional, th e cu ltu ra l an d in te rpersona l b ackg round one, an d the co -tex tual. T his u n it deals w ith th e co- textual con tex t, th e con tex t o f th e tex t itself, know n as the co -tex t. If we go back to th e hill w alking excerpt:

DM // I w ent w ith Francesca (0.5) and David.AF Uhuh?

A 2 .1 C o -tex tu a l co n tex t

Page 22: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

9.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

21

C O - T E X T

DM Francesca's room-mate. (2) And Alice's - a friend of Alice's from London (1).

There were six of us. Yeah w e did a lot of hill walking./ . . . / AF Uhm.

W e can see th a t th e personal p ro n o u n s ‘u s ’ an d th e ‘w e’ refer back to Francesca, David, th e ro o m -m a te and th e friend , w ho are all m en tio n ed elsew here in the text. T he in te r­lo cu to rs assum e th a t everyone in th e conversa tion has enough know ledge o f w hat they have been saying, to be able to infer w ho th e ‘u s’ and th e ‘w e’ include.

G ram m a tic a l cohesion A 2 . 2

ReferenceW e can look at how the co -tex t hangs to g e th e r from th e p o in t o f view o f reference, w hich , as you will rem em b er from U n it A l, is th e act o f using referring expressions to refer to referen ts in th e contex t. W e saw th en th a t w hen th ere is no p rev ious m e n ­tio n o f th e referen t in the text, we call it exophoric reference, d ep en d en t on th e c o n ­tex t o u ts id e the text for its m eaning . In th e excerp t above, the exam ple was th e p ro p e r n o u n s ‘Francesca’ an d ‘D avid’ p o in tin g to people n o t already m en tio n ed in the c o n ­versa tion b u t in th e co m m o n cu ltu ra l b ackg round . T he reference o f th e ‘us’ an d ‘w e’, o n th e o th e r han d , is n o t exophoric because the p ro n o u n s refer to item s w ith in the sam e text; it is e n d o p h o ric reference.

W hen a referring expression links w ith an o th e r referring expression w ith in the co -tex t, w e say th a t it is cohesive w ith th e p rev ious m en tio n o f th e referen t in th e text. T h is is p art o f w hat is know n as g ra m m a tic a l cohesion ; it is w hat m eshes th e text together. Let us take a n o th e r exam ple:

W e have been established by an Act o f Parliam ent as an independent body to elim i­

nate d iscrim ination against disabled people and to secure equal opportun ities for them . To achieve this, we have set ourselves the goal of: ‘A society where all disabled

people can participate fully as equal citizens’.(The Disability Rights C om m ission leaflet 2000)

H ere, th e personal p ro n o u n ‘th e m ’ refers to th e sam e referen t as th e n o u n ‘d isabled p eo p le ’ d id . T here is also g ram m atica l cohesion th ro u g h th e phrase ‘T o achieve th is ’, in w hich th e dem onstra tive p ro n o u n ‘th is ’ is cohesive w ith th e a im o f e lim ina ting ‘d is­c rim in a tio n against disabled peop le’ an d ‘securing equal o p p o rtu n itie s fo r th e m ’. E n d o p h o ra avoids unnecessary repe tition . T his is how th e exam ple w o u ld have so u n d ed w ith o u t it:

W e have been established by an Act o f Parliam ent as an independent body to elim i­nate d iscrim ination against disabled people and to secure equal opportun ities for

disabled people. T o achieve the aim o f e lim inating d iscrim ination against disabled

people and securing equal opportun ities for disabled people, we have set ourselves the goal of: ‘A society w here all disabled people can participate fully as equal citizens’.

N otice how th e rep e titio n m akes th e tex t now seem over-explicit; it sounds as if th e w rite r is assum ing th a t readers will n o t u n d e rs tan d unless it is all spelt o u t. It gives

Page 23: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

10.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

22

10 I N T R O D U C T I O N

m ore in fo rm atio n th an is needed , as all readers w ould be able to m ake the co n n ec­tion betw een th e p ro n o u n an d the ph rase th a t it links w ith , if th e ir sh o r t- te rm m em ­o ry is fu n c tion ing norm ally.

T here are tw o types o f en d o p h o ra . In th e exam ple above, the p ro n o u n s ‘th e m ’ an d ‘th is ’ link back to so m eth in g th a t w ent before in the p reced ing text. T his is called a n a p h o ra , an d it is the m ost frequen t o f the tw o types. T he o ther, c a ta p h o ra , is the opposite - p ro n o u n s link fo rw ard to a referen t in th e text th a t follows. T h is is in ev id­ence in the nex t exam ple, w hich is typical o f th e o p en in g sen tences o f books:

Students (not unlike yourselves) com pelled to buy paperback copies o f his novels - notably the first, Travel Light, though there has lately been som e academ ic interest in

his m ore surreal and ‘existential’ and perhaps even ‘anarchistic’ second novel, Brother Pig - o r encountering som e essay from When the Saints in a shiny heavy anthology

o f m id-century literature costing $12.50, im agine that H enry Bech, like thousands less fam ous than he, is rich. He is not.

(U pdike 1970: 11)

H ere, w e m eet ‘copies o f h is novels’ befo re we know w ho ‘h e ’ is. It is on ly several lines la te r th a t we learn th a t the possessive adjective ‘h is’ links fo rw ard to th e p ro p e r n o u n s ‘H en ry Bech’ in th e text th a t com es after. As you can see, w hereas an ap h o ra refers back, ca tapho ra refers fo rw ard . H ere, it is a stylistic choice, to keep the reader in sus­pense as to w ho is be ing ta lked abou t. M ore usually, th e n o u n th a t th e p ro n o u n links fo rw ard to follow s soon after:

An actor w ith w hom she was rehearsing caught Coral Browne’s fancy. Inform ed by a

colleague that she was most unlikely to get anywhere w ith that particular m an, she bet

the colleague a p ound that she w ould. Next m orning, the colleague w ho had accepted her bet asked her, loudly and m eaningfully, in the presence o f the actor, ‘Well, dear,

do you owe m e anything?’ Browne replied, disappointedly: ‘Seven and six’.(Rees 1999: 30)

H ere, th e ‘she’ links ca taphorica lly w ith ‘C oral B row ne’. Since seven shillings and six pence was m u ch less th a n a p o u n d , we m u st suppose th a t she was no t very successful.

W e can sum m arise reference w ith a d iag ram to m ake it easier to grasp:

Reference

Exophora Endophora

Anaphora Cataphora

T here are occasions w hen the n o u n phrases (these can be n o u n s o r p ro n o u n s ) are n o t linked explicitly to each o th er, b u t one n o u n phrase is linked to en tities sim ply associated w ith th e o th e r n o u n phrase. T his is called a sso c ia tiv e e n d o p h o ra . H ere is

Page 24: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

11.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

23

an exam ple from an article en titled ‘Pay a tten tio n , please’ from th e B ritish n a tio n a l new spaper the Guardian:

Students are alm ost twice as likely to get top degree grades if they are taught by good university teachers, new research shows. The study suggests that the wide differences

in num bers o f firsts and upper second class degree awarded at universities comes down in large part to the w ork o f inspirational lecturers, no t just extra spending on students for books, libraries o r com puters.

(M ajor and Plom in, the Guardian: 14 April 2001)

H ere, readers can in fer w hat ‘lec tu rers’, ‘s tu d en ts ’, ‘books, libraries o r co m p u te rs ’ are be ing talked ab o u t, by d raw ing from th e ir know ledge o f th e p re s u p p o s it io n a l p o o l o f ‘un iversities’. A ssociative en d o p h o ra is h a lf w ay betw een e n d o p h o ra an d exopho ra , because it d epends partly on know ledge o f w hat w en t before o r after w ith in th e sam e tex t, an d partly on b ackg round know ledge o f th e cu ltu ra l o r in terpersonal co n tex t, in th is case w hat is associated w ith ‘un iversities’.

SubstitutionE nd o p h o ric reference, w ith personal an d dem onstra tive p ro n o u n s and possessives, is on ly one fo rm o f g ram m atica l cohesion. T here are tw o o th e r form s: su b s titu tio n and ellipsis. Let us start w ith su b s titu tio n . M any o f you will be fam iliar w ith the song about th e characterless little houses o f th e p re ten tio u s low er-m idd le class:

Little boxes on the hillside,Little boxes made o f ticky-tacky,Little boxes, little boxes,Little boxes, all the same.There’s a green one and a pink one A nd a blue one and a yellow one A nd they’re all made out o f ticky-tacky A nd they all look just the same.

(R eynolds 1963)

T he lines ‘T h ere ’s a green one an d a p in k o n e / A nd a b lue o n e an d a yellow o n e ’ co n ta in th e su b stitu te ‘o n e ’. As w ith en d o p h o ric reference, su b s titu tio n ho lds the text to g e th e r and avoids repetition : ‘a g reen o n e ’ replaces ‘a g reen b o x ’, th e ‘o n e ’ ‘substi­tu tin g ’ for th e ‘box’. T he p lural su b s titu te is ‘o n es’. W e could have su b stitu ted ‘boxes’ in line 2 o f the song w ith ‘ones’, an d said ‘Little ones m ade o f ticky-tacky’, b u t then th e song w ould have lost som e o f its cynicism . S ubstitu tion tends to be endopho ric : th e n o u n phrase being substitu ted is usually in the text. T ake th is ch ild ren ’s poem :

The Polar Bear is unawareO f cold that cuts me through:

For w hy? He has a coat o f hair.I wish I had one too.

(Belloc 1896)

Page 25: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

12.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

24

12 I N T R O D U C T I O N

H ere, readers know from th e co -tex t that, in ‘I w ish I had one to o ’, th e ‘o n e ’ ‘replaces a coat o f h a ir’. In the next exam ple, the substitu te ‘so’ coheres w ith an adjectival phrase. It is from a G uardian w o m en ’s page article en titled ‘D oes leng th m atte r? ’:

Self-confidence should not be a gender issue. Boys are no t bo rn m ore confident than girls. Society makes them so because it traditionally values their skills and aptitudes

above those o f wom en.

(W interson, the Guardian: 14 April 2001)

W e u n d e rs tan d ‘m akes th em so ’ to m ean ‘m akes th em m ore con fiden t th an girls’.

EllipsisT he o th e r form o f g ram m atica l cohesion is e llip sis . T ake a look a t th is snatch from Catch 22, th e fam ous W o rld W ar II novel:

“H e’s afraid o f you ,” Yossarian said. “H e’s afraid you’re going to die o f pneum onia .”

“H e’d better be afraid,” C hief W hite Halfoat said. A deep low laugh rum bled through his massive chest. “I will, too , the first chance I get. You just wait an d see.”

(Heller 1962)

‘I will, to o ’ is an exam ple o f ellipsis: C h ie f W h ite H alfoat misses o u t a piece o f text. H e m eans ‘I will d ie o f p n e u m o n ia ’ b u t he om its ‘die o f p n e u m o n ia ’ because it is no t necessary. Just like su b s titu tio n , ellipsis avoids repe tition an d d epends o n th e hearer o r read e r’s be ing able to retrieve th e m issing w ords from th e su r ro u n d in g co-tex t. The sam e h appens in th e nex t sn ip p e t o f a conversa tion betw een tw o 16-year-old fem ale studen ts:

Catriona What was he doing? Tell me, make me cringe.J e s s Oh nothing to make you cringe or anything. He was just, he was just like . . .

saying you know just s tu ff that was really pretty well sick.Catriona Oh last night, last night he was as well w ith Romeo and Juliet.

(BNC: kp6 Catriona, 1993.)

C atrio n a uses ellipsis in her ‘he w as as well’, and th u s avoids saying ‘he was saying s tu ff th a t was really p re tty well sick as w ell’. Ellipsis is a typical feature o f b o th spoken an d w ritten text, a lthough it o ccu rs m o re often in conversa tion because conversa­tion tends to be less explicit. Even in lite ra tu re , w hen conversa tion is inc luded , it is o ften full o f ellipsis. In th e G rah am G reene novel, The H u m a n Factor (1978), one ch arac te r asks, ‘H ow are th ings w ith you, if I m ay ask, sir?’ a n d a n o th e r replies, ‘M y boy’s sick. M easles. O h, n o th in g to w orry ab o u t. N o co m p lica tio n s .’ H ere, the in fo rm al u tterances ‘M easles. O h , n o th in g to w orry ab o u t. N o co m p lica tio n s’ w ould have read less na tu ra lly as ‘H e’s go t m easles. O h , th e re ’s n o th in g to w orry abou t. H e has no co m plica tions .’

B oth su b s titu tio n an d ellipsis can on ly be used w hen there is n o am bigu ity as to w hat is be ing su b stitu ted o r e llip ted . I f there is m ore than o n e possibility , the result can be confusion . T ake th is advertisem en t, qu o ted by R ichard Lederer in h is M ore Anguished English (1987): ‘FO R SALE: V ery u n iq u e h o m e in dow n to w n Craigsville. Large lo t. M any trees. O n e you will enjoy living in .’ T he advertisem en t reads strangely

Page 26: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

13.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

25

C O - T E X T 13

because o f the fact tha t, since 'O n e you will enjoy living in ’ com es stra igh t a fter ‘M any trees’, it sounds as if th e ‘O n e ’ co n ta in s ellipsis o f ‘tree’ and m eans ‘O n e tree you will en joy living in .’ O f course ‘O n e ’ is a su b s titu te for ‘a h o m e’, b u t because ‘V ery un iq u e h o m e in dow n tow n Craigsville’ is far aw ay fro m ‘O ne you will en joy living in ’ and the phrases have becom e separated by o th e r nouns, the idea w ould have been m ore clearly expressed by repeating the n o u n , as in ‘A h o m e you will en joy living in .’

Finally, it shou ld be n o ted th a t th e use o f g ram m atica l cohesion varies from genre to genre. It is m uch less likely to o ccu r in texts w hich strive to be com pletely u n a m ­b iguous , such as legal texts, o r som e k in d s o f in s tru c tio n texts.

Lexical cohesionW e began this u n it by saying th a t g ram m atica l cohesion (reference, su b s titu tio n an d ellipsis) ho lds texts together. C ohesion is also m ain ta ined by lexical cohesion . T he follow ing d iag ram sum m arises w hat b o th types o f cohesion consist of, an d p o in ts to w hat the rest o f th is u n it will discuss, in te rm s o f lexical cohesion .

Cohesion

A 2 . 3

Gram m atical

Reference Substitu tion

(endophoric)

Lexical

E llipsis

Repetition S ynonym s Superordinates General w o rds

RepetitionO f all the lexical cohesion devices, the m o s t co m m o n form is re p e tit io n , w hich is sim ­ply repeated w ords o r w ord -ph rases, th read in g th ro u g h th e text. T ake th is exam ple from D. H . Law rence’s sh o rt sto ry O dour o f C hrysanthem um s:

The child pu t the pale chrysanthem um s to her lips, m urm uring:

‘D o n ’t they smell beautiful!’H er m other gave a short laugh.

‘No,’ she said, ‘not to me. It was chrysanthem um s when I married him , and chrysan­

them um s when you were born , and the first tim e they ever brought him hom e drunk , he’d got brow n chrysanthem um s in his bu tton -ho le .’

(Lawrence 1981)

H ere, th e repeated ‘ch ry san th em u m s’ have the effect o f p o u n d in g th ro u g h th e text and show ing how they have been a repeated and unw elcom e feature o f th e m o th e r’s life. W e saw a sim ilar repetition in th e song ‘Little boxes o n th e h illside’ above, w here th e rep e titio n c o n tr ib u ted to th e cynicism . S u bstitu tion a n d ellipsis avoid repetition ; lexical rep e titio n exploits it fo r stylistic effect.

Page 27: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

14.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

26

14 I N T R O D U C T I O N

SynonymsInstead o f repeating the exact sam e w ord , a speaker o r w riter can use an o th e r w ord th a t m eans th e sam e o r a lm ost th e sam e. T h is is a sy nonym . H ere, w e are back to avo id ing repe tition . T ake th is little excerp t from the Tim es H igher Education Supplem ent

At som e 75 cm across and capable o f cracking open a coconut shell w ith its

form idable claws, the land-dw elling coconut crab is your beach lounger’s worst

n ightm are. Fortunately for th e sunbather, the w orld’s largest terrestrial arth ropod

has seemingly always been confined to tropical islands across the Pacific and Indian

oceans.(THES: 17 N ovem ber 2000)

H ere you will see th a t ‘th e land-dw elling co co n u t c rab ’ an d ‘th e w o rld ’s largest te r­restria l a r th ro p o d ’ are tw o ways o f referring to th e sam e an im al, ju s t as ‘you r beach lo u n g er’ an d ‘th e su n b a th e r’ are th e sam e person . As the saying goes, ‘variety is the spice o f life’: using d ifferen t ways o f referring to an en tity m akes fo r m ore in teresting prose o r conversation .

SuperordinatesIn o rd e r to observe the lexical cohesion device o f su p e ro rd in a te s , let us go back to O dour o f C hrysanthem um s a n d co n tin u e w ith th e story:

The candle-light glittered on the lustre-glasses, on the two vases that held som e o f the pink chrysanthem um s, and on the dark m ahogany. There was a cold, deathly smell

o f chrysanthem um s in the room . Elizabeth stood looking at the flowers.

(Lawrence 1981)

H ere again th ere is rep e titio n o f ‘ch ry san th em u m s’, b u t then they a re referred to w ith th e w ords ‘th e flow ers’. T h is n o t a synonym o f ‘ch ry san th em u m s’; it is a m ore gen­eral te rm know n as a su p ero rd in a te , an um brella te rm th a t includes ‘pansies’, ‘tu lip s ’, ‘roses’ an d so on . T h is is an o th e r way o f avoid ing rep e titio n an d still re ferring to the referen t w ith a n o u n . Law rence cou ld have used a personal p ro n o u n in end o p h o ric reference instead, an d said ‘E lizabeth stood looking at th em ’, a lthough th is m igh t have given th em less p ro m in en ce , an d he does w an t th em at th e cen tre o f his story.

W e can use w hat we k now ab o u t su pero rd ina tes to help explain the absu rd ity o f th e rhym e:

The elephant is a bonny bird It flits from bough to bough It makes its nest in a rhubarb tree A nd whistles like a cow

O f course, ‘b ird ’ is th e w ro n g su p ero rd in a te fo r ‘e lep h an t’, because ‘b ird ’ includes ‘seagull’, ‘b lackb ird ’, ‘h u m m in g b ird ’ an d so on , and ‘e lep h an t’ com es u n d e r the su p ero rd in a te ‘an im a l’, w hich includes ‘giraffe’, ‘cow ’, ‘d o g ’ a n d so o n . Even these can be su p ero rd in a tes on a low er level, fo r exam ple ‘dog’ is th e overall te rm includ ing ‘lab rad o r’, ‘po o d le ’, ‘Irish w o lfh o u n d ’ and so on .

Page 28: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

15.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

27

S P E E C H A C T S 15

General wordsT he last fo rm o f lexical cohesion th a t w e are going to cover here is th e g en e ra l w ord . T hese can be general nouns, as in ‘th in g ’, ‘s tu ff’, ‘p lace’, ‘p e rso n ’, ‘w o m an ’ a n d ‘m a n ’, o r general verbs, as in ‘d o ’ an d ‘h a p p e n ’. In a way, th e general w ord is a h igher level su p e ro rd in a te : it is the um brella te rm th a t can cover a lm ost everything. In the fol­low ing, Peter, a 49 -year-o ld chem ist, uses the general n o u n ‘p lace’ to refer back either to th e ‘poly’ o r to the city:

and so he went off to W olverham pton Poly which he selected for, you know, all

the usual reasons, reasonable place, reasonable course, a reasonable this a reasonable that t-term to do com puter science w hich o f course all the kids want to do now erm tw entieth centu - no it isn’t it’s a sort o f n ineteen eighties version o f w anting to be

an engine driver.

(BNC: kc3 Frederick, 1992)

G eneral n o u n s and verbs d o n o t carry m u ch in fo rm atio n , in them selves; they m ostly d ep en d on the co -tex t fo r the ir m ean ing , so are used w hen hearers a n d readers can iden tify w hat is be ing referred to from th e rest o f th e text. Like p ro n o u n s , su b s ti­tu te s , ellipsis, synonym s an d supero rd ina tes , they avoid repe tition , and give ju s t the a m o u n t o f in fo rm atio n as is necessary.

O nce again, ju s t as w ith gram m atical cohesion, it shou ld be no ted th a t lexical cohe­sion varies from genre to genre. Synonym s an d supero rd inates are unsu itab le fo r som e types o f text, such as technical o r scientific ones w here key w ords can n o t be su b s ti­tu te d for o th e r m ore general te rm s w ith o u t precise m ean ing being lost.

S P E E C H A C T S

U n d ers tan d in g concepts

□ d irec t speech acts□ felicity co n d itio n s□ ind irec t speech acts□ in te rac tiona l / tran sac tiona l fu n c tio n

A 3 .1

In tro d u c tio n

T o a hostess who had sent an invitation stating that on a certain day she w ould be ‘At

hom e’, George Bernard Shaw succinctly replied: ‘So will G. Bernard Shaw’.(Rees 1999)

At the risk o f killing a funny tale, we can explain w hat happened here in te rm s o f speech acts. T he hostess’s in v ita tion will have read som eth ing like ‘M rs E leanor H iggins will be a t h o m e 10 A pril 7 -9 p m ’, w hich a re w ords usually taken as perfo rm in g th e speech act o f ‘inv iting ’. Shaw p re ten d ed to read it literally as a s ta tem en t o f w here she w ould be a n d re sponded in k ind ; h is answ er consisted o f w ords to be taken as perfo rm in g th e speech act o f ‘declin ing’.

A 3 . 2

Page 29: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

16.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

28

16 I N T R O D U C T I O N

A 3 . 3 Speech actsA ustin (1962) defined speech acts as the actions perform ed in saying som ething. Speech ac t th e o ry said th a t th e ac tion p e rfo rm ed w hen an u tte rance is p ro d u ced can be an a ­lysed on th ree d ifferen t levels. Let us look at th e ac tion in the conversa tion below .T hree s tu d en ts are sitting to g e th e r a t th e ‘b u n lu n c h ’, the social occasion at w hich theuniversity lays o n filled rolls a n d fru it ju ice o n the first day o f the course , to w elcom e th e s tuden ts and help them to get to know each o ther.

MM I think I m ight go and have another bun.AM I was going to get another one.

BM Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please?AM Me as well?

(Students at bun lunch 1996)

T he first level o f analysis is th e w ords them selves: ‘I th in k I m igh t go an d have an o th e r b u n ’, ‘I w as go ing to get a n o th e r o n e ’, an d so on . T h is is th e lo c u tio n , ‘w hat is said ’, th e fo rm o f th e w ords u tte red ; th e act o f saying som eth ing is k now n as the lo c u tio n - a ry act. T he second level is w hat th e speakers are d o in g w ith th e ir w ords: AM and M M are ‘asserting’ a n d ‘expressing in ten tio n s ab o u t th e ir ow n a c tio n ’, an d BM and AM are ‘requesting ac tion o n th e p a rt o f th e hea re r’. T his is th e il lo c u tio n a ry fo rce , ‘w hat is d o n e in u tte rin g th e w ords’, the fu n c tio n o f the w ords, th e specific pu rpose th a t th e speakers have in m ind . O th e r exam ples are th e speech acts ‘inv iting ’, ‘advis­ing ’, ‘p ro m isin g ’, ‘o rd e rin g ’, ‘excusing’ an d ‘apolog ising’. T he last level o f analysis is th e result o f th e w ords: M M gets up and brings AM an d BM a tu n a and sw eetcorn b u n each. T his is k now n as th e p e r lo c u tio n a ry effect, ‘w hat is d o n e by u tte rin g the w ords’; it is th e effect on the hearer, th e hea re r’s reaction .

A ustin developed, b u t soon ab an d o n ed , th e p e rfo rm a tiv e h y p o th es is th a t beh in d every u tte ran ce th ere is a p e rfo rm a tiv e verb , such as ‘to o rd e r ’, ‘to w a rn ’, ‘to a d m it’ an d ‘to p ro m ise ’ th a t m ake the illocu tionary force explicit. T he exam ple above cou ld be refo rm ulated :

MM I express my intention to go and have another bun.AM I inform you that I was going to get another one.BM I request you to get me a tuna and sweetcorn one.

AM I request you to get me one as well.

A ustin realised th a t o ften the im plic it perform atives, ones w ith o u t th e perfo rm ative verbs, as in th e orig inal version o f th is d ialogue, so u n d m ore na tu ra l. H e also realised th a t im plic it p erfo rm atives d o n o t always have an obv ious explicit perfo rm ative u n d ers to o d . T ake th e expression , ‘I’ll be back!’ It can m ean e ith e r 7 prom ise th a t I’ll be back’ o r 7 warn you th a t I’ll be back .’ Searle’s (1976) so lu tion to classifying speech acts was to g ro u p th em in th e follow ing m acro-classes:

DeclarationsThese a re w ords an d expressions th a t change th e w orld by th e ir very u tte rance , such as ‘I b e t’, ‘I declare’, ‘I resign .’ O thers can be seen in: ‘I bap tise th is boy John S m ith ’,

Page 30: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

17.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

29

S P E E C H A C T S 17

w hich changes a nam eless baby in to o n e w ith a nam e, ‘I hereby p ro n o u n ce you m an an d wife’, w hich tu rn s tw o singles in to a m arried couple, an d ‘This co u rt sen tences y o u to ten years’ im p riso n m en t’, w hich p u ts th e person in to prison .

RepresentativesT hese are acts in w hich th e w ords state w hat th e speaker believes to be th e case, such as ‘describ ing ’, ‘c la im ing’, ‘hypo thesising ’, ‘in sisting ’ and ‘p red ic tin g ’.

The fact that girls have been outstripping boys academically has been acknowledged for

the past 12 years or so (Glasgow Herald: 28 November 2000)

I came; I saw; I conquered (Julius Caesar)

Macbeth shall never vanquished be until / Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill /

Shall come against him (Shakespeare: Macbeth)

CommissivesT his includes acts in w hich th e w ords co m m it th e speaker to fu tu re ac tion , such as ‘p ro m isin g ’, ‘o ffering’, ‘th rea ten in g ’, ‘refusing’, ‘vow ing’ an d ‘vo lu n teerin g ’.

'Ready when you are.''I'll make him an offer he can't refuse' (Mario Puzo, The Godfather)

I'll love you, dear, I'll love you / Till China and Africa meet, / And the river jumps over

the mountain / And the salmon sing in the street (Auden)

DirectivesT his category covers acts in w hich th e w ords are a im ed a t m aking the hea re r d o som e­th in g , such as ‘co m m an d in g ’, ‘requesting ’, ‘inv iting ’, ‘fo rb id d in g ’, ‘suggesting’ and so on .

From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties / And things that go bump in the

night, / Good Lord, deliver us. (Scottish prayer)

Better remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all

possible doubt. (Ancient Chinese proverb)

Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same (Shaw)

ExpressivesT his last g ro u p includes acts in w hich th e w ords state w hat th e speaker feels, such as ‘apo logising’, ‘p ra ising’, ‘cong ra tu la tin g ’, ‘d ep lo rin g ’ and ‘reg re tting ’.

A woman w ithout a man is like a fish w ithou t a bicycle. (Steinem)

I've been poor and I've been rich - rich is better. (Tucker)

If I'd known I was gonna live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself. (Blake)

Page 31: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

18.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

30

18 I N T R O D U C T I O N

A 3 . 4 F elic ity co n ditionsIn o rd e r for speech acts to be ap p rop ria te ly and successfully p erfo rm ed , certa in fe li­c ity c o n d itio n s have to be m et. For A ustin , th e felicity co nd itions a re th a t th e con tex t and roles o f p a rtic ipan ts m u s t be recognised by all parties; th e ac tion m u s t be carried o u t com pletely, and the persons m ust have th e right in ten tions. F or Searle, th e re is a general co n d itio n fo r all speech acts, th a t th e hea re r m u s t hear a n d u n d e rs tan d the language, and th a t th e speaker m ust n o t be p re ten d in g o r p lay acting . F or decla ra­tions an d d irectives, th e rules are th a t th e speaker m ust believe th a t it is possible to carry o u t th e action : they are p e rfo rm ing th e ac t in th e h ea re r’s best in terests; they are sincere ab o u t w an ting to d o it, and th e w ords co u n t as the act.

T o u n d ers tan d the need fo r felicity co n d itions , let us re tu rn to the s tu d en ts in th e ir b u n lunch :

M M I think I m ight go and have another bun.AM I was going to get another one.

BM Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please?AM Me as well?

H ere, we have a d irective speech act o f ‘requesting ’ (‘C ou ld you get m e a tu n a and sw eetcorn one please?’) w hich can be explained using A ustin ’s m odel. T he con tex t o f th e b u n lunch is recognised b y all parties: it is an ap p ro p ria te p lace to ta lk ab o u t the b u n s and ab o u t w an ting a n o th e r one. T he roles o f p a rtic ipan ts a re recognised: the s tuden ts are equals and it is n o t a great im position therefore for o n e to ask an o th e r to get a b u n . T he persons have th e righ t in ten tions: BM an d AM m ust tru st th a t M M is indeed going to get a b u n an d they presum ably in ten d to eat the b u n s th a t they ask for.

T he situ a tio n can also be explained using Searle’s m odel. AM an d BM seem tobelieve th a t it is possible fo r M M to get th em buns: he has fun c tio n in g legs and thebu n s are n o t to o far away. T hey genu inely w an t the b u n s to eat; they are sincere. T heir w ords co u n t as a request. It c an n o t be said th a t BM a n d AM are perfo rm in g th e act in M M ’s best in terests, how ever, as they are perfo rm in g it in th e ir ow n in terests. O n th e o th e r h an d they are n o t asking for th e b uns in o rd e r to b u rd en M M an d m ake it difficult fo r h im to b rin g all th e b uns back, and if M M w ants to ap p ea r sociable and obliging, he is being offered an occasion to dem o n s tra te it.

Let us look a t an exam ple o f a declarative speech act. T here was a situation reported , in the local press, o f a m an an d w om an w ho d iscovered, a m o n th before the ir w ed­d ing, th a t they had n o t co m p le ted all th e necessary paperw ork an d th a t it w ould no t be ready in tim e. T hey decided to go ahead w ith th e w edding cerem ony as if n o th ing w ere w rong , and sign th e papers la ter, because all th e p rep a ra tio n s had been m ade an d they w anted to save face. T hus, th e p rie s t’s w ords ‘I now p ro n o u n c e you m an and wife’ d id n o t m arry them , legally because th e papers w ere m issing, an d pragm atically because n o t all th e felicity co n d itio n s w ere m et. A lthough th e co n tex t an d roles o f partic ipan ts w ere recognised by all parties, and th e p riest was saying th e w ords in the coup le ’s best in terests, the speech act was n o t successfully pe rfo rm ed since they w ere ‘p u ttin g on a show ’ fo r th e benefit o f th e guests: the ac tion was n o t carried o u t c o m ­pletely, an d the p riest d id n o t believe th a t it was possib le to carry o u t th e action , d id no t have th e in ten tio n to carry it o u t, and was n o t sincere ab o u t w an tin g to do it.

Page 32: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

19.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

31

S P E E C H A C T S 19

In d ire c t speech actsM uch o f th e tim e, w hat we m ean is actually n o t in th e w ords them selves b u t in the m ean ing im plied. In th e b u n lu n ch exam ple, we said th a t A M ’s w ords ‘I w as go ing to get a n o th e r o n e ’ had th e illocu tionary force o f ‘expressing in ten tio n s ab o u t h is ow n ac tio n ’. It sho u ld be no ted how ever, th a t he says this stra igh t a fter M M ’s ‘I th in k I m igh t go an d have a n o th e r b u n .’ It is possib le th a t in fact he was im plying th a t he w ou ld like M M to get h im one w hile he was th ere an d save h im the b o th e r o f getting up . I f this is so, he is expressing a directive, ‘requesting ’ indirectly , w ith th e force o f th e im pera tive ‘G et m e o n e ’; th is w hat w e call an ind irec t speech act.

Searle said th a t a speaker using a d ire c t speech ac t w ants to co m m u n ica te th e lit­eral m eaning that the w ords conventionally express; there is a direct relationship betw een the fo rm an d the func tion . T hus, a declarative form (n o t to be confused w ith dec la ra ­tio n speech acts) such as ‘I was going to get a n o th e r o n e ’ has th e fu n c tio n o f a s ta te­m e n t o r assertion ; an in terroga tive fo rm such as ‘D o you like th e tu n a an d sw eetcorn ones?’ has th e function o f a question ; an d an im perative fo rm such as ‘G et m e o n e ’ has the function o f a request o r o rder.

O n th e o th e r h an d , Searle explained th a t som eone using an in d ire c t sp eech act w an ts to co m m u n ica te a d ifferen t m ean ing from th e ap p a ren t surface m ean ing ; the fo rm and fu n c tio n are n o t d irectly related . T here is an underly ing p ragm atic m ean ­ing, an d one speech act is pe rfo rm ed th ro u g h an o th e r speech act. T h u s a declarative fo rm such as ‘I was go ing to get a n o th e r o n e ’, o r ‘Y ou could get m e a tu n a a n d sw eet­co rn o n e ’ m ight have the function o f a request o r order, m eaning ‘Get m e one.’ Similarly, an in terroga tive fo rm such as ‘C ou ld you get m e a tu n a and sw eetcorn one please?’ o r ‘W o u ld you m in d getting m e one?’ has th e function o f a request o r o rd e r , a n d ‘C an I get you o n e w hile I’m there?’ can be taken as an offer. Finally, an im pera tive fo rm such as ‘E njoy y o u r b u n ’ functions as a s ta tem en t m ean in g ‘I h o p e you enjoy y o u r b u n ’; ‘H ere, take th is o n e ’ can have th e func tion o f an offer, an d ‘C om e fo r a w alk w ith m e after th e lu n ch ’ serves as an inv ita tion .

Ind irec t speech acts are p a rt o f everyday life. T he classification o f u tte ran ces in categories o f ind irec t and d irect speech acts is n o t an easy task, because m u ch o f w hat we say opera tes o n b o th levels, and u tterances often have m ore th an one o f th e m acro ­fu n c tio n s ( ‘rep resen ta tive’, ‘com m issive’, ‘d irective’, ‘expressive’ an d so o n ). A few exam ples will illustra te this.

T he follow ing excerp t from th e novel Regeneration d em o n stra te s th a t in ind irect speech acts, it is th e underly ing m ean ing th a t the speaker in tends th e hearer to u n d e r­stan d . G raves arrives after Sassoon a t th e convalescent ho m e an d asks:

A 3 . 5

‘I don’t suppose you’ve seen anybody yet?’‘I’ve seen Rivers. Which reminds me, he wants to see you, but I imagine it’ll be

all right if you dump your bag first.’(Barker 1991)

O n the surface, Sassoon’s reply ‘he w an ts to see y o u ’ is a declarative w ith th e func­tio n o f a s ta tem en t an d a d irec t represen tative describ ing R ivers’ w ishes. H ow ever, it appears to be in tended as an o rd e r o r a suggestion to G raves, m ean ing the sam e as the im pera tive ‘G o and see h im ’, an d there fo re an ind irec t directive, an d the suggestion

Page 33: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

20.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

32

20 I N T R O D U C T I O N

is re in forced by the ‘b u t I im agine it’ll be all righ t if you d u m p y o u r bag first’, w hich is u tte red as if he had actually said ‘G o and see h im .’

Let us take an o th e r exam ple, th is tim e from th e th rille r Tooth a n d Nail. In specto r Rebus an d In spec to r Flight com e o u t o f an autopsy:

‘C om e o n ,’ he said, ‘I’ll give you a lift.’

In his fragile state, Rebus felt this to be the nicest kindest th ing anyone had said

to him in weeks. ‘Are you sure you have room ?’ he said, ‘I m ean, with the teddy bear

and all?’

Flight paused. ‘O r if y o u ’d prefer to walk, Inspector?’Rebus threw up his hands in surrender, then, when the door unlocked, slipped

into the passenger seat o f Flight’s red Sierra. The seat seemed to w rap itself around him.‘H ere’, said Flight, handing a hip flask to Rebus. Rebus unscrewed the top o f the

flask and sniffed. ‘It w on’t kill you,’ Flight called. This was probably true. The arom a was o f whisky.

(Rankin 1992)

H ere again, th ere is a declarative th a t is m ore th a n a sta tem en t: ‘I’ll give you a lift’ is a d irec t com m issive offering a lift to th e inspecto r, and c o m m ittin g h im se lf to fu tu re ac tion , a lthough it cou ld be classed as an ind irec t directive, carry ing th e m ean ing o f an im perative such as ‘G et in th e car.’ M ore com plex is ‘O r if y o u ’d p refer to w alk.’ It is n o t h a lf a declarative, a n d yet it is n o t ju s t a d irec t d irective suggesting a lte rn a ­tive ac tion either, since it im plies ‘If yo u ’re going to be cheeky, I w o n ’t give you a lift’, w hich is an ind irec t com m issive m ak ing a th rea t. S im ilarly, ‘It w o n ’t kill yo u ’ looks, o n th e surface, like a rep resen tative, describ ing th e co n ten ts o f th e flask, b u t in fact th e im plica tion is ‘D rink it’, an ind irec t d irective com m and ing .

Film lovers will be fam iliar w ith the film star M ae W est, w ho once said to an adm irer, ‘W hy d o n ’t you com e up and see m e som e tim e?’ She d id n o t actually say ‘C o m e up a n d see m e som e tim e .’ T he h ea re r will, how ever, have u n d e rs to o d th e ind irec t d irec­tive inviting, an d ignored th e d irec t rep resen tative asking why.

A 3 . 6 Speech acts and so cie ty

Social dimensionInd irec t speech acts co n stitu te one o f m any fo rm s o f politeness, an d we will look at th is in m ore detail in U n its A 6 -D 6 w hen we look at all the linguistic features o f p o lite ­ness. Ind irec tness is so m u ch associated w ith po liteness th a t directives are m o re often expressed as in terrogatives th a n im peratives. T his is especially th e case w ith people w ith w hom one is n o t fam iliar. A n in teresting case here is the sign to the general p u b ­lic in m any B ritish res tau ran ts , b o o k shops an d petro l sta tions, th a t says, ‘T h an k you fo r n o t sm ok ing .’ T he expressive ‘th an k in g ’ speech ac t is p resum ab ly used because it sounds m ore polite an d friendly to all th e strangers w ho read th e sign, th an th e im p e r­sonal directive p ro h ib itin g ‘N o S m oking .’

O th e r factors th a t can m ake speakers use ind irec t directives, in ad d itio n to lack o f fam iliarity , a re th e reasonableness o f th e task, th e fo rm ality o f th e con tex t and social d is tance (differences o f sta tu s, roles, age, gender, education , class, occu p a tio n and e thn ic ity ). Social d istance can give speakers pow er an d au th o rity , an d it is generally

Page 34: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

21.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

33

S P E E C H A C T S 21

th o se o f th e less d o m in a n t ro le an d so o n w ho tend to use ind irectness. T hus, in the sh o rt sto ry Dealer’s Choice, a young w om an walks in to th e office o f a p riva te de tec­tive, o lder, m ale an d in a p osition o f au tho rity :

She got to her feet. Perched on top o f he r boxy four-inch heels she just about cleared

m y arm pit.‘I’ve been hoping to see you, M r M arlowe. H oping to interest you in taking a

case for me. If you have tim e, that is.’She m ade it sound as though her problem , whatever it was, was just a bit on the

dull side, and that if I d id n ’t have tim e for it the two o f us could forget it and m ove o n to som ething m ore interesting.

(Paretsky 1995)

She expresses h e r request indirectly , ‘h id d e n ’ u n d er a representative describ ing herself ‘I’ve been hoping to see you, M r M arlowe. H oping to interest you in taking a case for m e.’

Cultural dimensionSpeech acts an d th e ir linguistic realisa tions are cu ltu rally b o u n d . T he ways o f express­ing speech acts vary from co u n try to coun try , from cu ltu re to cu ltu re . In Ind ia , forexam ple, th e expressive speech act o f ‘p ra is ing ’ an d ‘co ng ra tu la ting ’ a person o n th e ir ap pearance can be realised by the w ords ‘H ow fat you are!’, because w eight is an in d i­c a to r o f p ro sp erity an d health , in a co u n try w here th ere is m a ln u tr itio n . In B ritain, these w ords express a speech act o f ‘d ep lo rin g ’ o r ‘critic ising’, since the fash ion and d iet foods industries, and possibly health education , have cond itioned m any in to th in k ­ing th a t ‘slim is b eau tifu l’.

D ifferences in speech act co n ven tions can cause difficulties cross-cu ltu rally . T he follow ing exam ple com es from C uba: person A, a British w om an, te lephoned th e w ork- c en tre o f M r Perez. B, a C u b an w ho w orked w ith M r Perez, picked up th e phone:

A Is Mr Perez there?

B Yes, he is.A Em . . . can I speak to him, please?

B Yes, wait a minute.

A’s q uestion , ‘Is M r Perez there?’ is in ten d ed as an ind irec t request fo r th e h ea re r to b r in g M r Perez to the phone . B on ly hears an in terroga tive w ith th e fu n c tio n o f d irect rep resen ta tive checking w hether M r Perez is at his place o f w ork.

L im ita tio n s o f speech a c t th eo ryW h en w e try to categorise u tte rances in te rm s o f speech acts, we often find th a t there is an o v erlap , th a t o n e u tte ran ce can fall in to m ore th an o n e m acro-class. T ake the follow ing exam ple from the novel Lord o f the Flies:

“T hey’re all dead,” said Piggy, “a n ’ this is an island. N obody d o n ’t know we’re here.

Your dad d o n ’t know, nobody d o n ’t knowHis lips quivered and the spectacles were d im m ed with mist. “W e m ay stay here

till we d ie.”(G olding 1954)

A 3 . 7

Page 35: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

22.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

34

22 I N T R O D U C T I O N

O n th e face o f it, th is is a rep resen ta tive , a descrip tion o f th e p resen t sta te o f affairs, w hen th e boy realises th a t they are all a lone o n th e island, an d yet it is a very e m o ­tive litde o u tb u rs t - th e boy is obviously crying, so it cou ld also b e classified as an expressive.

A n o th e r p rob lem w ith th e speech act m odel is th a t it has no p rov ision fo r the ‘m essiness’ o f everyday spoken language. U tterances such as ‘So th ere you go’ and ‘You know ’ am o u n t to fillers th a t say very little; this lack o f sem antic con ten t m akes it difficult to p u t in any o f th e classifications, as they are n e ith e r rep resen tatives n o r expressives. T his type o f u tte ran ce has an in terac tional, socially cohesive fu n c tio n o f avoiding silence, so th a t all speakers feel com fortab le , an d it in tensifies th e relevance o f su r­ro u n d in g u tterances. T here is n o t a nea t speech act category fo r it, how ever. Likewise, b a ck ch an n e ls and feedback, th e responses th a t show th a t th e h ea re r is listen ing and encourage a speaker to c o n tin u e talk ing , such as ‘W as it?’ an d ‘O h really?’, d o no t fit neatly in to th e speech act m odel either. T hey to o have a social func tion , b u t do no t co n stitu te a speech act. T he sam e goes for in co m p le te sen ten ces , as in: ‘But she d id n ’t do the - e r - n o ’ does n o t fit neatly in to any category. A lo t o f w hat we say in everyday speech is left un fin ished e ith e r because we have n o need to com ple te the sen tence o r because we are in te rru p ted .

T he follow ing excerp t, from a law sem in a r on th e top ic o f accom plice liability, taken from th e B ritish A cadem ic Spoken English (BASE) co rp u s has instances o f fillers, backchannels an d incom ple te sentences. T he lec tu re r is L, an d the studen ts51 an d S2:

52 // isn 't that implied, surely that / . . . / implied, that you're driving a car, you have duties that are implied, not necessarily don’t have to only be statutory um

possibility they also have to be implied sort o f . . .L well umm, that's an argument although it is slightly odd isn 't to base criminal

liability on a duty that's merely implied //51 // yeh52 when I say im p li. . .

L you may not realise you have outset(Listening to lectures, BASE 2000)

S2 has difficulty fo rm u la tin g h is th o u g h ts an d o n tw o occasions leaves his sentences incom plete: ‘to be im plied so rt o f . . . ’ an d ‘w hen I say i m p l i . . The lec tu re r opens his co m m en t w ith a filler ‘well u m m ’. SI ju s t c o n tr ib u te s a ‘yeh’ backchannel. All o f th is is perfectly no rm al in real-life spon tan eo u s talk, yet it is difficult to categorise each u tte ran ce in te rm s o f speech acts. U n its A4, B4, C4 and D4 take a n o th e r app ro ach to th e analysis o f real-life sp o n tan eo u s talk, th is one designed to take in to accoun t speech acts and also hand le casual conversations.

A 3 . 8 M acro -fu n ctio n sFinally, it shou ld be no ted th a t over an d above speech acts, there are tw o m ain m acro ­func tions o f talk. B row n an d Yule (1983) describe them as the tr a n sa c t io n a l function a n d th e in te ra c tio n a l fu n c tio n o f language. T he tran sactional is th e func tion w hich language serves in the expression o f con ten t and the transm ission o f factual inform ation.

Page 36: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

23.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

35

C O N V E R S A T I O N 23 □T he in te rac tiona l is th a t fu n c tio n involved in expressing social re la tions and personala ttitu d es, show ing so lidarity an d m a in ta in in g social cohesion . Speakers establish ing c o m m o n g ro u n d , sharing a co m m o n p o in t o f view , an d negotia ting ro le-re la tionsh ips a re speaking w ith an in te rac tiona l pu rpose .

In fact, m ost ta lk has a m ix tu re o f th e tw o functions: th ere seem s to be a cline from th e purely tran sactional to th e pu re ly in terac tional. At the ex trem e end o f the tran sac tio n a l en d is th e language used w hen a po licem an is giving d irec tions to a trav ­eller, and a d o c to r is telling a nu rse how to ad m in is te r m ed ic ine to a p a tien t. A t the ex trem e en d o f th e in terac tional is w h a t is know n as ‘phatic c o m m u n io n ’, language w ith no in fo rm a tio n co n ten t used pu re ly to keep channels o f co m m u n ica tio n open . B row n and Yule give th e follow ing exam ple:

W hen two strangers are standing shivering at a bus-stop in an icy wind and one tu rns

to the o th er and says ‘My goodness, it’s cold’, it is difficult to suppose that the p rim ­ary in tention o f the speaker is to convey inform ation . It seems m uch m ore reason­able to suggest that the speaker is indicating a readiness to be friendly and to talk.

B row n an d Yule p o in t o u t th a t m u ch o f everyday h u m a n in te rac tio n is characterised by th e prim arily in te rpersona l ra th e r th an the p rim arily tran sactional use o f language.

C O N V E R S A T IO N

So far, we have described language as if it existed in isolated sentences an d speech acts, first one speaker ta lk ing an d th en a n o th e r in an unre la ted m anner. A lthough w e s tu d ­ied th e way th a t w ords are g ram m atically a n d lexically cohesive w ith each o th e r , we d id n o t focus on th e fact th a t com p lete u tte rances are linked to o th e r com p le te u tte r ­ances th ro u g h th e ir function , and indeed th a t w hole chunks o f conversation are related to th e su r ro u n d in g chunks by the s tru c tu re o f conversation .

Look a t how the follow ing excerp t hangs together. BM an d D M , have fin ished th e ir co re courses, w hich all s tu d en ts d id together, an d m oved on to o p tio n s (e.g.: second language acquisition). They are in different classes and have n o t seen each o th er as m u ch as before.

BM You do you do Language Planning don't you?DM Yeah. I've stopped doing that though. I did stop doing that last week. SLA?

BM I'm not doing that.DM Ah. We haven't got many things in common then.

(Brown and Yule 1983: 3)

U n d ers tan d in g concepts A 4 .1

□ exchange m oves and IRF□ conversa tion analysis□ in te rac tiona l socio linguistics

In tro d u c tio n A 4 . 2

Page 37: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

24.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

36

24 I N T R O D U C T I O N

BM W ow. W e’ve parted ways.

DM That's right. That’s right. Yes. (2)

BM W e’ ll have to go out sometime.DM Yeah.

BM Before we forget each other's faces. // (heh heh) It’s true.

DM // (heh heh heh)

(Students on parting ways 1996)

BM and D M are n o t ju s t talking: they are ta lk ing to each other. Each speaker is affected by w hat th e p rev ious speaker said , an d w hat each speaker says affects w hat th e next speaker says. T hus, BM asks a question , ‘Y ou do you do Language P lann ing d o n ’t you?’ an d D M gives h im an answ er, ‘Yeah. I’ve s topped d o in g th a t th o u g h .’ D M ’s expresses regret w ith his ‘W e haven’t go t m any th ings in co m m o n th e n ’, an d BM agrees w ith h im : ‘W e’ve p arted ways.’ BM m akes a suggestion , ‘W e’ll have to go o u t som etim e’, a n d DM takes h im u p on it w ith ‘Y eah.’ C onversa tions ten d to occu r in strings o f re la ted an d com bined u tterances.

In th is un it, we exam ine tw o app roaches to look ing at th e s tru c tu re o f discourse. O ne analyses the ex ch an g e s t ru c tu r e o r the conven tional overall p a tte rn s th a t occur w hen people are talking. T he o th e r is co n v e rsa tio n analy sis, s tudy ing th e w ay th a t w hat speakers say d ictates th e type o f answ er expected , and th a t speakers take tu rn s w hen they in teract. T he tw o app roaches are radically d ifferen t in th a t exchange s tru c ­tu re starts w ith a m odel an d sees how real da ta fits it, w hereas conversa tion analysis s ta rts by observ ing real da ta an d describes w hat pa tte rn s em erge. Let us begin w ith exchange struc tu re .

A 4 . 3 Exchange s tru c tu reThis is the approach taken by Sinclair and C ou lthard (1975) and the B irm ingham School o f D iscourse Analysis. T hey stu d ied p rim ary school lessons an d fo u n d a regular s tru c ­tu re . T ake a look a t the excerp t below (from the Scottish C ouncil for R esearch in E ducation database) from a secondary school lesson. T he teacher is gu id ing a pupil in co lou ring in a m ap o n th e co m p u te r, using in fo rm atio n from an atlas:

1 T The mountain ranges brown. How w ill you know the mountain ranges?

2 C They are brown.

3 T How can you spot the mountain ranges? W hat's the clue from thekey?

4 C The mountain ranges are brown.5 T Only brown? Any other colours?

6 C Purple.7 T W hy do you think some are purple?8 C Because some are smaller than the others.

9 T And the purple ones are what?

10 C Inaudible.11 T Are they going to be the taller mountains or the shorter mountains?

Page 38: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

25.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

37

12 C Shorter.

13 T They're actually inaudible. The purple ones are the taller ones. These

14 are very tall ones called the Alps, and they're purple. You've got to put15 them on this map. Now, are you sure you know what to do here? I'll16 leave you to get on w ith it.

(McPake 2000)

T his is n o t a real conversa tion , in th e sense o f people having a casual chat. T here is an u nequa l pow er balance: th e teacher does all th e asking an d C hris tine does all the answ ering , an d it is the teacher w ho expresses th e d irective (see U n it A 3), o rd e rin g w ith ‘Y ou’ve go t to p u t th em on th is m a p ’, an d th e com m issive, expressing in ten tio n w ith ‘I’ll leave you to get on w ith it.’ It is q u ite typical o f the s tru c tu re o f a lesson, how ever, acco rd ing to the B irm ingham School. T hey said th a t th e lesson can be b ro k en dow n in to five levels o f stru c tu re , o r ranks.

T he ac t is th e low est rank. S inclair a n d C o u lth a rd b u ild o n A ustin an d Searle’s speech act categories (see U n it A 3), b u t S inclair an d C o u lth a rd ’s acts a re m ore general an d they are defined by th e ir in teractive func tion . T hey cover th e ‘m essiness’ o f spoken discourse such as fillers, as in ‘you know ’ and ‘I m ean ’, and backchannels, as in ‘W as it?’ an d ‘O h really?’ T heir categories include, for exam ple, ‘M arker’, as in ‘W ell’, ‘O K ’ an d ‘R ight’ th a t m ark a b o u n d a ry betw een ideas o r top ics, an d ‘A cknow ledge’ w hich is w hat we have called ‘b ackchanne l’. Im p o rtan tly , th e ir categories also inc lude acts such as ‘C u e’, as in ‘H ands u p ’ and ‘D o n ’t call o u t’ w hich encourage a heare r to co n tr ib u te , an d ‘Evaluate’ as in ‘G o o d ’ a n d ‘In te resting ’ evaluating a hea re r’s answ er. As y o u will apprecia te , these a re acts th a t occu r m ore typically in a c lassroom than anyw here else.

Sinclair an d C o u lth a rd said th a t these acts ten d to be carried o u t in a fixed o rd e r o f m oves , as they call the nex t ran k up . T hey fo u n d th a t there a re th ree basic moves: the in i tia tio n from the teacher, the re sp o n se from the stu d en t, an d the fo llow -up , w h ich is th e teacher’s co m m en t o n th e p u p il’s answ er, th e th ree m oves b e in g ab b re ­viated to IRF. Lines 1-12 in the geography lesson above com e in pairs o f ‘in te rro g a ­tive rep resen ta tive’ an d ‘sta tem en t rep resen ta tive’; they w ould say th a t th e s tru c tu re is I - R - I - R - I - R w ith , in th is case, no fo llow -up.

Each p a rt o f th e IRF has characteristic acts th a t occu r in it. W hat follow s below is ju s t a sam ple o f th e sort o f acts:

Move acts Function ExampleInitiation

Inform gives information 'The purple ones are the taller ones’

Direct gives orders 'You've got to put them on this map'Elicit requests response 'Any other colours?'Cue encourages hearer to contribute 'Hands up', 'D on 't call out'

Nominate names responder 'Christine?' 'Johnny'Check checks progress 'Finished?’ 'Ready?'Prompt reinforces directives and elicitation 'Go on', 'Hurry up'

Page 39: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

26.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

38

Page 40: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

27.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

39

C O N V E R S A T I O N 27

ning it to a certain extent: interviews and trials are examples. The docto r-patien t exchange in th e m edical surgery o r acc iden t and em ergency w ard con tex t, is an o th e r exam ple. T he follow ing excerp t is taken from th e British TV series Casualty, w hich takes place in th e accident and em ergency d ep artm en t o f a hospital. ‘D ’ is the doctor, ‘N ’ th e nurse, an d ‘P ’ th e patien t:

D So how long have you been having these symptoms?P This morning.

D W hat did you eat yesterday?

P W hat did I eat?D Uhuh.

P Er. I don't really remember.

N Er his temperature's 38.5. Pulse 1/10D Well have a think, because you may be suffering from food poisoning.S Food poisoning?

(Casualty, 16 December 2000)

N otice th a t the d o c to r has all the in itia tions an d th e p a tien t all th e responses. W e could begin to analyse th is excerpt like this: I (elicit w ith q u estion ), R (reply w ith answ er), I (elicit w ith qu estio n ), b u t th en the p a tte rn alters. T he p a tien t w ants to avoid answ er­ing w hat he ate, because he sto le it, an d so he replies w ith a question ‘check ing’: ‘W hat d id I eat?’ T he d o c to r im plies a rep e titio n o f h is question w ith h is ‘W ell have a th ink , because you m ay be suffering from food p o ison ing .’

A n o th e r speech event th a t the IRF m odel has been applied to is th e TV q u iz show . T he follow ing excerp t is taken from th e B ritish TV p ro g ram m e W ho w ants to be a m illionaire?, in w hich ind iv idual co n tes tan ts are given a series o f m u ltip le choice ques­tions, an d o n getting each questio n righ t are offered larger sum s o f m oney . T he qu iz m as te r is C hris T a rran t and , o n th is occasion , th e a sp iran t m illionaire is G ary.

CT Which of these countries is not a member of the Commonwealth: Ghana,Malaysia, India, the Philippines?

G It's the Philippines.CT Sure?G Yeah.

CT Final answer?

G Final answer.CT It's the right answer. You've got eight thousand pounds.

(Who wants to be a millionaire?, 14 December 2000)

T his tran sac tio n has such a fo rm ula ic s tru c tu re th a t the m oves used are all p red ic t­able: I (elicit w ith a question w ith fo u r o p tiona l answ ers), R (reply w ith o n e o f theo p tio n s), I (check), R (rep ly reaffirm ing), I (check), R (rep ly reaffirm ing), F (accep t/ reject an d rew ard /conso la tion ).

C o n versa tio n analysisT he exchange s tru c tu re app roach looked a t d iscourse as a p red e te rm in ed sequence. It s ta rted w ith th e th eo ry o f a p a tte rn in g o f un its , an d show ed how w hat peop le say fits th e m odel, th u s view ing conversa tion as a p ro d u c t. C onversa tion analysis (CA ),

A 4 . 4

Page 41: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

28.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

40

o n th e o th e r h an d , takes a ‘b o tto m -u p ’ app roach : s ta rtin g w ith th e conversa tion itself, it lets th e data d ic ta te its ow n stru c tu re . CA looks at conversa tion as a linear ongo ing even t, th a t unfo lds little by little a n d im plies th e nego tia tion o f co o p era tio n betw een speakers a long th e way, th u s v iew ing conversa tion as a process. CA differs to o , in its m ethodo logy , from d iscourse analysis. W hereas d iscourse analysis takes th e concepts a n d te rm s o f linguistics an d th en exam ines th e ir role in real da ta , conversa tion analy ­sis takes real da ta an d then exam ines th e language an d dem o n stra te s th a t conversa­tion is system atically s tru c tu red . U nlike exchange s tru c tu re , b o th CA and d iscourse analysis are app roaches th a t have evolved over th e last decades a n d are very m uch alive today.

Let us start by defining conversation. C onversation is discourse m utually constructed a n d nego tiated in tim e betw een speakers; it is usually in fo rm al and un p lan n ed . C ook (1989: 51) says th a t ta lk m ay be classed as conversa tion w hen:

1 It is n o t p rim arily necessita ted by a practical task2 A ny u nequa l pow er o f p a rtic ip an ts is partia lly suspended3 T he n u m b e r o f the p artic ip an ts is sm all4 T u rn s are q u ite sh o rt5 T alk is p rim arily for the p a rtic ip an ts n o t for an ou ts ide aud ience

T his is w hy classroom transactions, d o c to r -p a tie n t interview s an d TV qu iz show s are n o t conversations: they do n o t have all th e p ropertie s listed here. R em em ber th a t we said, in analysing th e geography lesson te ac h e r-p u p il exchange above, th a t it was n o t a conversa tion , because o f the unequal pow er balance. W e can add now th a t it was necessita ted by a p ractical task an d th a t it m igh t have been partly ‘fo r an ou ts ide au d i­ence’, if th e in s tru c tio n s w ere in tended to be overheard by th e ch ild ren nearby. The d o c to r -p a tie n t in terv iew was p rim arily necessita ted by th e p rac tica l task o f d iagnos­ing an d p rescrib ing , an d th ere is unequal pow er in th a t the d o c to r is in co n tro l o f the event. T he qu iz show is p rim arily for an o u ts id e audience.

O n th e o th e r han d , th e d ialogue ab o u t o p tio n courses o n Language P lann ing / SLA, th a t we started th is u n it w ith , can be classified as a conversation , follow ing C ook’s list o f p roperties. It is in fo rm al (n o te the ‘Y eah’, ‘W ow ’) an d u n p lan n ed (no te the tw o -seco n d pause, th e sen tence em erg ing in separate clauses as in ‘Before w e forget each o th e r’s faces’, and th e sp o n tan eo u s laugh ter). It is ne ith e r fo r an o u ts ide a u d i­ence (th e top ic is in te rpersona l) n o r necessita ted by a practical task (they are just socialising, no t d o in g serious p lan n in g ). In ad d itio n , n e ith e r BM n o r D M is asserting pow er. T hey a re the on ly tw o p artic ipan ts , an d th e ir average leng th o f tu rn is ju s t six w ords.

M any linguists w ou ld co n ten d C ook’s p ro p erty o f ‘n o t p rim arily necessita ted by a practical task’, an d say th a t m o s t o f w hat we say is o u tco m e o rien ted . Even th e m ost casual o f conversa tions have an in terac tional func tion (see U n it D 3). C asual c o n ­versations in parties can have th e practical task o f ascerta in ing w h e th e r fu tu re social cohesion is possible an d desirable an d , for som e, w hether estab lish ing an in tim ate re la tionsh ip is go ing to be feasible. C hats betw een o ld friends over coffee can have th e goal o f establish ing n o rm s an d prio rities in a p articu la r s itu a tio n , an d d e te rm in ­ing th e course o f ac tion th a t one p a rtic ip an t shou ld take. O th e r linguists, such as

Page 42: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

29.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

41

C O N V E R S A T I O N 29

Fairclough (1989: 12), w ou ld co n ten d th e p ro p erty ‘A ny unequa l pow er o f p a rtic i­pan ts is partially suspended’, p o in ting o u t tha t in all exchanges, there is unequal pow er, in vary ing degrees, an d th a t conversa tion can o ccu r w hen th ere are significant pow er d ifferen tia ls betw een partic ipan ts.

Let us now tu rn to the patterns tha t CA linguists find em erge as in teraction unfolds. Typically, these are u n w ritten co nven tions ab o u t tak ing tu rn s , an d observable pairs o f u tterances.

Turn-takingC o o p era tio n in conversa tion is m anaged by all p a rtic ipan ts th ro u g h tu rn -tak in g . In m ost cultures, generally speaking, only one person speaks at a tim e: speakers take turns, first o n e ta lk ing a n d then an o ther. All cu ltu res have th e ir ow n preferences as to how long a speaker shou ld ho ld th e floor, h o w th ey ind ica te th a t they have fin ished and a n o th e r speaker can take th e floor, w hen a new speaker can start, w h eth er th e new speaker can overlap and in te rru p t, w hen speakers can pause an d for how long. For exam ple, Latin A m ericans have pauses o f a fraction o f a second an d it is socially accept­able to overlap and in te rru p t, w hereas N o rth A m erican Ind ians expect a tw o-second pause betw een tu rn s , and for the Japanese it is unaccep tab le to in te rru p t.

A p o in t in a conversation w here a change o f tu rn is possible is called a t r a n s it io n re lev an ce p lace o r TRP. N ext speakers c an n o t be sure th a t th e c u rre n t speaker’s tu rn is com plete , b u t th ey will usually take th e end o f a sentence to ind ica te th a t th e tu rn is possib ly com plete . W h en speakers d o n o t w an t to w ait u n til the TR P, th is is called an in te rru p tio n . In the follow ing exam ple, adap ted from G u m p erz (1982: 175), the m o m e n t w hen th e in te rru p tio n begins is ind icated w ith a //.

B yes. Tell, tell me what it / / is you wantA // umm. Um, may I first of all request the introduction please?

W h en hearers p red ic t th a t the tu rn is ab o u t to be com pleted and they com e in before it is, th is is an overlap. In the follow ing exam ple, adap ted from Schiffrin (1994: 240), th e overlap is ind ica ted w ith a =.

In terviewee But not no more. Yeah =In terv iew er = W hat happened to them?

N o te th a t in the o rderly classroom , d o c to r-p a tie n t exchange and qu iz show , there are n e ith e r overlaps n o r in te rru p tio n s . T his is partly because o f th e pow er s tru c tu re an d th e conven tions: s tu d en ts are n o t supposed to in te rru p t th e teacher b u t to w ait till th e tu rn is h an d ed to them , and qu iz con tes tan ts d o n o t usually challenge th e qu iz m as te r b u t w ait un til they are asked to speak. T he lack o f overlaps an d in te rru p tio n s in th e serials an d show s can also be exp la ined by th e fact th a t they are sc rip ted o r sem i-scrip ted : the language is m ore ‘tid y ’ th an real-life d iscourse, and th e tu rn s are p re -p lan n ed .

Each cu ltu re seem s to have an u n w ritten ag reem en t ab o u t the acceptable length o f a pause betw een tw o tu rn s . In any cu ltu re , if th e pause is in tended to carry m ean ­ing, analysts call it an ‘a ttrib u tab le silence’. In th e follow ing so rt o f exchange:

Page 43: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

30.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

42

30 I N T R O D U C T I O N

A Did you have a good tim e last night?B (3) Yeah.

A So he asked you out then?B He did.

B pauses for th ree seconds before h e r ‘Y eah’, an d A a ttribu tes to th is silence an affirm a­tive answ er and very positive sen tim en ts. In the cu ltu res in w hich there is a low level o f to lerance o f silence betw een tu rn s , if there is a lull in th e conversa tion ex tend ing past ab o u t ten seconds, speakers ten d to u tte r som eth ing like ‘u m ’ o r ‘So th ere you go’, in o rd e r to b reak the silence. F or those w ho do n o t know each o th e r well, a long n o n -a ttrib u tab le silence can feel aw kw ard.

Adjacency pairsCA analysts say th a t there is a re lation betw een acts, an d th a t conversa tion con ta in s frequen tly o ccu rring pa tte rn s, in pairs o f u tterances know n as ‘ad jacency pa irs’. T hey say th a t th e u tte ran ce o f o n e speaker m akes a certa in response o f the nex t speaker very likely. T he acts are o rd e red w ith a first p art and a second pa rt, an d categorised as question -answ er, offer-accep t, b lam e-deny an d so on , w ith each first p a rt creating an expectation o f a p articu la r second part. T his is know n as p reference struc tu re : each first p a rt has a p referred and a d isp referred response. T he pairs a re endless; here are a few exam ples.

a question has the preferred response of an answeran offer an acceptancean invitation an acceptancean assessment an agreement

a proposal an agreementa greeting a greeting

a complaint an apologya blame a denial

T he d isp referred responses te n d to be th e refusals an d disagreem ents. These are the m ore u n u su a l responses, and they can be taken as m ean ingfu l o r rude . A n absence o f response can be taken as th e hea re r n o t having heard , n o t paying a tten tio n , o r s im ­ply refusing to cooperate .

W e can express w hat is go ing o n in th e Language Planning/SLA dialogue above, in term s o f CA. T h e ir adjacency pairs are m ain ly ‘assess’ and ‘agree’: they w ant to show so lidarity . Even w hen BM ’s a ssu m p tio n in th e question ‘You do you d o Language P lann ing d o n ’t you?’ is w rong , D M agrees first before p u ttin g h im right: ‘Yeah. I’ve s to p p ed d o in g th a t th o u g h ’ (th is is know n as a pseudo -ag reem en t). D M ’s ‘W e hav en ’t got m an y th ings in co m m o n th e n ’ gets th e preferred response o f ag reem en t in B M ’s ‘W e’ve p arted w ays’ w hich a lm o st echoes his sen tim en t. T his is follow ed by a stro n g agreem ent: ‘T h a t’s right. T h a t’s right. Yes.’ Finally BM suggests an o u tin g an d DM gives th e p referred response o f an acceptance.

It can h appen th a t th e second p a rt does n o t follow on from th e first, an d th is is a d isp referred response. Let u s im agine th is scene in w hich a h u sb an d an d wife are read ing in th e k itchen , w hile th e ir d in n e r is cooking:

Page 44: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

31.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

43

C O N V E R S A T I O N 31

W ife Do you want to test the potatoes?

Husband Can I just finish this sentence?

W ife Of course.

T he question is n o t m et w ith so m eth in g th a t looks like an answ er. H ere th e second q u estio n is p resum ably in tended to m ean th a t the hu sb an d will check th e po ta toes once he has finished h is sentence. It im plies a positive answ er to th e q uestion .

SequencesC onversa tion analysts claim th a t as speakers are m u tua lly co n stru c tin g an d n eg o tia t­ing th e ir conversation in tim e, certa in sequences, w hich are stretches o f u tterances o r tu rn s , em erge. These can be pre-sequences, in sertion sequences, an d open ing an d clos­ing sequences.

P re -seq u en ces p repare th e g ro u n d fo r a fu r th e r sequence an d signal th e type o f u tte ran ce to follow. T here are p re -in v ita tio n s (‘I’ve go t tw o tickets fo r th e rugby m a tc h . . .’), p re -requests ( ‘A re you busy righ t now ?’) and p re -an n o u n cem en ts (‘Y ou’ll never guess!’). You will have h ea rd conversa tions like th e follow ing, in w hich A uses a p re -in v ita tio n sequence:

A You know that French film that's on in the Odeon?

B Yes?A Do you want to go and see it tonight?B Yeah, w hy not?

In th e case o f an in s e r tio n seq u en ce , th e pairs occu r em bedded w ith in o th e r ad ja ­cency pairs w hich act as m acro-sequences. T he exam ple above cou ld have ru n like this:

A You know that French film that's on in the Odeon?B Yes?

A Do you want to go and see it tonight?B W hat tim e does it start?A Eight thirty-five

B Yeah, why not?

H ere, the ‘W h a t tim e does it start?’ an d ‘E ight th irty -five’ co n stitu te th e in sertion sequence: the rest o f th e conversa tion co u ld in theo ry s tan d w ith o u t it, except th a t th e tim in g seem s to be im p o rtan t fo r B. Likewise:

W ife

Husband

W ife

HusbandW ifeHusband

Do you want to test the potatoes?This is a really interesting article about racism in the police force. They’re saying there's got to be a massive education campaign to change the way

people think.

There certainly has.Yeah.

Potatoes.Fork.

T he second pa rt, ab o u t racism , is no t a response to the first, unless th e irrelevance o f h is answ er can be in te rp re ted as im ply ing th a t he is refusing to check th e po tatoes.

Page 45: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

32.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

44

T he dispreferred response tu rn s in to an insertion sequence, because A repeats her request w ith ‘P o ta toes’, an d th is tim e gets som eth ing th a t constitu tes an accep tance (‘F ork ’) even th o u g h it serves a doub le pu rp o se o f also m ak ing a request fo r a fork.

Finally, there are conventional o p en in g structures and closing structures. O penings ten d to co n ta in a g reeting , an enqu iry after health an d a past reference (as in ‘Flow did it go last night?’). In the follow ing exam ple, B renda, a 34-year-old housew ife, greets Lee, a 15-year-old stu d en t, w ith a fo rm ulaic health enquiry :

Brenda Hi, Lee.

Lee Hi. Hi, Jean.Jean Hi, hi.

Brenda How are you?Lee Not bad. I'll be in, in a minute.

(BNC: kbf Brenda, 1991)

T he B ritish and N o rth A m ericans ten d to have a p re-c losing sequence ra th e r th an ju s t end ing w ith a farewell. T his sequence can be long an d d raw n o u t o n occasions. In the follow ing exchange, we can see an in sertion sequence w ith in th e ‘saying goodbyes’:

A Anyway, I'm gonna have to goB Yeah. See you.A See you tomorrow.

C W hat tim e is it?D Oh. I've left my lights on.E Half three.C Three.

E Tarrah.(BNC: kb l Albert, 1992)

Limitations o f CAO ne p rob lem w ith CA is th a t th ere is a lack o f system aticity in th e sense th a t there is n o t an exhaustive list o f all ad jacency pairs, o r a precise descrip tion o f how adjacency pairs o r TRPs m igh t be recognised (Eggins an d Slade 1997). In ad d itio n , researchers an d s tu d en ts o f language ca n n o t an d shou ld n o t choose th is form o f analysis in the hope th a t it will lead to quan tifiab le results. CA sets o u t to be a qualita tive n o t a q u a n ­tita tive approach . CA analysts do n o t co u n t u p instances o f types o f pairs, th e m ost typical response o r g ram m atica l o r lexical features, in o rd e r to find densities and d is­tr ib u tio n s, o r give em pirical validity to claim s ab o u t conversa tion o rgan isa tion .

A no ther critic ism levelled at CA is th a t it does n o t take in to acco u n t p ragm atic o r socio linguistic aspects o f in te rac tio n , the b ack g ro u n d con tex t o f w hy an d how p e o ­ple say w hat they say, th e co m p o n en ts o f s itua tion , and th e features o f th e social w orld an d social iden tity such as occu p a tio n an d gender o f partic ipan ts. For CA analysts, tex t is con tex t; they focus o n th e sequentia l p rogression o f in te rac tio n , a n d th e way th a t each u tte rance is shaped b y th e p rev ious tex t an d shapes th e fo llow ing text. CA sees con tex t as som eth ing crea ted in talk, ra th e r th a n talk as so m eth in g created by con tex t. A lthough som e b ackg round know ledge con tex t is relevant to text, it is only in as m uch as it can be seen a n d u n d e rs to o d in text. T he d raw back is, as Fairclough

Page 46: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

33.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

45

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 33

(1989: 12) says, th a t conversa tion does n o t exist w ith in a social vacuum . C onversa­tio n s tru c tu res are connec ted to s tru c tu res o f social in s titu tio n s an d societies, and co n ven tions o f everyday ac tion are d e te rm in ed by w ider social struc tu res. T here is an ap p ro ach to d iscourse analysis th a t takes in to accoun t b o th th e s tru c tu re o f d iscourse an d th e social aspects o f in teraction : it is in te rac tiona l sociolinguistics.

Interactional sociolinguisticsT his ap p ro ach takes in to acco u n t th e p ragm atic an d sociolinguistics aspects o f in te r­ac tion , as well as adjacency pairs, tu rn -ta k in g and sequences, giving im p o rtan ce to th e w ay th a t language is s itua ted in p a rticu la r c ircum stances in social life. It brings to th e fo re fro n t th e situa tional con tex t, an d th e co n tex t o f shared know ledge ab o u t speakers, th e ir h isto ries an d th e ir p u rp o se in speaking. It looks at g ram m ar, social s tru c tu re an d cu ltu ra l pa tterns.

In terac tional socio linguistics focuses on the fact th a t social g roups have th e ir ow n w ays o f expressing m ean ing w ith th e ir language. G u m p erz (1982) says th a t language relates to con tex t th ro u g h ‘con tex tua lisa tion cues’. T hese are th e linguistic features th a t ind ica te the aspects o f the con tex t relevant to w hat the speaker m eans, an d tha t on ly take o n th e ir full m ean ing w hen th e heare r is fam iliar w ith the rest o f th e c o n ­tex t, as he o r she is a m em b er o f th e social g roup .

Let us re tu rn to th e d ialogue ab o u t Language Planning/SL A from th e beg inn ing o f th is un it. In th is conversa tion , the speakers’ adjacency pairs o f ag reem ent, echoing an d acceptance, relaxed tw o-second pause an d overlapped laugh ter suggest th a t they w an t to show so lidarity w ith each o ther, an d claim in -g ro u p m em bersh ip o f th e s tu ­d e n t academ ic d iscourse co m m u n ity (Swales 1990).

T heir language relates to the socio-cultural context o f the course. They speak the in ­g ro u p code o f Edinburgh MSc A pplied Linguistics students, described by C u tting (2000: 142) as containing vague and im plicit gram m atical and lexical features, heavily dependent o n th e con tex t fo r th e ir m eaning. T hey use the general n o u n ‘th ings’, as in ‘W e haven’t got m any things in com m on th e n ’, referring in this context to ‘op tion courses’. They use general ‘d o ’ verbs, as in ‘You do you do Language P lanning d o n ’t you?’ an d ‘I’ve stopped doing th a t though . I d id s top doing th a t last w eek’, to m ean specifically ‘take the course’. T hey use in -g ro u p p ro p e r n o u n s , such as Language P lanning and SLA, no rm ally refer­ring to fields and app lica tions o f language study , b u t referring here to courses.

A lthough th e m ain goal o f in te rac tiona l sociolinguistics is n o t to describe the s tru c tu re o f d iscourse, an d th a t is th e m ain goal o f conversation analysis, the tw o approaches are com ing together now (O chs, Schegloff an d T hom pson 1996), w ith an a­lysts look ing at th e re la tionsh ip betw een g ram m ar an d social in te rac tion , w ith in the larger schem es o f h u m a n co n d u c t and th e o rgan isa tio n o f social life.

T H E C O O P E R A T IV E P R IN C IP L E

U n d ers tan d in g concepts

□ observ ing m axim s□ flou ting an d violating□ relevance theo ry

A 5 .1

Page 47: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

34.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

46

□ 34 I N T R O D U C T I O N

A 5 . 2 In tro d u ctio nT he excerpt th a t opens th is u n it com es from a sociological survey o f th e living c o n ­d itions o f sen io r citizens in Scotland , an d th e factors affecting th e ir housing satisfac­tion . X is the in terv iew er and Y is a lady living in sheltered housing , (ap a rtm en ts for re tired people w ith a w arden liv ing o n site, responsib le keeping an eye o n th em and a lerting pub lic services if help is needed):

X Do you find the place is warm enough?Y Yes, oh yes. Very comfortable I think. It's all that you need really, you don’t

need any more.X And you say that the warden is a nice person.Y Oh yes, you w ill get other opinions, but that's my opinion.X Well you can’t please everybody can you?

Y She's been very good to me.X What would the other people say?

Y Ah well I don't know. I w ouldn't like to repeat it because I don't reallybelieve half of what they are saying. They just get a fixed thing into their

mind. But it's always been, I mean, w e had another one - this is our second one. But if she's off ill and that it ’s, oh off ill again and I mean

she's got certificates to prove it. But they just seem, what irks them really is w e can't get a warden that w ill be overnight you see.

X Right, sort of 24 hrs, 7 days a week.

V erbal exchanges, w hether in terview s, conversa tions o r service en co u n te rs , tend to ru n m o re sm ooth ly an d successfully w hen th e p a rtic ipan ts follow certa in social c o n ­ven tions. T his in terv iew is no excep tion . T he in terv iew er asks questions an d th e lady gives answ ers th a t give ju s t th e righ t a m o u n t o f in fo rm ation , an d w hich are relevant to th e question , tru th fu l and clear. W hen asked if th e place is w arm enough , fo r ex­am ple, h e r answ er ‘Yes, o h yes. Very com fortab le I th in k ’, says all th a t is needed; she is p resum ab ly being honest; she is keep ing to th e top ic established by th e interview er; a n d she is n o t saying any th ing th a t is am biguous. She is follow ing th e conversational m axim s o f th e c o o p e ra tiv e p r in c ip le (G rice 1975). Let us look at th e fo u r m ax im s o f th e princip le , by seeing how they are observed.

T he first m ax im o f th e coopera tive princip le is th e m ax im o f q u a n tity , w hich says th a t speakers shou ld be as in fo rm ative as is requ ired , th a t they sh o u ld give neither too little in fo rm atio n n o r to o m uch . Som e speakers like to p o in t to the fact th a t they k now h ow m uch in fo rm atio n th e hearer requ ires o r can be b o th e red w ith , an d say so m eth in g like, ‘W ell, to cu t a lo n g s to ry sh o r t, she d id n ’t get h o m e till tw o .’ People

(Wilson and Murie 1995)

A 5 . 3 O bserving th e m axim s

Page 48: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

35.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

47

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 35

w ho give too little in fo rm atio n risk th e ir hea re r n o t being able to identify w hat they are talk ing ab o u t because they are n o t explicit enough ; those w ho give m ore in fo rm a­tio n th an the hearer needs risk b o rin g them .

T he second m ax im is th a t o f q u a lity , w hich says th a t speakers are expected to be sincere, to be saying som ething that they believe corresponds to reality. They are assum ed n o t to say any th ing th a t they believe to be false o r any th ing for w hich they lack evidence. Som e speakers like to d raw th e ir hearers’ a tten tio n to the fact tha t th ey are on ly saying w hat they believe to be true , an d th a t they lack ad eq u a te evidence. In

A I'll ring you tom orrow afternoon then.

B Erm, I shall be there as far as I know, and in the meantime have a word w ith Mum and Dad if they’re free. Right, bye-bye then sweetheart.

A Bye-bye, bye.(BNC: kc8 Gillian, 1991)

B says ‘as far as I k now ’, m ean in g ‘I c a n ’t be to tally sure if th is is tru e ’, so th a t if A rings up and finds th a t B is n o t there , B is p ro tec ted from accusations o f lying by th e fact th a t she d id m ake it clear th a t she was uncerta in . M ost hearers assum e th a t speakers are n o t lying, an d m ost speakers know that.

T he th ird is the m ax im o f re la tio n , w hich says th a t speakers are assum ed to be saying som eth ing th a t is relevant to w hat has been said before. T hus, if we h ear ‘T he baby cried. T he m o m m y picked it u p ’ (G arfinkel 1967), w e assum e th a t the ‘m o m m y ’ was th e m o th e r o f th e crying baby and th a t she p icked the baby up because it w as cry­ing. Sim ilarly, in the follow ing exchange:

A There's somebody at the door.B I'm in the bath.

B expects A to u n d e rs tan d th a t h is p resen t location is relevant to h e r c o m m e n t th a t th e re is som eone a t th e d o o r, an d th a t he can n o t go and see w ho it is because he is in th e ba th . Som e speakers like to ind ica te how th e ir co m m en t has relevance to the conversa tion , as in the follow ing from a m arket research m eeting:

A I mean, just going back to your point. I mean to me an order form is a contract.

If we are going to put something in then let's keep it as general as possible.

A Yes.(BNC: j97 British Market Research Monthly Meeting, 1994)

T he last is th e m axim o f m a n n e r , w hich says th a t we sh o u ld be b rie f an d orderly , and avoid obscurity and am biguity. In this exchange from a com m ittee m eeting, th e speaker p o in ts to the fact th a t he is observing th e m axim :

T hank you C hairm an. Jus - just to clarify one point. There is a m eeting o f the Police C om m ittee on M onday and there is an item on their budget for the provision o f their

cam era.(BNC, j44 West Sussex C ouncil Highways C om m ittee M eeting, 1994)

Page 49: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

36.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

48

36 I N T R O D U C T I O N

G rice said th a t hearers assum e th a t speakers observe th e coopera tive princip le , and th a t it is the know ledge o f th e fo u r m axim s th a t allows hearers to d raw inferences ab o u t th e speakers’ in ten tio n s an d im plied m eaning. T he m ean ing conveyed by speakers an d recovered as a resu lt o f the heare rs’ inferences, is k n o w n as ‘conversa­tional im p lica tu re ’.

A 5 . 4 F lo u tin g th e m axim sLet us look at an exam ple, now , o f m ax im s not be ing observed:

W hen Sir M aurice Bowra was W arden o f W adham College, Oxford, he was interviewing

a young m an for a place at the college. He eventually cam e to the conclusion that the young m an w ould no t do. Helpfully, however, he let him down gently by advising the

young m an, ‘I th ink you w ould be happier in a larger - o r a sm aller — college’.(Rees 1999: 5)

H ere, Sir M aurice was n o t ad h e rin g to the m axim o f quality , since he was n o t really saying w hat he th o u g h t. N o r w as he follow ing the m ax im o f m an n er , since he was being am biguous and contrad ictory . T he question is, was Sir M aurice lying to the young m an in o rd e r to deceive h im , o r was he telling a w hite lie, o r w as he ju s t find ing a nice w ay o f le tting the yo u n g m an dow n gently? T he answ er h inges o n w hether he th o u g h t th a t th e young m a n knew th e pain fu l tru th an d cou ld in fer w hat he was try ing to com m un icate .

It is m ore likely th a t th e yo u n g m an d id know th a t Sir M aurice was try ing to tell h im th a t he had failed th e in terview . O bviously, if Sir M aurice h ad said, ‘Y ou w o n ’t d o ’, o r even ‘U nfo rtuna te ly y o u ’re n o t qu ite good enough fo r th is college’, he m igh t have h u rt h im . If th e young m a n knew th a t h is ‘I th in k you w ou ld be h ap p ie r in a larger - o r a sm aller - college’ m ean t ‘Y ou w o n ’t d o ’, th en it is no longer a question o f lying. It is a questio n o f face saving (see U n it A6). T he yo u n g m an can answ er, ‘OK, thanks for th e advice. I’ll look som ew here else’, an d save Sir M aurice’s face in his tu rn .

O f course, w hat is funny ab o u t th e anecdo te is th a t fact th a t S ir M aurice says ‘in a larger - o r a sm aller - college’. H is saying th a t the college is b o th too sm all and too large fo r th e young m an is rid icu lous a n d im plies ‘go anyw here so long as it is n o t h ere ’. W h e th e r th e young m a n perceives th is o r n o t is irre levan t to the joke, except th a t his lack o f w it th a t p reven ts h im from en te ring the college m igh t p reven t h im from u n d ers tan d in g the ab su rd ity o f th e suggestion.

In m an y cu ltu res, it can be socially unaccep tab le to always say exactly w hat is in o n e ’s m in d unless one know s th e hea re r very well (see th e ex p lana tion o f th e p o lite ­ness p rinc ip le an d social variables in U n it A6). T hus, we m igh t p refer n o t to say to a shop assistan t, as we h an d back a dress, ‘T his looks aw ful on ; I d o n ’t w an t it a fter all’, b u t ra th e r ‘I’ll go away an d th in k ab o u t it an d m aybe com e back la te r.’ W e are no t lying: we know th a t she know s th a t we have no in ten tio n o f re tu rn in g . Sim ilarly, in B ritain , if th e response to an in v ita tion to a ro m an tic da te is ‘I’m w ashing m y hair to n ig h t’, the inv iter know s th a t it m eans, ‘I’m free b u t I d o n ’t w an t to go o u t w ith y o u .’ It is qu ite co m m o n a n d acceptable in B ritain to say, ‘D o you find it’s getting a b it chilly in here?’ and m ean ‘I w an t to p u t th e fire o n .’

Page 50: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

37.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

49

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 37

W h en speakers app ea r n o t to follow th e m ax im s b u t expect hearers to ap p rec i­ate th e m ean ing im plied , as in the case o f th e dress shop assistant, th e ro m an tic date an d th e chilly ro o m , we say th a t they are ‘flou ting ’ th e m axim s. Just as w ith an in d i­rect speech act, th e speaker im plies a fu n c tio n d ifferen t from th e literal m ean ing o f fo rm ; w hen flou ting a m axim , the speaker assum es th a t the hea re r know s th a t th e ir w ords sho u ld n o t be taken at face value a n d tha t they can in fer the im plicit m eaning.

Flouting quantityT he speaker w ho flouts the m ax im o f q u an tity seem s to give too little o r to o m u ch in fo rm a tio n . In

A Well, how do I look?B Your shoes are nice . . .

B does n o t say th a t th e sw eatsh irt an d jeans d o n o t look nice, b u t he know s tha t A will u n d e rs tan d th a t im plica tion , because A asks ab o u t his w hole appearance an d on ly gets to ld ab o u t p a rt o f it. I f we lo o k again at th e old lady in th e sheltered hom e, in th e exam ple th a t started this un it, we see tha t she flouts the m ax im o f q u an tity w hen she says, ‘O h yes, you will get o th e r o p in io n s , b u t th a t’s m y o p in io n .’ T he in terv iew er know s th a t she is n o t giving all th e in fo rm a tio n th a t he needs in o rd e r to fully ap p re ­ciate w hat is being said. T his will be w hy he la ter asks ‘W hat w ould th e o th e r people say?’ T he o ld lady knew th a t the in terv iew er w ould know th a t she had m o re in fo r­m a tio n , b u t m aybe she w an ted to be p ressu red for it. It is s im ilar to ‘I h ad an am az­ing tim e last n ig h t’, w hich invites ‘G o o n - tell m e w hat hap p en ed th en !’

Flouting qualityT he speaker flou ting the m axim o f quality m ay do it in several ways. First, they m ay q u ite sim ply say som eth ing th a t obviously does n o t rep resen t w hat they th ink . W e saw an inc idence o f th is in Sir M aurice’s ‘I th in k you w ou ld be h ap p ie r in a larger - o r a sm aller - college’, w hich flouts the m axim if he knew tha t the studen t w ould u n d e r­s tan d w hat he was getting at, a n d hear the m essage b eh in d his w ords.

Speakers m ay flou t th e m axim by exaggerating as in th e h y p e rb o le ‘I cou ld eat a h o rse ’, o r

Lynn Yes I'm starving too.

M artin Hurry up girl.Lynn Oh dear, stop eating rubbish. You w on ’t eat any dinner.

(BNC: kd6 Martin, 1992)

in w hich ‘I’m starv ing’ is a w ell-established exaggerating expression. N o speaker w o u ld expect th e ir h eare r to say, ‘W hat, you could eat a w hole horse?’ o r ‘I d o n ’t th in k you are dy ing o f h u n g e r - you d o n ’t even look th in .’ H earers w ou ld be expected to k now th a t th e speaker sim ply m ean t th a t they w ere very hungry . H yperbo le is often a t th e basis o f h u m o u r. T ake th is exam ple from Social Studies:

Rem em ber that as a teenager you are at the last stage in your life when you will be happy to hear that the phone is for you.

(Leobowitz 1985: 368)

Page 51: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

38.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

50

It is an exaggeration to say th a t adu lts are never happy to h ear th a t th e p h o n e is for them , even th o u g h th is m ay o ften be the case. A nybody read ing th is h u m o ro u s line w ou ld k now n o t to take it a t its face value.

Sim ilarly, a speaker can flou t th e m ax im o f quality by using a m e ta p h o r , as in ‘M y house is a refrigera to r in January ’ o r ‘D o n ’t be such a w et b lanke t - we ju s t w ant to have fun .’ H ere again, hearers w ould understand that the house was very cold indeed, an d the o th e r person is try ing to reduce o th e r peop le ’s en joym en t. Sim ilarly, we all know how to in te rp re t the m ean in g beh in d th e w ords ‘Love’s a disease. But curab le’ from Crewe Train (M acaulay 1926) and ‘Religion . . . is th e o p iu m o f th e people’ (M arx 1818-83). C onven tiona l euphem ism s can also be p u t in to th is ca tegory too . W hen people say ‘I’m going to w ash m y h an d s’ m ean ing ‘I’m going to u r in a te ’, and w hen they say ‘She’s go t a b u n in th e oven ’ m ean ing ‘She’s p reg n an t’, o r ‘H e kicked the bu ck e t’ m ean ing ‘H e d ied ’, th e im plied sense o f th e w ords is so w ell-established th a t th e expressions can only m ean one th ing .

T he last tw o m ain ways o f flou ting the m ax im o f quality are iro n y an d b a n te r , a n d they form a pair. As Leech (1983: 144) says, ‘W hile irony is an ap p aren tly friendly w ay o f being offensive (m ock-po liteness), the type o f verbal beh av io u r know n as “b a n te r” is an offensive w ay o f being friend ly (m ock im po liteness).’

T hus, in the case o f irony , the speaker expresses a positive sen tim en t an d im plies a negative one. I f a s tu d en t com es dow n to breakfast one m o rn in g an d says ‘If only you knew how m u ch I love being w oken up at 4 am by a fire a la rm ’, she is be ing iron ic an d expecting h e r friends to know th a t she m eans th e opposite . S arcasm is a fo rm o f irony th a t is n o t so friendly; in fact it is usually in ten d ed to h u rt, as in ‘T his is a lovely undercooked egg y o u ’ve given m e here , as usual. Y um !’ o r ‘W hy d o n ’t you leave all y o u r d irty clo thes on th e lounge floor, love, an d th en you on ly need w ash th em w hen som eone breaks a leg try ing to get to th e sofa?’

B anter, on the con trary , expresses a negative sen tim en t and im plies a positive one. It so u n d s like a m ild aggression, as in , ‘Y ou’re nasty, m ean an d stingy. H ow can you o n ly give m e o n e kiss?’ b u t it is in ten d ed to be an expression o f fr iendsh ip o r in ti­macy. B anter can som etim es be a tease, an d som etim es a flirta tious co m m en t. The follow ing exam ple con ta in s a slightly d ifferen t exam ple o f ban ter: BM has just to ld AF th a t h is w ife has go t a jo b teach ing English as a Foreign Language, a n d AF, h e r­self a teacher o f EFL p re ten d s to be angry:

AF I' m beginning to realise w hy em why jobs in language schools run out so sharply in the autumn and in the spring. It's all these damn MSc students and their wives, // (heh heh)

BM // (heh heh heh heh)AF Now I know why I was never wanted after October.

BF Yeah that's right, (heh)(Students on EFL schools 1996)

T his exam ple show s th a t hyperbo le and b an te r can coexist - she is b o th exaggerating a n d m ock attack ing . T he danger w ith b an te r is th a t it can offend if th e hearers d o no t recover th e conversational im plica tu re , o r if they suspect th a t th ere is an e lem en t o f tru th in th e w ords.

Page 52: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

39.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

51

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 39

Flouting relationIf speakers flou t th e m axim o f re la tion , they expect th a t th e hearers will be able to im agine w hat the u tte rance d id not say, an d m ake th e co n n ec tio n betw een th e ir u tte r ­ance an d th e p reced ing one(s). T hus, in

A So what do you think of Mark?

B His flatm ate's a wonderful cook.

B does n o t say th a t she was n o t very im pressed w ith M ark, b u t by n o t m en tio n in g h im in th e reply an d apparen tly saying so m eth in g irre levan t, she im plies it. Sim ilarly, in the nex t, N oel C ow ard is said to have had this exchange, after h is play Sirocco (1927) was booed:

Heckler We expected a better play.

Coward I expected better manners.(Sherrin 1995: 29)

U sing a G ricean analysis, we can say th a t th e second co m m en t seem s irrelevan t to the first: the heckler in th e aud ience is ta lk ing ab o u t th e play, and C ow ard ’s co m m en t is a b o u t m anners. H ow ever, C ow ard in ten d s th e heckler to infer th a t he expected b e tte r m anners th a n b o o in g an d sh o u tin g ab o u t his play. T he heckler w ill have u n d e rs to o d th a t C ow ard found h im as well as th e o thers n o t ju s t b ad -m an n e red , b u t ru d e an d offensive.

G rice th o u g h t th a t flou ting th e m ax im o f re la tion w as possible, b u t m an y people have disagreed since (see th e section below on relevance theory ). W h ethe r we observe o r flou t m axim s, o u r u tte rances will always be taken as relevant to the preced ing co -tex t.

Flouting mannerT hose w ho flout the m ax im o f m an n er, appearing to be obscure, a re o ften try ing to exclude a th ird party , as in th is so rt o f exchange betw een h u sb an d an d wife:

A Where are you off to?

B I was thinking of going out to get some of that funny w h ite s tu ff for somebody.A OK, but don't be long - dinner's nearly ready.

B speaks in an am b iguous way, saying ‘th a t funny w hite s tu ff’ an d ‘so m ebody’, because he is avoiding saying ‘ice-cream ’ and ‘M ichelle’, so th a t h is little dau g h te r does n o t becom e excited an d ask fo r the ice-cream before h e r m eal. Som etim es w riters play w ith w ords to heigh ten th e am biguity , in o rd e r to m ake a p o in t, as in K atherine W h ite h o rn ’s co m m en ts in Sunday Best o n ‘D ecod ing th e W est’:

I w ouldn’t say when you‘ve seen one W estern you’ve seen the lot; bu t when you’ve seen the lot you get the feeling you’ve seen one.

(W hitehorn 1976)

th e reb y im plying th a t she agreed w ith th e first p o in t o f view, even th o u g h she h ad ju s t said th a t she d id n o t agree w ith it.

Page 53: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

40.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

52

40 I N T R O D U C T I O N

A 5 . 5 V io la tin g th e m axim sA speaker can be said to ‘v io la te’ a m axim w hen they know th a t th e hea re r will not know th e tru th an d will on ly u n d e rs tan d th e surface m ean ing o f th e w ords. T hey in ten tionally generate a m islead ing im p lica tu re (T hom as 1995: 73); m ax im v io lation is unostentatiously, quietly deceiving. The speaker deliberately supplies insufficient infor­m ation, says som ething that is insincere, irrelevant o r am biguous, and the hearer wrongly assum es th a t they are coopera ting .

If a speaker violates th e m ax im o f q u a n tity , they do n o t give th e h earer enough in fo rm atio n to know w hat is be in g talked abou t, because they do n o t w an t the hearer to know th e full p ic tu re . T he speaker is n o t im ply ing any th ing ; they are ‘being eco­nom ical w ith the tru th ’. You m ay know th e Peter Sellers film in w hich the P ink P anther asks a hotel recep tion ist ab o u t a little dog beside the desk:

A Does your dog bite?

B No.A ¡Bends down to stroke it and gets bittenI Ow! You said your dog doesn't bite!B That isn't my dog.

T he recep tion ist knew th a t he was ta lk ing ab o u t th e d o g in fron t o f h e r an d n o t her dog a t h om e, yet she in ten tiona lly d id n o t give h im enough in fo rm atio n , fo r reasons best know n to herself. Let us take a n o th e r exam ple:

Husband How much did that new dress cost, darling?W ife Less than the last one.

H ere, the w ife covers up the p rice o f th e dress by n o t saying how m uch less th an her last dress.

T he wife, w hen asked ‘H ow m u ch d id th a t new dress cost, darling?’ cou ld have v io lated the m axim o f q u a lity by n o t be ing sincere, an d giving h im the w rong in fo r­m ation : ‘T hirty-five p o u n d s’. I f Sir M aurice Bowra, in th e exam ple above, knew th a t th e young m an d id n o t realise th a t he had failed th e in terview because o f h is p e rfo r­m ance, and if he knew th a t th e young m an w ould believe th a t it w as th e size o f the college th a t was w rong for h im , th en he cou ld be said to be telling a lie, because he was v io lating the m axim o f quality .

N eedless to say, n o t all v io la tions o f the m ax im o f quality are b lam ew orthy . In m any cu ltu res it is perfectly acceptable to say to a child o f five, ‘M u m m y ’s gone o n a little holiday because she needs a rest’, ra th e r th an ‘M u m m y ’s g o n e away to decide w hether she w ants a d ivorce o r n o t.’ A lie th a t p ro tec ts is a lie w ith good in ten tions, w hat we call a w hite lie. I f Sir M aurice knew th a t th e young m an d id n o t realise th a t he h ad failed th e in terview , a n d th a t he w ou ld be devastated to be to ld tha t, th en he is telling a w hite lie, an d covering up th e tru th to be kind.

In answ er to ‘H ow m uch d id th a t new dress cost, darling?’ th e wife cou ld have answ ered vio lating th e m ax im o f re la tio n , in o rd e r to d is trac t h im and change the topic: ‘I know , le t’s go o u t to n igh t. N ow , w here w ou ld you like to go?’ She cou ld have v io lated the m axim o f m a n n e r , an d said, ‘A tiny fraction o f m y salary, th o u g h p ro b ­ably a bigger fraction o f th e salary o f th e w om an th a t sold it to m e’, in th e h o p e th a t th a t cou ld be taken as an answ er an d th e m a tte r could be d ro p p ed . In th e sheltered

Page 54: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

41.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

53

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 41

h o m e exam ple, th e o ld lady answ ers the in terv iew er’s question in a way th a t co u ld be said to be v io lating the m axim o f m an n er , in tha t she says everything except w hat the in terv iew er w an ts to know :

X W hat would the other people say?

Y Ah well I don't know. I w ouldn't like to repeat it because I don't really believe half

of what they are saying. They just get a fixed thing into their mind.

H er ‘h a lf o f w hat they a re saying’ is an obscure reference to th e o th e r peop le ’s o p in ­ion , an d ‘a fixed th in g ’ co n ta in s a general n o u n co n ta in in g vague reference. She m ay be using these expressions to avoid giving a b rie f and o rderly answ er, fo r th e m o m en t.

O th e r fo rm s o f non-observance o f m axim sG rice listed tw o o th e r ways to fail to fulfil a m axim : to in fringe it an d to o p t o u t. A speaker in fring ing a m ax im o r o p tin g o u t o f a m ax im is n o t im ply ing so m eth in g differen t from th e w ords o r being in ten tiona lly m isleading.

A speaker in fring ing a m axim fails to observe a m axim because o f th e ir im p e r­fect linguistic perfo rm ance. T his can h ap p en if the speaker has an im perfect co m m an d o f th e language (a ch ild o r a foreign lea rn e r), if th e ir p e rfo rm ance is im paired (n e r­vousness, d ru n k en n ess, excitem en t), if they have a cognitive im p a irm en t, o r if they are sim ply incapable o f speaking clearly (T hom as 1995: 74). For exam ple, th e re was an ad vertisem en t o n B ritish television a b o u t a w o m an w aiting fo r h e r boyfriend W ain to find a w ay o f p ro p o sin g to her. H e w as so to n g u e-tied th a t she gave up w aiting for h im to ask her to m arry h im , desperately exclaim ing, ‘O h W ain!’ Sim ilarly, som e w ritin g seem s to observe th e m axim s b u t th e ir u n fo rtu n a te choice o f w ords creates u n in ten tio n a l am biguity . T o use a new spaper quote:

Bush, himself a form er director o f the CIA, said Gates would not routinely attend Cabinet m eetings bu t w ould take part in sessions where intelligence was necessary for m ak­

ing decisions.(Lederer 1987: 77)

A speaker o p tin g o u t o f a m axim ind icates an unw illingness to coopera te , a lthough th ey d o n o t w an t to appear uncoopera tive . They can n o t reply in the w ay expected, som etim es for legal o r eth ical reasons, an d they say so (e.g. ‘I’m afraid I can ’t give you th a t in fo rm a tio n ’). Exam ples a re a p riest o r counse llo r refusing to repeat in fo rm a tio n g iven in confidence, an d a police officer refusing to release th e nam e o f an acciden t v ic tim un til th e relatives have been in fo rm ed (T hom as 1995: 74—5).

A 5 . 6

L im ita tio n s o f th e co o p era tive p rinc ip leA m ajo r ob jec tion th a t one m ay have to G rice’s m odel is th a t d ifferen t cu ltu res, co u n trie s an d co m m u n ities have th e ir ow n ways o f observing a n d expressing m axim s for particular situations. Let us exam ine th is w ith som e cross-cultural examples o f m axim observance. In B ritain it is n o t acceptable to say, ‘W e’ll call you in ab o u t tw o w eeks’ a n d then no t call, as th is w ould be considered a v io lation o f the m axim o f quality , w hereas in som e co u n trie s th is is qu ite a n o rm al w ay o f flou ting th e m axim a n d say­ing ‘W e’re n o t in te rested .’

A 5 . 7

Page 55: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

42.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

54

T he m ax im o f q u an tity is a n o th e r th a t separates cu ltu res. In B rita in , to talk o f a fam ily m em b er always giving th em the label o f th e rela tionsh ip , as in ‘M y nephew Paul cam e ro u n d last n ig h t’, is th o u g h t to be unnecessary a n d an o p tin g o u t o f the m axim . In o th e r cu ltu res th is is a ro u tin e fo rm o f reference. In th e U n ited States, th e question ‘H ow are you?’ expects th e answ er ‘F ine’; any in te rlo cu to r th a t launches in to a full descrip tion o f th e ir sta te o f health w ould again be th o u g h t to be v iolating th e m ax im o f quan tity . O n th e o th e r han d , in o th e r cu ltu res, ‘H o w are you?’ is a genu ine request a fter th e sta te o f health an d expects a full report. T he w hole m atte r o f conversa tional im p lica tu re in requests an d suggestions m ay ju s t be a very British th ing . In th e U n ited States, in stead o f saying ‘D o you find it’s ge tting a b it chilly in here?’ an d flou ting the m ax im s o f q u an tity and m an n er, peop le ten d to com e stra igh t to th e p o in t and say, ‘I’m cold. Is it OK if I p u t th e fire on?’ T h is is related to th e m a tte r o f politeness an d cu ltu ra l conven tions. Politeness is th e top ic o f U nits A6 to D6.

T he second p rob lem w ith th e cooperative p rincip le is th a t th e re is often an over­lap betw een th e fou r m axim s. It can be d ifficult to say w hich one is o p era ting an d it w ou ld be m ore precise to say th a t th e re are tw o o r m ore o p era ting at once. T ake for exam ple th e following:

A W hat did you have to eat?B Oh, something masquerading as chicken chasseur.

H ere, B is flou ting th e m ax im o f quality by saying th a t his food w as p re ten d in g to be som eth ing , and th u s im ply ing th a t it w as n o t ‘chicken chasseur’. H ow ever, it could also be said th a t he is flou ting th e m axim o f m an n e r because he does n o t say exactly w hat th e ‘so m eth in g ’ was, o r looked like it was. T hen again , he cou ld also be flou ting th e m ax im o f q u an tity because he does n o t give enough in fo rm a tio n to iden tify w hat he ate. In fact, all these m axim s a re o p era ting together here . W h a t he is n o t flou ting is th e m axim o f re la tion , since his answ er is relevant to th e question .

In th e nex t exam ple, th e m ean ing lies in a flou ting o f th e m ax im s o f bo th q u an tity an d m an n er. A w om an (we will call h e r Pat) te lep h o n ed a fem ale friend (M elanie), w hose boyfriend (Phil) was staying fo r th e w eekend, an d p a rt o f th e c o n ­versation ran like this:

Pat How's it going w ith Phil?

M elanie One of us thinks it ’s OK.

M elanie in ten d ed Pat to infer th a t Phil was satisfied b u t th a t she h erse lf w as no t. The expression ‘O n e o f u s’ carried little explicit in fo rm a tio n and it w as am biguous, b u t Pat assum ed th a t it w as relevant to h e r question , an d u n d ers to o d th a t M elanie was flou ting m axim s so th a t Phil, w ho m ust have been w ith in earsho t, w ould n o t know th a t he was th e top ic o f conversation .

Sperber and W ilson (1995) say th a t all m axim s can be reduced to th e m axim o f rela tion , since relevance is a na tu ra l featu re o f all exchanges in w hich speakers have th e aim o f achieving successful co m m u n ica tio n . T he m ax im o f qu an tity can be expressed as ‘give th e righ t a m o u n t o f relevan t in fo rm a tio n ’, th e m axim o f quality can be stated as ‘give sincere re levan t in fo rm a tio n ’, an d th e m ax im o f m an n e r ‘give

Page 56: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

43.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

55

THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 43

u n am b ig u o u s relevant in fo rm a tio n ’. W e assum e th a t every th ing we read a n d hear co n ta in s u tterances th a t m ake sense, an d th a t they are relevant to each o th e r an d form a co h eren t w hole. Sperber an d W ilson say th a t th e p rinc ip le o f relevance applies w ith ­o u t exceptions, so th a t it is n o t a q u estio n o f co m m u n ica to rs follow ing, v io lating o r flou ting th e princip le .

R elevance th eo ryS perber and W ilson p ropose relevance theo ry an d say th a t conversational im plica- tu re is u n d e rs to o d by hearers sim ply by selecting th e relevant features o f con tex t, and recognising w hatever speakers say as relevan t to th e conversation . W h en hearers and readers m ake sense o f a text, they in terp re t the connections betw een utterances as m ean ­ingful, m aking inferences by draw ing on their ow n background know ledge o f the w orld. T hey say tha t the purpose o f com m unication is no t to ‘duplicate thoughts’ bu t to ‘enlarge m u tu a l cognitive en v iro n m en ts’ (1995: 193).

T he degree o f relevance is governed by c o n te x tu a l effects, and p ro c e ss in g effo rt. C on tex tua l effects inc lude such th ings as add ing new in fo rm a tio n , stren g th en in g o r co n trad ic tin g an existing a ssu m p tio n , o r w eakening o ld in fo rm atio n . T he m o re c o n ­tex tua l effects, th e g reater th e relevance o f a p a rticu la r fact. A new fact unco n n ec ted to any th ing already know n is n o t w o rth processing, w hereas a new fact taken w ith so m eth in g already know n is w o rth processing.

As far as th e processing effort is concerned , th e th eo ry says th a t the less effort it takes to recover a fact, th e g rea ter the relevance. T he speaker assum es w hich facts are accessible fo r the heare r a n d speaks in such a w ay th a t th e hea re r can m ake the co rrec t inferences w ith o u t to o m u ch effort. T he con tex t for the in te rp re ta tio n o f an u tte ran ce is chosen by th e hearer, an d th e speaker assum es th a t the facts are relatively accessible fo r th e hearer. T he hea re r in te rp re ts w hat is said by find ing an accessible co n tex t th a t p roduces ‘th e m ax im u m a m o u n t o f new in fo rm a tio n w ith th e m in im u m a m o u n t o f p rocessing effo rt’ (T rask 1999: 58).

T o understand an u tterance is to p rove its relevance, and proving relevance is de te r­m in ed by th e access ib ility o f its relevance to th e addressee. T ake a look a t th e next exam ple, adap ted from G ru n d y ’s (2000) data:

A 5 .S

A Well there's a shuttle service sixty pounds one way. When do you want to go?

B A t the weekend.

A W hat weekend?B Next weekend. How does that work? You just turn up for the shuttle service?A That m ight be cheaper. Then that's fifty.

(Grundy 2000)

H ere, B assum es th a t A will know th a t ‘A t th e w eekend’ m eans ‘N ext w eekend’. A m ay know th a t th a t is w hat he m eans, b u t she needs to be sure, since she is ab o u t to sell an a ir ticket. A ’s answ er ‘T h a t m igh t be cheaper. T hen th a t’s fifty’ is n o t a full answ er; a m o re explicit answ er w ou ld have been , ‘If you buy the sh u ttle now , you have a seat booked , and it’s £60. I f you ju s t tu rn u p on the day to bu y th e ticket, it’s £50.’ A assum es th a t B can infer all o f th is an d fill in th e m issing w ords.

Page 57: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

44.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

56

44 I N T R O D U C T I O N

T his filling in th e m issing w ords, e labora ting o r ‘en rich ing the p ropositiona l fo rm ’ is w hat Sperber and W ilson call ex p lic a tu re and they say th a t th is is a neces­sary stage befo re im plicature . T hey say th a t th e exp licature o f an u tte ran ce consists o f th e p ro p o s itio n s th a t a re explicitly com m u n ica ted by th e speaker, an d th a t som e o f th is has to be in ferred by re levance-driven processes. It is usually th e contex t, o r cog­nitive en v iro n m en t, th a t stops w hat we say being am b iguous and th a t helps th e hearer fill in any incom ple te parts o f the u tte rance o r u n d e rs tan d the co n n ec tio n betw een u tterances, an d thus in fer the m ean ing im plied . S perber an d W ilson say th a t n o th ing is am b iguous, taken in its p ro p e r cognitive en v ironm en t.

A 5 . 9 L im ita tio n s o f re levance th eo ryR elevance theo ry too has its lim ita tions, how ever. As M ey (1994: 81) says, th e fact th a t S perber an d W ilson feel th a t th e ir p rinc ip le accoun ts for all G rice’s m axim s, and th a t it is w ith o u t exception an d irrefu tab le m eans th a t the n o tio n o f relevance is so encom passing th a t it loses its exp lana to ry force. In fact, it cou ld b e said th a t every­th ing im plies som eth ing th a t is n o t said, since every u tte rance d epends o n associ­a tions an d back g ro u n d know ledge. Even ‘W h a t’s th e tim e?’ w hich m ay m ean ‘D o n ’t you th in k we sho u ld be getting ready to go now ?’, ‘Y ou’re b o rin g m e’ o r any th ing at all accord ing to th e con tex t. O n the o th e r h an d , som e linguists feel th a t it is p re ­cisely th e streng th o f relevance theory th a t does accoun t fo r the general in d e te rm i­nacy o f language.

A no ther lim ita tio n o f relevance theo ry is th a t it says n o th in g ab o u t in te rac tion an d does n o t inc lude cu ltu ra l o r social d im ensions, such as age, gender, sta tus and nationality . A n ob jec tion th a t o n e m ay have to S perber and W ilso n ’s m odel, as w ith G rice’s coopera tive p rincip le m odel, is th a t d ifferen t cu ltu res, co u n trie s and c o m m u ­nities have th e ir ow n ways o f observ ing and expressing m axim s.

A 6 .1

P O L IT E N E S S

U n d ers tan d in g concepts

□ negative politeness□ positive politeness□ m axim s o f politeness

A 6 . 2 In tro d u ctio nIn pragm atics, w hen we talk o f ‘politeness’, we do not refer to the social rules o f behaviour such as le tting people go first th ro u g h a d o o r, o r w ip ing y o u r m o u th o n the serviette ra th e r than o n the back o f yo u r hand . T he follow ing anecdo te is an exam ple o f the po liteness th a t we are ta lk ing abou t:

D uring her successful General Election cam paign in 1979, M argaret T hatcher un d er­

took various photo opportun ities to em phasise how in touch she was w ith ordinary people. On one occasion, she was photographed standing on the back o f a p latform

Page 58: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

45.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

57

P O L I T E N E S S 45

bus*. As this was taking some time, she said, ‘I’m beginning to feel like a clippie*’* . . . ’

And then, observers recall, you see the realisation in her eyes that she m ight have said som ething patronising, so she added, ‘. . . who are all doing a wonderful jo b .’

(BBC Radio Q uote. . . Unquote, 1979)* a double-decker bus which has an open entrance at the back

** a bus conductor, who sells and clips tickets

W e refer to th e choices th a t a re m ade in language use, th e linguistic expressions th a t give people space and show a friendly a ttitude to them . This anecdote shows how im port­a n t it is to be seen to show a friendly a ttitu d e , if one w ants to save face an d be ap p re ­c ia ted in re tu rn .

P oliteness and faceB row n an d Levinson (1987) analysed politeness, an d said th a t in o rd e r to en te r in to social re la tionsh ips, we have to acknow ledge an d show an aw areness o f the face, the pub lic self-im age, th e sense o f self, o f th e people th a t we address. T hey said th a t it is a universal characteristic across cultures tha t speakers should respect each o thers’ expecta­tio n s regard ing self-im age, take accoun t o f th e ir feelings, an d avoid face th rea ten in g acts (FTAs). W hen FTAs are unavo idab le , speakers can redress th e th rea t w ith n eg a ­tiv e p o liten e ss (w hich does not m ean being im polite!) th a t respects the h ea re r’s n eg a ­tiv e face, th e need to be in d ependen t, have freedom o f ac tion , an d n o t be im posed o n by o thers. O r they can redress th e FTA w ith p o sitiv e p o liten ess , th a t a tten d s the p o sitiv e face, the need to be accepted a n d liked by o thers, trea ted as a m em b er o f the g ro u p , an d to know o n e ’s w ants are shared by o thers.

T here are m any ways o f achieving o n e ’s goals an d show ing an aw areness o f face. Let us im agine th a t you are in a resource cen tre try ing to find a particu la r w ebsite, b u t since you are having n o luck, you w ou ld like o n e o f yo u r fellow s tu d en ts to help you . I f you w an t to ‘avoid an FTA’, you can avoid saying any th ing at all. Y ou can ju s t show to those a ro u n d you th a t you a re hav ing difficulty, by sighing loudly an d shak ­ing y o u r head , and m aybe som eone will no tice an d ask if you need help .

A 6 . 3

O ff recordO n th e o th e r han d , you can say som eth ing . You are then faced w ith a choice: to do th e FTA o n reco rd o r o ff record . I f you do it o f f re co rd , you ask fo r help indirectly, a n d say, in a voice loud enough fo r y o u r ne ighbours to hear, so m eth in g like, ‘I w o n d e r w here on earth th a t w ebsite is. I w ish I cou ld rem em b er th e add ress .’ T his p a rticu la r o ff-reco rd com m un icative act is an ind irec t speech act (see U n it A3 Speech acts) in w hich you are using a declarative rep resen ta tive func tion ing as a qu estio n ‘to y ou rse lf’, th a t also needs the hearers to in te rp re t it as a directive, a request fo r help, as in ‘H elp m e find w here o n earth th a t w ebsite is.’ T his o ff-reco rd co m m un ica tive act also constitu tes a flou ting o f the m ax im o f q u an tity (see U n it A5 th e coopera tive p rinc ip le ), if you consider th a t y o u r n o t saying openly th a t you need help m eans tha t you are n o t appearing to m ake y o u r co n tr ib u tio n as in fo rm ative as possible. It is o ff reco rd , because if challenged to say th a t you w ere asking fo r he lp find ing th e w ebsite, you cou ld in th eo ry deny th a t you were.

Page 59: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

46.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

58

Indirectness in the form o f indirect speech acts and m axim flouting allows a speaker to m ake suggestions, requests, offers o r inv ita tions qu ite casually, w ith o u t addressingthem to anyone in particu la r, therefore . T he illocu tionary force will m o s t likely beu n d e rs to o d by hearers, b u t th ey can choose to ignore it.

Ind irec tness also enables speakers to address p a rticu la r peop le b u t be po lite by giving them o p tio n s and re trea tin g b eh in d the literal m ean ing o f th e w ords. Y ou m ay recall th e exam ple o f a flou ting o f the m ax im o f q u an tity th a t we saw in U n it A5, in w hich B was th rea ten in g A’s face and passing negative ju d g em en t o n h is clothes:

A Well, how do I look?

B Your sh o es are nice . . .

A speaker can also be po lite o ff record by flou ting th e coopera tive m ax im o f relation a n d d ro p p in g a h in t, as in ‘In te resting book . P ity I d o n ’t have $30 on m e’, o r flou t­ing th e m ax im o f quality an d p re ten d in g to ask a q u estion , as in ‘W hy does no one ever th ro w o u t the rubb ish in th is house?’, o r flou ting the m ax im o f m an n e r by being obscu re and am biguous, as in ‘Looks like som eone had a good tim e last n igh t.’ H earers usually k now w hat is im plied , b u t they have th e freedom to respond to it o r ignore it, w ith o u t losing face. In th is sense, th e speaker is show ing a great aw areness o f face an d n o t im posing m u ch at all.

On record - baldlyBack in the resource cen tre w ith you r co m p u te r, you could tu rn to y o u r ne ig h b o u r an d say, ‘M ark, tell m e the address fo r th a t w ebsite they w ere ta lk ing ab o u t th is m o rn ­ing’, an d then he has to tell you , unless he w ants to be rude o r actually does n o t know th e address. If a speaker m akes a suggestion , request, offer, o r in v ita tio n in an open an d d irec t way, we say th a t they are d o ing an FTA b a ld o n rec o rd . T hese are d irect speech acts; such u tterances tend to co n ta in th e im perative w ith n o m itigating devices, as in ‘T his d o o r h an d le ’s falling off. Fix it’ o r ‘Give th a t n o te to m e’, w hich leave th e hearers little o p tio n b u t d o as they are to ld o r be seen as uncoopera tive . For th is reason , th is is th e m ost face-th rea ten ing m o d e o f action .

O n the o th e r h an d , som etim es b a ld -o n -reco rd events can actually be o rien ted to saving th e hearer’s face. In ‘H ave an o th e r b iscu it’ o r ‘M arry m e’, the risk th a t th e hearer m ay no t wish to be im posed u p o n is small, and the FTA is qu ite pleasant. T he directness also m akes the hearer less re luctan t to th rea ten th e speaker’s face by im ping ing th rough accepting: they are unlikely to say ‘N o, I can ’t possibly deprive you o f an o th e r b iscu it’ o r ‘N o, I really sh o u ld n ’t occupy y o u r life like th a t .’ For th is reason , th e firm er the inv ita tion , th e m o re po lite it is (B row n an d Levinson 1987). Besides, d irectness o ften ind icates a wish to be seen as socially close, as we shall see la te r in th is un it.

M ost o f th e tim e, how ever, speakers d o FTAs o n reco rd tak ing accoun t o f face, w ith ‘face-m anagem ent’. T hey can do th is on record , w ith redressive action , using neg­ative po liteness o r positive politeness.

On record - w ith negative politenessN egative p o liten ess s tra teg ie s pay a tten tio n to negative face, by d em o n s tra tin g the d istance betw een in te rlo cu to rs , an d avoiding in tru d in g o n each o th e r’s te rrito ry . Speakers use th em to avoid im posing o r p resum ing , an d to give th e hearer op tions.

Page 60: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

47.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

59

Speakers can avoid im posing by em phasising the im portance o f the o th e r’s tim e a n d concerns, u sing apology and hesita tion , o r a question giving th em th e o p p o r tu n ­ity to say no. In y o u r resource cen tre , y o u co u ld have asked fo r he lp w ith th e w ebsite by saying to M ark, ‘I d o n ’t w an t to be nu isance, b u t could you possib ly tell m e th e address for tha t w ebsite they w ere ta lk ing ab o u t this m orn ing?’ H ere are som e m ore exam ples. N o te th a t th e politeness is q u ite form ulaic:

N o I’m sorry bu t you can’t have the cars and bikes ou t because it’s tea-tim e and you’re going hom e for your tea

(BNC: kb8 Anne2, 1992)

Sorry to bother you. I couldn't borrow S30, could I, if you don't need it right now?

Feel free to come to the party if you have got the time.

N o te th a t in th e last tw o exam ples, th e speaker gives the hearer the o p tio n to refuse the request for m oney an d tu rn dow n the inv ita tion to the party w ith o u t losing face, by ‘hand ing them an excuse on a p late’: they needed the m oney and they d id no t have tim e.

T he ex ten t o f th e op tion -g iv ing influences the degree o f politeness. In m an y cases, the g rea ter chance tha t the speaker offers th e hearer to say ‘n o ’, the m ore po lite it is. T h u s in th e follow ing exam ples, (1) is m o re po lite than (2):

1 I c o u ld n ’t bo rrow $30, cou ld I, if you d o n ’t need it righ t now?2 C ou ld I b o rro w $30?

In (1) th e speaker’s negative question ‘I c o u ld n ’t b o rro w $30 cou ld I’, w hich seem s to an tic ip a te a refusal, follows th e negative po liteness strategy th a t B row n an d L evinson call ‘be pessim istic’.

Speakers can m in im ise th e im p o sitio n by m ak ing it seem sm aller th an it is, o r by ad d in g devices such as hedges th a t m itiga te th e im position , such as ‘if possib le’, ‘sort o f ’, ‘in a w ay’, ‘I w o n d er’, as in:

I sort of think that Fran is a bit of a mean person.

W ould you mind moving just slightly? I can't see the screen very clearly.

Er, I think you may be late if you don't go now.

T hey can also em phasise the d is tance betw een in te rlo cu to rs by im personalis ing , s ta t­ing th e im p osition as a general ru le, o r nom inalising :

The aim is not to - no t to gain weight, and, the contro l has been lost when - when

it’s necessary to binge.(BNC: fl6 Eating Disorders: Television Discussion, date unknow n)

Pre-sequences can also be used w ith a negative-face-saving function. As you m ay rem em ­b er, in U n it A4 C onversa tion , there w as th is instance o f a p re-inv ita tion :

A You know that French film that's on in the Odeon?

B Yes?A Do you want to go and see it tonight?B Yeah, w hy not?

Page 61: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

48.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

60

48 I N T R O D U C T I O N

H ere, A gives B space, in th a t she gives h im tim e to p red ic t w hat speech act is c o m ­ing an d stall it if he w ishes.

On record - w ith positive politenessP ositive p o liten e ss s tra teg ie s aim to save positive face, by d em o n s tra tin g closeness and solidarity , appealing to friendsh ip , m aking o th e r people feel good , an d em p h as­ising that b o th speakers have a co m m o n goal. Asking ab o u t th e website, in the resource cen tre , w ith o n -reco rd positive politeness w ou ld m ean em phasising th e s tren g th en ­ing o f friendsh ip an d closeness: ‘M arky, y o u ’re c o m p u te r w h iz-k id — I’d really ap p re ­ciate it if you’d tell m e the address for th a t w ebsite they were talking abou t this m orn ing .’

B row n and Levinson (1987) say th a t one o f the m ain types o f positive po liteness strategy is claim ing co m m o n g round . Speakers can d o th is by a tten d in g to the h ea re r’s in terests, w an ts an d needs. T he inv ita tion to th e p arty th a t we saw in the d iscussion above o n negative politeness can be re -ph rased to show positive po liteness thus

I know you hate parties, Jen, but come anyway. W e'll all be there, and it'll be cool

seeing if A lly is w ith Andrea! Come on - get a life!

T his exam ple co n ta in s m any so lidarity strategies - know ledge o f personal in fo rm a­tion, nicknam es, shared dialect and slang, and gossip. The inviter claims com m on g round by inc lud ing h e r in a co m m o n activity, exaggerating th e in terest p red ic tin g th a t the party will be ‘coo l’ and by using in -g ro u p iden tity m arkers: h e r fam iliar n icknam e ‘Jen’ a n d young peop le’s in -g ro u p slang ‘coo l’ an d ‘get a life’. T he gossip ab o u t Ally and A ndrea asserts co m m o n g ro u n d : th e inv iter is saying, ‘I know th a t y o u know ab o u t them , ju s t like w e d o .’ In ad d itio n , th e speaker here is op tim istic th a t th e hea re r will accept th e inv ita tion .

A co m m o n positive politeness strategy is th a t o f seeking ag reem en t an d avoiding d isagreem en t. O n e w ay o f avo id ing d isag reem en t is to use a p seudo -ag reem en t as in:

Jean Don’t wash them and put them on the rack.

Raym ond But all //Jean // Get the dryer, dry them, do the tops, and then it's all done.Raym ond Yes - yes but if you do that, your - your - your tea-towel's soaking, and at

the end of the night, nothing's getting dried.(BNC: kdn Raymond2, 1992)

T he speaker can also show th a t hea re r an d speaker are ‘co o p era to rs’, by offering and p rom ising , an d assum ing reciprocity , as in The Love o f a King:

I will always do w hat you ask, bu t I’ll never stop loving you. And if you need me, I’ll always be here.

(Barnes and D ainty 1989)

Relationship w ith the cooperative principleT he po liteness strategies som etim es conflic t w ith th e cooperative p rincip le . Speakers can v io late cooperative m ax im s if they w an t to show positive politeness. W itness:

Page 62: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

49.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

61

P O L I T E N E S S 49

A How do I look?

B Good! (Thinks: 'Awful.')

in w hich B prefers to tell a w h ite lie an d v io late th e m axim o f quality , th an o ffend A w ith th e tru th . Speakers m ay also choose to o p t o u t o f cooperative m axim s to show negative politeness. In th e nex t exam ple, th e speaker op ts o u t o f the m ax im o f q u a n ­tity (giving m ore in fo rm a tio n th an is req u ired ), m aking a po lite request to strangers:

I'm terribly sorry to bother you but I couldn't help noticing that you seemed to have a copy of the programme, and I wondered whether you w ouldn't mind me just having a look for a m oment - I'd give it straight back to you.

P o liteness m axim sA ccording to Leech (1983), there is a po liteness princip le w ith conversational m axim s. H e lists six m axim s: tact, generosity , a p p ro b a tio n , m odesty , ag reem ent a n d sym ­pathy . T he first an d second form a pair, as do the th ird an d fourth .

Let us s ta rt w ith the m axim s o f tac t an d generosity . T he ta c t m axim (‘p erhaps the m ost im p o rtan t kind o f politeness in English-speaking society’, Leech 1983: 107) focuses o n th e hearer, and says ‘m in im ise cost to o th e r’ and ‘m axim ise benefit to o th e r’. T he first p art o f this m ax im fits in w ith B row n an d L evinson’s negative politeness s tra t­egy o f m in im ising the im position , an d th e second p art reflects the positive po liteness stra tegy o f a tten d in g to th e hea re r’s in terests, w an ts an d needs:

‘C ould you I in te rrup t you for ha lf a second - w hat was that website address?’‘If I could just clarify this then .’

‘W ould you like a birdtable com m em orating your contribution to this historic bridge?’(BNC: g2r, date unknow n)

T he paradox is th a t if th e hearer is to accep t th e offer o f the b ird tab le , they are deprived o f th e possib ility o f ‘m in im is ing cost to o th e r’. I f they b o th try to be po lite a t once, in th is sense, they will reach a stalem ate. T he m axim o f g en ero s ity , is the flip-side o f th e tac t m axim since it focuses on th e speaker, an d says ‘m in im ise benefit to se lf’ an d ‘m axim ise cost to se lf’. T his is p resen t in:

‘C ould I copy dow n the website address?’

‘You relax and let m e do the dishes.’

‘I’m sorry bu t I’ll just have to lift you in then , one, two, three up he goes, ooh!’(BNC: KB8 Anne2)

Let u s m ove on to the second pair: ap p ro b a tio n (o ther) and m odesty (self). T he m axim o f a p p ro b a tio n says ‘m in im ise d ispraise o f o th e r ’ an d ‘m axim ise praise o f o th e r ’. T he first p a rt o f the m ax im is som ew hat sim ilar to th e po liteness stra tegy o f avo id ing d is­ag reem ent. T he second p art fits in w ith the positive politeness strategy o f m ak ing o th e r peop le feel good by show ing solidarity . W e have:

'Mark, you're very efficient and make notes of everything - you must have a copy of that website address we were given today.''I heard you singing at the karaoke last night. It was, um . . . different.'

A 6 . 4

Page 63: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

50.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

62

You m ay rem em b er Sir M aurice Bew ra’s co m m en t to the young m an applying to his college (see U n it A5 T he coopera tive p rincip le); he avoided telling h im th a t he was no good by reducing h is d ispraise to an abso lu te m in im u m , w ith T th in k you w ould be h ap p ie r in a larger - o r a sm aller — college.’

T he m o d e s ty m axim , o n th e o th e r h an d , says ‘m in im ise p ra ise o f self’ an d ‘m ax ­im ise d ispraise o f self’.

‘Oh, I'm so stupid - I d idn 't make a note of that website address! Did you?'

‘I d o n ’t dislike going to the dentist, bu t, bu t I’m terrible with dentists, hairdressers,

and all these things, though, I w ork quite hard , I never really sort o f . . . . ’(BNC: kcb Graem e, 1992)

M odesty is possibly a m ore com plex m axim than the o thers, since th e m axim o f quality can som etim es be v io lated in observ ing it. C u ttin g (1998) fo u n d th a t in conferences, m em bers o f th e audience preface th e ir questions to the speaker w ith se lf-deprecating expressions such as:

'A very obvious question from a non-specialist. . .''There is an idiot question I want to ask you . . . ''Urn, I don't know much about this area but I think t h a t . . . '

A lthough on th e surface, th e q uestioners seem to be saving the ir ow n face, they are also saving the face o f th e speaker by reducing th e th rea t o f th e ir question . T he fo l­low ing story fro m George illustrates well how exaggerated m odesty can be a c o u n te r­balance to exaggerated praise.

In the 1930’s, a critic described the actor Robert D onat as a ‘half-G reek god who had

winged his way from O lym pus’. D onat’s response was to sigh, ‘Actually, I’m a half­Pole w ho’s winged his way from W ithington, M anchester.’

(W illiams 1973)

T he last tw o m ax im s d o n o t fo rm a p a ir an d Leech gives th em less im p o rtan ce th an th e o thers. T he m ax im o f a g re e m e n t, ‘m in im ise d isag reem en t betw een self an d o th e r’ an d ‘m axim ise agreem en t betw een self an d o th e r’, is in line w ith B row n and L evinson’s positive po liteness strategies o f ‘seek ag reem en t’ a n d ‘avo id d isag reem en t’, to w hich they a ttach great im portance . W e saw an exam ple o f th is above in:

Raym ond Yes - yes but if you do that, your - your - your tea-towel's soaking, and at

the end of the night, nothing's getting dried.

T he sy m p a th y m ax im — ‘m in im ise an tip a th y betw een self an d o th e r’ and ‘m axim ise sym pathy betw een self and o th e r’ includes such polite speech acts as congratu late , co m ­m iserate an d express condolences, as in , ‘I was so rry to h ear ab o u t y o u r fa ther.’ T his sm all g ro u p o f speech acts is a lready taken care o f in B row n an d L evinson’s positive po liteness strategy o f a tten d in g to th e hea re r’s in terests, w an ts an d needs. N o te th a t th e speaker does n o t say ‘I was sorry to h ear ab o u t y o u r fa ther’s death .’ Speakers often soften th e d istress an d em b arrassm en t w ith euphem ism s. W e saw a po lite euphem ism w hen we discussed m e tap h o rs flou ting th e m axim o f quality (see U n it A5 T he co­opera tive p rincip le): ‘I’m going to w ash m y h an d s’ m ean ing ‘I’m going to u rin a te .’

Page 64: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

51.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

63

P O L I T E N E S S 51

V ery close to th is is a m axim p roposed by C ruse (2000: 366): c o n s id e ra tio n , w hich is ‘m inim ise discom fort/d isp leasure o f o th e r’, and ‘m axim ise com fort/p leasure o f o th e r’. C ruse p o in ts o u t th a t th is is Leech’s Pollyanna P rincip le - ‘always look on th e b rig h t side o f life’, by so ften ing painfu l, d istressing , em barrassing , shocking events. W e are back to Brown and L evinson’s positive po liteness strategy o f m ak ing o th e r peop le feel good . An am using tale to ld by Billy C onnolly , th e Scottish ac to r an d s ta n d -u p co m e­d ian , will serve as an exam ple:

Seeking to cheer up a patient in hospital, the visitor told her: ‘You’re lucky to be in

here. It’s pelting outside.’(Rees 1999: 108)

O verlaps and gapsB row n an d Levinson differ from Leech, in th a t they are social psychologists w ho start from d a ta , an d he takes a ph ilosophical app roach sta rtin g from princip les. T h is u n it has show n, how ever, th a t there is considerable overlap betw een th e categories o f Brown an d L evinson’s m odel and th e categories o f Leech’s m odel. T here is also overlap w ith in b o th B row n and Levinson’s m odel and Leech’s: th e categories them selves are n o t m u tu ­ally exclusive.

O ne u tte ran ce can co n ta in b o th positive an d negative politeness. T he speaker in th e follow ing exam ple m ixes th e tw o q u ite successfully: ‘C ou ld you be a pal an d give m e a lift hom e? D o n ’t b o th e r if y o u ’re n o t go ing m y way.’ Sim ilarly, o n e u tte ran ce can obey tw o o r m ore m axim s. In th e follow ing, th e speaker observes b o th tac t an d generosity: ‘H ave as m an y cakes as you w an t.’

A n o th e r criticism th a t cou ld be levelled at Leech’s m odel is tha t a new m axim co u ld be added for every new situ a tio n th a t occurs. R em em ber th a t we saw th a t C ruse w an ted to ad d a consideration m axim . T here should also possibly be a p a tience m axim , w hich says ‘m in im ise th e urgency fo r o th e r ’ an d ‘m axim ise th e lack o f u rgency for o th e r’. T o give an exam ple: ‘C ould I take a qu ick look at yo u r paper? N o h u rry - w hen­ever you’re fin ished w ith it’. T here m ay be endless gaps n o t covered by th e m axim s; n o m odel can describe all h u m a n in terac tions.

A 6 . 5

Po liteness and co n tex t A 6 . 6

Form and functionPoliteness is a p ragm atic p h en o m en o n . P oliteness lies n o t in th e fo rm and th e w ords them selves, b u t in th e ir function and in ten d ed social m ean ing . In the follow ing, the fo rm is po lite b u t the in ten tio n is not:

Do me a favour - piss off. [The Older Woman: BBC Radio 4 1994)

So, if you'd be as kind as to shut up, I'd appreciate it. (Elmore: Hombre 1989)

If speakers use m o re po lite fo rm s th an th e con tex t requires, hearers m igh t suspect tha t th e re is an in ten tio n o th e r th an th a t o f redressing an FTA, as in the playw right R ichard Brinsley’s inv ita tion to a young lady (a ttr ib u ted in The Perfect Hostess 1980), ‘W o n ’t you com e in to m y garden? I w ou ld like m y roses to see y o u ’, w hich is a im ed to flatter.

Page 65: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

52.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

64

A n o th e r exam ple o f an in ap p ro p ria te use o f po lite fo rm s is th e m a n ’s request to his pet, ‘C at, I w o n d er if you co u ld possibly let m e have m y seat back?’, w hich is sim ply m ean t to en te rta in w hoever h ap p en s to be listening.

Politeness is n o t the sam e as defe rence , w hich is a po lite fo rm expressing d istance from and respect fo r peop le o f a h igher sta tus, an d does n o t usually inc lude an ele­m en t o f choice. D eference is bu ilt in to languages such as K orean a n d Japanese, and can be seen in the p ro n o u n s o f m any E u ropean languages ( tu /vo u s , tu /U sted , du/sie). It is rare to find it g ram m atica lly signalled in English, a lthough it is p resen t in hon - orifics such as ‘S ir’ an d ‘M ad am ’, an d , as th e nex t exam ple show s, they can play an im p o rta n t role:

Shortly after being m ade a Dam e o f the British Em pire, Edith Evans was appearing on the stage and heard herself addressed by a call-boy with the w ords, ‘Ten m inutes,

Miss Evans.’ She exclaimed: ‘Miss Evans! It’ll be Edie next!’(W ogan, BBC Radio: Q uote. . . Unquote 1991)

M oreover, it is possible to be deferen tia l w ith o u t be ing po lite (T hom as 1995: 153), as in th e nex t exam ple, in w hich Brian W ilson, L abour M P for C u n n in g h am N o rth , was addressing N icholas Soam es, C onservative M P fo r Craw ley, d u rin g th e ‘poll tax ’ debate

BW Does the honourable m em ber for Crawley wish to intervene?

NS No.BW The last tim e I saw a m ou th like that it had a hook in it.

(H ouse o f Com m ons: 28 M arch 1988)

Situational contextSince politeness is a p ragm atic p h e n o m en o n , it is in fluenced by elem en ts o f th e c o n ­text. T here are tw o situa tional con tex t factors th a t influence the w ay th a t we m ake a request. O n e is the size o f im p o sitio n , th e rou tiness an d reasonableness o f task, and the ru le seem s to be ‘the g rea ter the im position , the m ore ind irec t the language is’. F or exam ple, to b o rro w a large su m o f m oney , one m igh t em ploy a series o f hedges a n d o th e r negative po liteness p h en o m en a , as in , ‘I c o u ld n ’t b o rro w $30, cou ld I, if you d o n ’t need it righ t now ?’, a n d to b o rro w a sm all sum , o n e ’s request cou ld be bald o n record , as in ‘Give m e 5 cen ts .’

T he o th er factor is the form ality o f the context, and here the tendency is ‘the greater th e form ality , th e m ore ind irec t th e language is’. W hereas a s tu d en t, s itting in fo r­m ally in th e co m m o n ro o m over a coffee, m igh t stop a colleague from in te rru p tin g h e r w ith a d irect d irective bald on record , ‘H ang on - I hav en ’t fin ished!’, she w ould say to th e sam e colleague, in th e form al con tex t o f a sem inar, ‘I w o n d er if I m igh t ju s t finish w hat I’m try ing to say’, an ind irec t d irective redressing th e FTA w ith negative politeness.

Social contextT he choice o f the po liteness fo rm u la tio n depends o n th e social d is tance an d th e pow er relation betw een speakers. W hen there is social distance, politeness is encoded and there

Page 66: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

53.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

65

is m ore indirectness; w here there is less social distance, there is less negative politeness a n d indirectness. T he variables tha t d e te rm in e social d istance are degree o f fam iliarity, an d differences o f status, roles, age, gender, education , class, occupation an d ethnicity .

T he degree o f fam iliarity betw een speakers is one o f th e m ost obv ious social v ari­ables tha t affect how politeness is expressed. Speakers w ho know each o th e r well do n o t need to use fo rm ulas encod ing po liteness strategies, an d w hen they do use them , it can im ply q u ite th e opp o site o f politeness. In T h u rb e r’s sh o rt story A Couple o f H am burgers (1963), th e wife asks h e r h u sb an d to h u rry up , using form al language to express negative politeness: ‘W ill you be k ind enough to tell m e w hat tim e it is?’ an d ‘If y o u ’ll be k ind enough to speed u p a little?’ T he result o f h e r in a p p ro p ria te in d i­rec tness is sarcasm , a flou ting o f the m ax im o f quality . Sim ilarly, Basil Fawlty, in the English TV com edy series Fawlty Towers, over-applies Leech’s generosity m axim to h is w ife w ith his ‘H ave an o th e r vat o f w ine, d ea r.’ H e flouts th e m axim o f q u a lity since he is n o t o ffering h e r a vat o f w ine, b u t u sing a d irective to im ply an expressive, to d ep lo re the a m o u n t tha t she drinks.

D ifferences o f sta tus, roles, age, gender, educa tion , class, occu p a tio n a n d e th n i­city can give speakers pow er an d au tho rity . It is those o f th e low er status, th e less d o m ­in a n t role an d so o n w ho use m ore ind irec tness an d m ore negative politeness features, such as hedges an d m itiga tion , than those w ith h igher sta tus an d so o n do . E xpres­sions th a t a re ba ld o n reco rd are used by peop le w ho assum e th a t they have go t pow er. T h u s is it th a t a lecturer, because o f th e ir ro le an d sta tus, is expected to give gener­alised o rd ers w hen addressing a class o f studen ts , d irectly an d bald o n reco rd , as in th e follow ing, taken from th e tran sc rip tio n o f a sem in a r en titled ‘U sing V ideo C lips in ELT’:

Now. W hat we’re going to do is um a quick gam e o f tw enty questions: you’ll get som e points up here. N ow these people can on ly answ er Yes o r N o, so you m ust ask Yes/ No

questions. So you can’t ask a question like: ‘W hat happened?’(BASE 2000)

C onversely, a partic ipan t in a C O H SE /N A L G O /N U PE m eeting has to address the chair u sing th e negative politeness devices o f hedges and requests fo r perm iss ion to speak:

‘Erm chairm an could I ask a question in relation to that?’

(BNC: f7j business m eeting, 1992)

Cultural contextH ow ever, the re la tionsh ip betw een ind irec tness and social variables is n o t so sim ple: th e w hole issue o f po liteness and language is exceedingly cu ltu re -b o u n d . As in te r­ac tional socio linguist T an n en says, th e use o f ind irectness ‘can hard ly be u n d e rs to o d w ith o u t th e cross-cu ltu ra l perspective’ (1994: 3 2 -4 ) . In som e cu ltu res, fo r exam ple, a lec tu re r m ak ing suggestions to a s tu d en t w ou ld d o so directly , bald on record , because o f th e ir sta tus. T his explains w hy som e in te rn a tio n a l s tu d en ts in te rp re t the o p tio n -g iv in g literally, w hen faced w ith B ritish lec tu rers’ ind irec t suggestions, nega­tive po liteness hedges a n d m itiga tion , as in , ‘I th in k th is p art o f y o u r essay co u ld po s­sibly com e a little b it nea re r th e beg inn ing , if you like.’

Page 67: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

54.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

66

Travellers m ay find tha t th e B ritish p u t m o re em phasis o n negative politeness th an o th e r cu ltu res do. In C uba, fo r exam ple, friends shou ld no t show any d istance at all, an d to say ‘th an k you’ for a cup o f coffee, ‘m axim ising praise o f o th e r’, can cause offence as it appears to p u t u p barriers . T hom as (1995: 161) m en tio n s th a t C h inese hosts will choose a guest’s m en u for th em an d p u t the ‘choicest p ieces’ o n th e ir p late, to show positive politeness. H ere it seem s th a t the tact m axim ‘m axim ise benefit to o th e r’ o f positive po liteness in the C h inese m in d overrides the ‘d o n ’t im p o se’ and ‘give o thers o p tio n s’ m axim o f negative politeness.

T he use o f the m axim s o f tac t an d generosity varies greatly fro m co u n try to co u n ­try. T hom as (1995: 161) qu o tes a Japanese PhD s tu d en t w ho, on d ra fts o f h e r thesis, w ro te no tes such as, ‘T h is is a d raft o f C h ap te r 4. Please read it a n d co m m en t o n it.’ T o T hom as, th is m essage seem ed over-explicit an d actually im posing in its directives; in fact th e s tu d en t in ten d ed to acknow ledge how m uch w ork she w as asking h e r to d o an d was go ing o n reco rd w ith the degree o f her indebtedness. She was n o t observ ­ing the tact m ax im o f ‘m in im ise cost to o th e r’ b u t observing the sym pathy m axim o f ‘m axim ise sym pathy betw een self a n d o th e r’.

T he use o f th e m axim s o f ap p ro b a tio n an d m odesty are also deeply roo ted in cu l­ture. T he British reject praise in the form o f a personal com p lim en t, ‘m in im ising praise o f self, w hereas the Japanese accept a co m p lim en t graciously. C ubans respond to a personal com p lim en t ab o u t an article o f c lo th ing o r an accessory w ith ‘Es tuyo ’ (‘It’s yours w henever you w an t it’), a fo rm ula w hich appears to observe the tac t m axim ‘m axim ise benefit to o th e r’. S im ilarly, in som e W estern cu ltu res, refusals d em an d a specific excuse, if speakers are to avoid th rea ten ing positive face an d ‘m in im ise d is­praise o f o th e r’, w hereas in o th e r cu ltu res, th is is n o t necessary. A p p ro b a tio n in the fo rm o f positive feedback from a teacher to a s tu d en t in a B ritish lecture , ‘m ax im is­ing praise o f o th e r’, is q u ite an acceptable teach ing tech n iq u e in B rita in , b u t a study carried o u t on C hinese s tu d en ts in the U niversity o f D undee (C atterick 2001) show ed th a t they felt th a t th e ir face w as th rea ten ed by being praised by th e teacher in fro n t o f everyone. O n th e o th e r h an d , B ritish lecturers are u n u sed to being praised by the ir s tuden ts , w hereas for the C hinese, th is is a s tan d a rd po liteness ro u tin e .

T his u n it in tro d u ces th e last them e in th is book . As you will have seen, politeness is re lated to th e contex t, th e language used, th e speech acts, th e s tru c tu re o f th e co n ­versation an d th e p rincip le o f coopera tion . Politeness is a basic fo rm o f co o p era tio n an d it underlies all language in som e way o r ano ther.

Page 68: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

55.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

67

Page 69: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

56.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

68

18 DM No,

19 AF Is it still not there? (2) Oh M M ! 1 (0.5) brought the what w hat’s a20 name back.21 MM Yeah. Tell you w hat ((unintelligible)).22 DM How are you?

23 BM All right.

24 DM 1 haven't seen you very much.

25 BM No 1 haven't seen you very much.26 DM W e must not fit at all.27 BM You do you do language planning don't you.28 DM Yeah. I've stopped doing that though.29 BM Are you er (0.5) are going to do what you thought you'd do about30 your project.31 DM I'm going to give out a questionnaire. And I'll give you one as well.32 Sometime this week 1 hope t- tom orrow I'll get them all done.33 AF W hat your core project?34 DM Yeah. (0.5)

35 CM Did he like did he like the idea?36 DM Well you know w hat he's like. It's difficult to tell isn't it? Yeah. He said37 it w asn 't terrible anyway. He said go ahead so (0.5) I’m going to go38 ahead.39 CM Yeah he said this isn't terrible?40 DM No no he didn’t te ll me that. / / (heh heh)

(Students on questionnaire 1996)

Text analysis

How are th ings going?

T his conversa tion has all th e signs o f an exchange betw een peop le w ho know each o th e r well. T hey are jok ing an d teasing, an d th e ir language is in form al: they om it the beg inn ing o f th e ir sentences (‘N o t used to th a t are you?’ a n d ‘A nyone go t th e key to the p h o tocop ie r? ’). T he m ost obv ious sign is th e h igh density o f u tte ran ces assum ing in terpersonal know ledge.

Let us s ta rt by analysing th e s i tu a tio n a l co n tex t. W e can see tw o exam ples o f reference to it.

□ T he first is in lines 1-7 . AF’s ‘G od it’s h o t in h ere ’ has place deix is in th e fo rm o f a dem onstrative adverb ‘h ere ’ p o in ting to the room th a t they are in. T he m en know th a t she m eans the ro o m , and n o t the w hole b u ild ing o r indeed th e w hole o f E d inburgh . H er w ords ‘A re you sh u ttin g o u t this lovely sunsh ine?’ con ta in a place deixis dem onstra tive adjective ‘th is’ p o in tin g to th e sunsh ine sh in in g th ro u g h the cu rtains. B oth o f these a re exam ples o f exophoric reference.

Page 70: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

57.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

69

A N A L Y S I N G THE D I S C O U R S E IN C O N T E X T 57

□ T he second exam ple occurs in line 7: ‘W h a t’s that? Psycholinguistics?’ N o te again th a t we have an exopho ric dem o n stra tiv e p ro n o u n in place deixis: ‘th a t’. P resum ably , th e ‘th a t’ p o in ts to a b o o k o r lecture no tes th a t AF is carry ing.

In these tw o cases, th e s itua tiona l co n tex t m eans th a t the w ords do n o t have to be explicit because th e su rro u n d in g s p rov ide the m eaning . N o te th a t AF does n o t say ‘A re you sh u ttin g o u t th is lovely su n sh in e th a t is com ing th ro u g h th e cu rta in s at the w indow b eh in d you?’ an d D M does n o t ask ‘W h a t lec tu re is th a t file o f no tes , w hich is u n d e r y o u r arm , for?’ It w ould so u n d very strange if they did.

M oving on to the con tex t o f c u ltu ra l b a c k g ro u n d now , th ere are th ree stretches o f d iscourse th a t show evidence o f speakers assum ing a co m m o n know ledge o f the course, know ledge th a t on ly m em bers o f th e s tu d en t g roup w ould have.

□ T he first is in lines 8 -1 2 . AF im plies th a t she th inks th a t th e Psycholinguistics lec­tu res requ ire great m en ta l effort, w hen she com plains ‘I have difficulty getting m y b ra in going first th in g in th e m o rn in g .’ D M infers th a t AF is m ak ing a co m m en t ab o u t the lec tu re r’s style an d responds show ing a sim ilar a ttitu d e tow ards the lec­tu re r: ‘She certain ly fills it up , d o esn ’t she? She’s go t lo ts o f th ings to tell y o u I’m su re .’ W itness th e fact th a t it is n o t necessary for D M to nam e th e lecturer, because once ‘Psycholinguistics’ has been m en tio n ed , the con tex t o f the lecture has been estab lished an d a long w ith it all the associated co n tex t o f the lec tu rer, h e r style, th e m ateria ls, an d so on.

□ T he second exam ple is in lines 17-20. M M com es in and asks ‘A nyone go t th e key to the photocopier?’ H e assum es that all those in the room know which pho tocop ier an d key he is referring to; he im plies th a t the key is no t w here it should be, an d tha t he th inks th a t som eone in th e ro o m m igh t have kep t it. AF im plies th a t she know s ab o u t the m issing key, w ith her ‘Is it still no t there?’, th e ‘still’ suggesting th a t it was already m issing before, an d the ‘th ere ’ show ing tha t she know s w here it sho u ld be.

□ T he th ird exam ple com es in lines 36—42. They are talk ing ab o u t a lecturer th a t DM w ent to see. D M says ‘W ell you k now w hat h e ’s like. I t’s difficult to tell isn ’t it?’, assum ing th a t all hearers d o indeed know w hat he is like, an d have the sam e a tt i­tude tow ards h im . D M seem s to feel th a t the lecturer does n o t m ake h im self clearly u n d ers to o d , an d he asks h is colleagues to share his a ttitude , w ith h is ‘isn ’t it?’

Finally, we com e to stre tches o f d ialogue assum ing know ledge o f in te rp e rso n a l b ack ­g ro u n d co n tex t. T here a re five instances.

□ T he first is in lines 12—16. It appears th a t N F stands up to go. AF asks ‘Yougoing to get o n y o u r bike?’ She know s th a t N F is n o t go ing upsta irs to th e lectureth ea tre b u t o u t o f th e bu ild ing , an d th a t she has a bike. D M know s w here N F is go ing an d th a t th e re is som e d o u b t as to w hether it is necessary: ‘H ave you got to go?’ N F suggests th a t there is a good reason w hy she shou ld stay: ‘I suppose I have. I sh o u ld n ’t th is m o rn in g .’ D M agrees. N either AF n o r D M needs to say w here she is going o r why.

□ T he second instance com es in lines 19-21. AF says ‘O h M M ! I (0.5) b ro u g h t thew hat w hat’s a nam e back.’ M M does n o t say ‘W hat on earth are you talk ing about?’H e ju s t says ‘Y eah’ an d m um bles so m eth in g private to her. T his is an exam ple o f

Page 71: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

58.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

70

58 D E V E L O P M E N T

in tertextuality : they had possib ly had a prev ious conversa tion in w hich M M asked AF to b ring som eth ing back. Since they know w hat they m ean , it is qu icker and easier to use the vague, im plicit expression ‘the w hat’s a nam e’. It also keeps it private.

□ T he next exam ple is in lines 2 4 -8 . N o t only d o BM and D M show th a t they have an in te rpersona l con tex t o f n o t m eeting u p because th e ir lectures d o n o t co in ­cide (‘W e m u st n o t fit at all’), b u t they also know w hat course o p tio n s each has chosen. BM know s th a t D M had chosen th e ‘language p lan n in g ’ o p tio n . Because they h ad no t in terac ted verbally recently, his know ledge is o u t o f date , how ever.

□ T he fou rth instance occurs in lines 29—34. BM refers to the top ic o f D M ’s p ro ­ject ‘w hat you th o u g h t y o u ’d d o ’. H e m ay use th is inexplicit n o u n clause because it is m o re conven ien t an d econom ical th an saying ‘A study o f na tive-speaker o f English use o f g ram m ar in conversa tions’, for exam ple. O n th e o th e r han d , he m ay use it because he has actually fo rgo tten w hat D M said he w as going to do. W hatever th e reason , h is ‘w hat you th o u g h t y o u ’d d o ’ refers to a p rev ious c o n ­versation . It is in tertex tual.

□ T he final exam ple is in lines 3 6 -4 1 . CM m en tions , o u t o f th e b lue , an u n n am ed m ale person : ‘D id he like d id h e like th e idea?’ H e recalls a p rev ious conversation in w hich D M said th a t h e was going to take his p ro ject idea to a lecturer. T he ‘he’ gains m eaning from the con tex t associated w ith th e p ro jec t and th e questionnaire: it is an exam ple o f exopho ric person deixis w ith in te rtex tua l reference. CM rightly assum ed th a t D M cou ld in fer w ho ‘h e ’ refers to . N o te th a t w e said, above, th a t lines 3 5 -4 1 co n ta in reference to th e cu ltu ra l con tex t. It is q u ite co m m o n to find an overlap o f con tex ts w hen we analyse data . In th is case, the w hole s tu d en t g ro u p is expected to have know ledge o f the lec tu re r’s m an n er, w hereas m aybe only CM an d D M w ould have th e specific know ledge o f w hat D M w en t to see h im for.

These stretches o f language d ep en d en t o n th e in te rpersona l co n tex t are th e m ost im pene trab le to an ou tsider. O verhearers lacking know ledge o f th is con tex t can n o t begin to guess w hat is be ing ta lked ab o u t exactly in som e o f these lines. T he inexpli­cit reference excludes everyone except people w ho w ere p resen t at th e ir last conversa­tion: it is privileged in fo rm ation .

B1.2 F urther read ing□ For good examples of the influence of context on meaning, see J. Mey (1993), P. Grundy (2000)

and G. Brown and G. Yule (1983).

□ For a further exploration of the relationship between context and deixis, see J. Thomas (1995) and A. Cruse (2000).

□ P. Grundy (2000) has a deep and complex discussion of deixis, inference and common ground.

Page 72: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

59.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

71

A N A L Y S I N G THE C O -T E X T 59

A N A L Y S IN G TH E C O -T E X T

A n alys in g te x t using concepts B 2 .1

□ g ram m atica l cohesion- en d o p h o ric reference- su b stitu tio n and ellipsis

□ lexical cohesion

Text

The cesspool

T his is taken from th e op en in g page o f ch ap te r o n e o f V irg in ia W o o lf’s Between the Acts ( l 9 4 1). V irg in ia W o o lf w as b o rn in 1882, an d d u rin g th e years lead ing up to W orld W ar I, she becam e a p ro m in en t m em b er o f th e fam ous literary g ro u p su b ­sequen tly know n as th e ‘B loom sbury G ro u p ’. She h ad a m en ta l b reakdow n in 1904 w hen h e r fa ther d ied , an d to o k h e r life in 19 4 1. Between the Acts was pub lished after h e r death .

1 It was a summer’s night and they were talking, in the big room w ith the

2 w indows open to the garden, about the cesspool. The county council had3 promised to bring water to the village, but they hadn't.

4 Mrs Haines, the w ife of the gentleman farmer, a goose-faced woman w ith5 eyes protruding as if they saw something to gobble in the gutter, said6 affectedly: 'W hat a subject to talk about on a night like th is !'7 Then there was silence; and a cow coughed; and that led her to say how odd

8 it was, as a child, she had never feared cows, only horses. But, then, as a9 small child in a perambulator, a great cart-horse had brushed within an inch

10 of her face. Her family, she told the old man in the arm-chair, had lived11 near Liskeard for many centuries. There were the graves in the churchyard

12 to prove it.13 A bird chuckled outside. 'A nightingale?’ asked Mrs Haines. No,14 nightingales didn't come so far north. It was a daylight bird, chuckling over

15 the substance and succulence of the day, over worms, snails, grit, even in

16 sleep.17 The old man in the arm-chair - M r Oliver, of the Indian Civil Service, retired18 - said that the site they had chosen for the cesspool was, if he had heard

19 aright, on the Roman road. From an aeroplane, he said, you could still see,20 plainly marked, the scars made by the Britons; by the Romans; by the

21 Elizabethan manor house; and by the plough, when they ploughed the hill

22 to grow wheat in the Napoleonic wars.

Page 73: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

60.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

72

60 D E V E L O P M E N T

Text analysis

The cesspool

A nalysis o f th is sim ple little passage show s how very closely w oven it is in te rm s o f b o th g ram m atica l and lexical cohesion.

Let us s ta rt w ith g ram m atica l cohesion , an d e n d o p h o r ic reference. T here a re at least six in stances o f an ap h o ric reference an d on ly o n e instance o f ca taphoric . T his, as we have said, is a fairly typical ra tio . Let us s ta rt w ith a n a p h o r ic reference, an d list som e exam ples.

□ T he first exam ple is in lines 2 -3 ‘T he co u n ty council had p ro m ised to b ring w ater to the village, b u t they h a d n ’t ’, in w hich th e ‘they’ links back to ‘T he co u n ty co unc il’. N o te th a t a lthough ‘T he co u n ty co u n c il’ is singular, it can have a p lu ra l personal p ro n o u n since it is the m em bers w ith in th e council w ho are being referred to.

□ T he link in lines 4 - 5 is sim pler: ‘M rs H aines, the wife o f the g en tlem an farm er, a goose-faced w om an w ith eyes p ro tru d in g as if they saw so m eth in g to gobble in th e g u tte r’. H ere, th e ‘th ey ’ is cohesive w ith th e p reced ing eyes.

□ In lines 7 -8 , ‘T hen there w as silence; and a cow coughed; and th a t led her to say how od d it was, as a child , she had never feared cows, on ly h o rses’, th e ‘h e r’ and ‘she’ refer back to the ‘M rs H aines’ o f the p rev ious p a rag raph , n o t to th e ‘cow ’, o f course.

□ In lines 9 -12 , ‘H er fam ily, she to ld th e old m an in the a rm -ch a ir, had lived near L iskeard fo r m an y cen tu ries . T here w ere th e graves in th e ch u rchyard to p rove it’ show s th a t a personal p ro n o u n , as in it, can link back to a w hole ph rase o r clause; it does n o t always have to be ju s t one w ord . H ere, it is ‘H er fa m ily . . . had lived near L iskeard for m any cen tu ries .’

□ T he last exam ple, in lines 17-19, ‘T he o ld m an in th e a rm -ch a ir - M r O liver, o f the Ind ian Civil Service, re tired - said tha t the site they had chosen for the cesspool was, if he had h eard arigh t, on th e R om an ro a d ’ dem o n s tra te s th a t a p ro n o u n , as in ‘h e ’, can relate back to tw o n o u n phrases (‘T he o ld m an in th e a rm -ch a ir’ and ‘M r O liver’), if they b o th refer to th e sam e referent.

T he c a ta p h o ric reference is typical o f the op en in g sen tence o f a novel, as we saw in the U pd ike q u o te in U n it A2. W e begin in lines 1 -2: ‘It was a su m m er’s n igh t a n d they w ere talk ing, in th e big room w ith th e w indow s o p en to th e garden , ab o u t th e cesspool.’ T he ‘they ’ are n o t identified un til line 4 (‘M rs H aines’) and line 17 (‘M r O liver’). T his techn ique is a im ed at c reating expecta tion an d in terest, an d th row ing readers stra igh t in to th e story, as if they h ad jo in ed tw o people in the m idd le o f th e scene a n d th e conversation .

In terestingly , we see ‘th e w indow s’ and ‘th e g a rd en ’ w ith o u t be ing to ld any th ing ab o u t ‘th e h o u se ’. T his is a n o th e r way o f th row ing us in to a sto ry w hich is underw ay. W e are given the com ponents o f the p resu p p o sito n a l p oo l o f ‘a house’, and are expected to w ork ou t th rough associative an a p h o ra that before the story began, they w ere already in ‘th e h o u se’ w here we find them .

Page 74: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

61.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

73

A N A L Y S I N G THE C O -T E X T 61

T here a re n o exam ples o f su b s ti tu tio n , b u t at least fo u r o f e llipsis.

□ T he first is in lines 2 -3 : ‘T he co u n ty council had p rom ised to b rin g w ater to the village, b u t they h ad n ’t.’ T he ‘But they h ad n ’t ’ is ellipsis because it is only th e begin­n ing o f the clause - ‘But they h a d n ’t b ro u g h t w ate r.’ N o tice here th a t ‘b ro u g h t w ater’ does n o t fea tu re in th e p reced ing text, b u t ‘b rin g w ate r’ does; readers are expected to m ake th e change o f tense , albeit unconsciously .

□ T he nex t exam ple takes th e fo rm o f ind irec t speech, a rep o rt on w hat M rs H aines said in lines 7 -8 : ‘an d th a t led her to say how o d d it was, as a child, she had never feared cow s, on ly horses’. T he ‘on ly horses’ is ellipsis, th is tim e because it is on ly the end o f th e clause: ‘She h ad feared on ly ho rses .’ N o te again , th a t th e clause th a t readers a re expected to u n d ers tan d is n o t exactly th e sam e as the preced ing one , th e p reced ing one being negative an d the one ellipted affirm ative.

□ T he th ird exam ple o f ellipsis o m its th e verb a n d subject o f th e sentence: in line 13, ‘A b ird chuckled ou tside. “A n ightingale?” asked M rs H aines’, th e ellipsis is exophoric . A lthough readers h ear th e b ird at the sam e tim e as M rs H aines, there is no fo rm in the preced ing d iscourse th a t w ou ld gu ide them , w ere they to try to express th e question w ith o u t ellipsis: it m igh t be ‘Is th a t a n ightingale?’, ‘Is th e b ird chuck ling ou ts ide a n ightingale?’, ‘Is th a t so u n d a n ightingale?’ o r ‘D o you agree th a t’s a n ightingale?’ O f course, it does n o t m a tte r exactly how it is in terp re ted .

□ T he last exam ple is a list: ‘F rom an aerop lane , he said, you cou ld still see, p lain ly m arked , th e scars m ade by th e B ritons; by th e R om ans; by th e E lizabethan m an o r house; an d by th e p lough , w hen they p loughed th e hill to grow w heat in the N apo leon ic w ars.’ H ere, w hat is u n d e rs to o d in each case is the b eg inn ing o f the phrase, as in ‘scars m ade by th e R om ans; scars m ade b y the E lizabethan house; an d scars m ad e by th e p lo u g h ’. M r O liver sounds repetitive as it is: h e w ou ld have sounded w orse had he no t used ellipsis.

It co u ld be th a t these exam ples o f ellipsis th a t requ ire w ords to be retrieved th a t a re n o t actually in the tex t in th e sam e form are designed to involve readers, ob lig ing them to co n tr ib u te to the story.

M oving on now to lexical cohesion , w e can see th a t by far th e m ost used device is re p e tit io n . T his th reads righ t th ro u g h th is sh o rt passage and can best be d e m o n ­stra ted all at once like this:

1 It was a sum m er’s night and they were talking, in the big room w ith the2 w indows open to the garden, about the cesspool. The county council had3 promised to bring water to the village, but they hadn’t.4 Mrs Haines, the w ife of the gentleman farmer, a goose-faced woman w ith

5 eyes protruding as if they saw something to gobble in the gutter, said

6 affectedly: 'W hat a subject to talk about on a nioht like th is !'7 Then there was silence; and a cow coughed; and that led her to say how

Page 75: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

62.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

74

62 D E V E L O P M E N T

8 odd it was, as a child, she had never feared cows, only horses. But, then,

9 as a small child in a perambulator, a great cart-horse had brushed within an10 inch of her face. Her family, she told the old man in the arm-chair, had lived11 near Liskeard for many centuries. There were the graves in the churchyard12 to prove it.

13 A bird chucked outside. 'A nightingale?' asked Mrs Haines. No,

14 nightingales didn't come so far north. It was a daylight bird, chuckling over

15 the substance and succulence of the day, over worms, snails, grit, even in

16 sleep.17 The old man in the arm-chair - M r Oliver, of the Indian Civil Service, retired

18 - said that the site they had chosen for the cesspool was, if he had heard

19 aright, on the Roman road. From an aeroplane, he said, you could still see,20 plainly marked, the scars made by the Britons; by the Romans; hy the21 Elizabethan manor house; and bv the plough, when they ploughed the hill to

22 grow wheat in the Napoleonic wars.

T his way, it becom es clear th a t, w hereas som e rep e titio n stretches across several lines, as in ‘n ig h t’ (in lines 1 an d 6), ‘cesspool’ (in lines 2 and 18), an d ‘th e old m an in the a rm -c h a ir’ (in lines 10 an d 17), o th e r rep e titio n occurs w ith in th e sam e sen tence o r th e sam e line, as in ‘cow ’ (lines 7 -8 ) , ‘ch ild ’ (line 8), ‘b ird ’ (lines 13 -14), an d ‘n ig h tin ­gale’ (line 13). It can also be seen th a t rep e titio n can take th e fo rm o f parallel s tru c ­tu res, as in th e repeated ‘by th e ’ s tru c tu re in line 18. V irgin ia W o o lf chooses to repeat no u n s n o t verbs, and the n o u n s repeated are the ones th a t tell th e story. T he n o u n ‘n ig h t’ sets th e scene an d th en ‘cow ’ an d ‘n igh tingale’ in troduce th e back g ro u n d noise; ‘th e o ld m an in the a rm -c h a ir’ b rings in o n e o f th e p ro tagon ists; a n d lastly ‘cesspool’, ‘cow ’, ‘ch ild ’, ‘b ird ’ and ‘n igh tingale’ are th e top ics o f conversa tion . H ighligh ting the no u n s like th is m akes it obv ious th a t th is passage consists o f n o t so m u ch a conversa­tion as tw o parallel m ono logues, since M r O liver is talk ing ab o u t the ‘cesspool’ b u t M rs H aines w ants to stop; an d likewise ‘cow ’, ‘ch ild ’, ‘b ird ’ an d ‘n igh tinga le ’ are M rs H aines’ topics, (she w ants to change th e top ic to one related to th e beau ty o f the n igh t), bu t they are no t M r Oliver’s. T he analysis brings o u t the lack o f com m unication betw een th e tw o o f them : M r O liver resum es h is top ic o f th e ‘cesspool’ o n ce M rs H aines has stopped telling h e r stories and m akes her look as if she was actually talking to the ‘n igh t’.

T here are n o sy n o n y m s b u t there are tw o su p e ro rd in a te s .

□ T he first is ‘W hat a subject to ta lk ab o u t o n a n igh t like th is!’ M rs H aines d is­m isses M r O liver’s top ic , by p u ttin g it in th e su p ero rd in a te category o f in a p p ro ­p ria te ‘sub ject’(s).

□ T he o th e r instance is th is one: ‘A b ird chuckled ou tside . “A n ightingale?” asked M rs H aines. N o , n igh tingales d id n ’t com e so far n o rth . It w as a daylight b ird , chuckling over th e substance an d succulence.’ T he su p ero rd in a te ‘b ird ’ is needed here so th a t its iden tity can be left open ; it cou ld be ‘a n igh tingale’, o r any th ing in th e low er level su p e ro rd in a te category o f ‘daylight b ird ’ such as ‘a b lack b ird ’, ‘a skylark’ an d ‘a th ru sh ’.

Page 76: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

63.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

75

Page 77: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

64.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

76

64 D E V E L O P M E N T

9

1011

121314

Dalziel Pity it's not a bunch of miners - then w e could have done what

w e liked. (1)

Boss All right. But don’t upset the locals. Hounsden is a nice village.

Boss Watch it superintendent! I'm not asking you to kow-tow to the gentry. I'm telling you to go by the book. (0.5) You see I know

how you work.

Text analysis

Fox hunting under cover

Let us begin w ith th e m acro -fu n c tio n o f th is excerpt. T his is a w ork conversa tion and it has a p rim arily ‘tran sac tio n a l’ function : they are n o t hav ing a sociable chat, they are nego tia ting a p lan o f ac tion . T he boss’s m ain aim is to tran sm it th e in fo rm a tio n tha t will affect D alziel’s behaviour. She tells h im ‘H o u n sd en is a n ice village’ because she w ants h im to n o t ‘upse t the locals’ b u t ‘go by th e b o o k ’. Dalziel gives h is boss a full acco u n t o f how he has o rgan ised the officer’s task an d cover because she needs the in fo rm atio n . Betw een th e factual po in ts, th ere is language w ith a p rim arily ‘in te r­ac tiona l’ func tion . T he boss’s ‘All r igh t’ is an expression o f ag reem en t; D alziel’s ‘Pity it’s n o t a b u n ch o f m in e rs’ co m m en t is n o t essential to th e nego tia tion ; it is an a ttem p t to share o p in io n s and m ake th e conversa tion m o re sociable.

Let us m ove on to the p e rlo c u tio n a ry effect o f the speakers’ w ords on the hearers. T he boss’s ‘H ow do 1 know y o u ’re lying to m e, A ndy?’ m akes Dalziel reassure her an d convince her th a t his p lan o f ac tion in th is case is all w e ll- th o u g h t-o u t an d safe. H e has to im press her since she is his superio r and has the u ltim ate say in all his actions. T he boss p resum ab ly hopes th a t th e p e rlocu tionary effect o f her w arn ing ‘I’m telling you to go by the b o o k ’ will be th a t he will w ork in the conven tiona l way, an d n o t o ffend any o f the gentry.

Let us now analyse th e speech acts, d ire c t an d in d ire c t, and th e illo c u tio n a ry fo rce. T he boss gives o rd ers ind irectly to Dalziel first, an d th en th ey becom e m ore and m ore indirect.

□ In line 1, h e r ‘T h is isn ’t y o u r p riva te a rm y’ is, on the surface a decla ra tion , func­tio n in g as a d irect rep resen ta tive , a sta tem en t describ ing th e people w ho w ork for Dalziel. Indirectly , it is a d irective w ith th e illocu tionary force o f fo rb id d in g h im , as in ‘D o n o t use these peop le fo r yo u r ow n ends.’

□ W hen Dalziel answ ers h e r en qu iry ab o u t th e police officer u n d e r cover saying th a t she is an experienced rider, she seem s to be using an in terroga tive to ask a rep ­resen tative question in line 3: ‘H ow d o I k now y o u ’re lying to m e, Andy?’ Again, th is has th e illocu tionary force o f an ind irec t directive fo rb id d in g h im to lie as in th e im perative ‘D o n ’t lie to m e, A ndy’ o r ‘Tell m e th e tru th .’

□ W h en he tells h e r th e th eo ry b eh in d his decision , she becom es m ore d irect, giv­ing h im in line 9 a ‘d irec t d irective’, in th e fo rm o f a negative im perative, telling h im , ‘D o n ’t upse t th e locals.’

Page 78: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

65.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

77

U S I N G S P E E C H A C T S 65

□ W hen Dalziel m akes the p o in t ab o u t th e m iners, she th en uses, in line 13, som e­th in g resem bling a ‘d irec t d ec la ra tio n ’ to m ake h e r co m m an d clear, so th a t there can be no do u b t: ‘I’m telling you to go by th e b o ok .’ It com es across as th e explicit p erfo rm ative , ‘I hereby co m m an d you to go by th e b o o k .’

Let us look now at w hat Dalziel is d o in g in th is b rie f exchange. H e starts by show ing respect, w ith neu tra l declaratives an d in d irec t expressives, an d then follow s th is w ith a show o f anger, in th e fo rm o f d irec t expressives.

□ H is declarative ‘In fact she spen t h a lf h e r ch ild h o o d o n a h o rse’ (line 2) is a ‘d irect representative’, b u t ‘indirectly’, it is an ‘expressive’ tha t backs up the p rev ious state­m en t ‘She’s go o d ’, p ra ising her skills. It cou ld also be seen as an ind irec t co m ­missive, im plying ‘I prom ise to you that I know w hat I’m doing and will no t endanger h e r life.’

□ Likewise his long sto ry ab o u t h e r cover: lines 4 to 6 con ta in d irect rep resen ta ­tives th a t carry th e ‘ind irec t d irective’ m essage o f ‘D o n ’t w orry. E verything is in o rd e r .’

□ In lines 10 to 11, his a ttitu d e changes. H is w ords ‘P ity it’s n o t a b u n ch o f m iners — th e n w e could have d o n e w hat w e liked ’ bear a reference heavy in cu ltu ra l back­g round know ledge o f the closing o f the British coal mines. In the 1980s the T hatcher gov ern m en t destroyed th e m in in g industry , a n d th e m iners w en t on a very long strike; m any felt th a t th e closing o f th e m ines was n o t accom pan ied by co m p as­sion o r even co nsidera tion for th e m iners. By m ak ing this suggestion , Dalziel is im ply ing an ‘ind irec t expressive’ d ep lo rin g th e do u b le s tandards o f th e co u n try th a t cou ld be expressed as, ‘W e m u s t m ake every effort n o t to upset the a ris toc­racy, b u t we w ere n o t asked to m ake such efforts w ith th e w ork ing class.’ W hat m igh t also be im plied is a defian t in d irec t com m issive o f ‘I’ll do w hat I like .’ T his is w hat p rovokes th e boss’s ‘W atch it su p e rin ten d e n t!’ She know s th a t he refuses to ‘K ow-tow to the gentry’; w hat really w orries her is tha t he m ay do som eth ing that does n o t ‘go by th e b o o k ’. As it h appens, la ter in the p ro g ram m e he does step o u t o f line an d jo in th e p ro testers in ob stru c tin g a h u n t an d saving a fox from being m au led to dea th by th e h o u n d s , a very top ical them e fo r th e year 2001, since fox h u n tin g was com ing u n d e r a ttack in Scotland an d th en E ngland and W ales.

Let us look briefly at th e ‘felicity c o n d itio n s’. T h is is closely related to th e pow er s tru c tu re : th e boss’s h igher social sta tus than Dalziel gives h e r th e righ t to play th e ro le o f telling h im w hat to do . In teresting ly , a lth o u g h he seem s to recognise th a t it is possib le for h e r to carry o u t th e ac t o f d irecting h im , he suggests th a t he can ­n o t follow her o rders, and asserts his righ ts as an ind iv idual w ith op in ions. She re ­m in d s h im in lines 12-14 th a t she can an d will give h im o rders. It m ay be the case th a t o th e r social d im ensions are en te r in g in to p lay here . Dalziel is o ld e r than h is boss and therefore m ore experienced; it m ay be th is th a t gives h im confidence to defy th e felicity cond itions . T hen o f course he is a m an an d is m ost likely unused to tak ing orders from a w om an; th is m ay be w hy she has to m ake it clear th a t she is boss.

Page 79: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

66.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

78

65 D E V E L O P M E N T

All in all, it is a sho rt b u t in teresting little excerpt, w ith a great deal going on u n d er th e surface.

□ For a deeper and more detailed discussion of speech act classifications (slightly different terms),

felicity conditions, performative verbs and the performative hypothesis, read A. Cruse (2000) and G. Leech (1983) and S. Levinson (1983).

□ For a thorough, yet still accessible, explanation of indirect speech acts, looking at idioms, literal

meaning and conventional meaning, with plenty of examples, read P. Grundy (2000).

□ D. Schiffrin (1994) provides an advanced, careful explanation of the development of Austin’s and Searle’s theories, a discussion of their application to discourse analysis, and demonstrations of sample analysis.

□ J. Thomas (1995) and D. Blakemore (1992) give an advanced, critical discussion of the develop­

ment of Austin's and Searle's theories, the performative hypothesis and types of performatives, overlaps and cross-cultural differences.

□ For a clear introduction to the sociolinguistic approach to speech functions, and an exploration

of the effect of all social differences and contextual constraints on directives, go to J. Holmes (1992).

Q For those needing guidance in speech act analysis, and suggestions for research projects in speechacts, and the applications to language learning, E. Hatch (1992) is helpful.

□ Finally, D. Tannen (1994) reports on a specialised study report of indirect speech acts in male- female discourse, comparing Greeks and Americans, and the misunderstandings caused by stylistic differences.

□ conversa tion analysis□ in terac tional sociolinguistics

Text

Scrabble

T his ex tract is taken from B ritish co m p o n en t o f The In ternational Corpus o f English (ICE-G B ). A m o th e r an d d au g h te r are a t th e m o th e r’s house , eating , ch a ttin g and playing Scrabble (‘a gam e in w hich players score p o in ts by p u tt in g row s o f separate letters o n squares o f a b o a rd to fo rm w ords’ — (L ongm an D ictionary o f C on tem porary English 1978)).

1 Mother I don't know what you're doing on that.2 Daughter Oh no.

3 Mother No.

B 3 .2 F urther read ing ►►►►

TH E P R A G M A T IC S OF C O N V E R S A T IO N

B 4 .1 A nalys ing te x t using co n cepts

Page 80: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

67.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

79

THE P R A G M A T I C S OF C O N V E R S A T I O N 67

4 Daughter

5 Mother6

7 Daughter

8

9

10 Mother11 Daughter12 Mother13 Daughter

14

15 Mother16 Daughter

17 Mother

18 Daughter

19 Mother20 Daughter

21 Mother

22

23 Daughter24 Mother

25 Daughter

26 Mother27 Daughter

28 Mother29 Daughter

30

3132

33 Mother

34 Daughter

3536

37 Mother

38 Daughter39

40 Mother

41 Daughter

42 Mother43

44 Daughter

4546 Mother

No fear I should say =

= Well, do it somewhere else. I mean, look there's plenty of other

places to put it. How about here? / / 1 like it like that.// Uhm it’s OK. Oh God you don’t -

First of all you don’t score so much, and secondly you only get rid of

two letters // and you make your chances of picking up anything better

// Uhm

that much more reduced by not // you know, getting rid of as many as//U hm

you can. Two four six - seven twenty-four is eleven. I mean you could

do so much better than that if // you’d only// Yeah. I’m busy eating as a matter of fact

Oh.

I didn't really like that sandwich.(laughs) I wouldn’t have noticed (laughs). You've // packed away most

// No but Iof it (laughs) all the same.

kept hoping it would get better and it got worse, (laughs) Salty. Don't like salty things.

No.Have some banana bread.Look. I'm not that much of a banana bread eater // and I wish you'd

// Oh I forgot //stop bothering.Never mention it again.Yes, I mean, you know, I know where these things are. If I'm that

interested I'll ask if I may have a piece and then you can tell me you

haven't made any for months or don't make it any more (laughs) I've got a whole load of my own banana bread in the fridge. I don't know. Do we have ’sana' SANA?

No. We have 'sauna' SAUNA. Right we have (unclear). A funny game. That's a funny game. 'Go' and 'ox'. And the 'ox' is uh sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty.

Mm. Mm.You're now eighty behind. If you'd listened to me (laughs) you'd only

be seventy behind. Anyway what else did Linda have to say for herself Oh a lot. Never left off. When she's // finished with the kids, she

//O h.

goes back to Felicity and all her achievements. Actually you probably

wouldn't have enjoyed it here, (laughs)What do you mean about Felicity and her achievements, is it?Oh no // I have been inured to that // for years.

// How wonderful she is, you know // how she talks.

(ICE-GB: Spoken dialogue, private, direct conversation: S1A-010, 1991)

Page 81: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

68.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

80

68 D E V E L O P M E N T

Text analysis

Scrabble

T he first co m m en t to m ake ab o u t th is excerpt is to em phasise th a t speakers are m o ther an d daugh ter: they know each o th e r very well an d they are a lone to ge ther in an in fo r­m al en v ironm en t. T he ‘in te rp erso n a l re la tions’ an d th e s i tu a t io n a l co n te x t have a significant influence on how th e conversa tion flows. T hey share back g ro u n d know ­ledge ab o u t th e d au g h te r’s lack o f in te rest in b an an a b read ( ‘O h I forgot. N ever m en ­tion it aga in ’) and ab o u t the m o th e r’s friend Linda and her ch ild ren (‘do you m ean ab o u t Felicity an d h e r achievem ents?’). T hey know each o th e r w ell en ough to c riti­cise how they play Scrabble (lines 7 -1 4 ) , to tease ab o u t how they eat (lines 18-20), an d to p re tend to take offence (lines 2 6 -2 8 ). T he criticism s an d teasing are in terspersed w ith laugh ter an d they are n o t dw elt on.

CA says th a t th is piece o f ta lk show s th a t they k now each o th e r well, b u t n o t th a t th e ir know ing each o th e r well m akes them talk like this. Indeed , in a m ore form al con tex t a n d talk ing ab o u t less personal topics, the signs o f the ir know ing each o th e r well m igh t n o t be so obvious. W hereas pragm atics, discourse analysis and in teractional socio linguistics say th a t all b ack g ro u n d con tex t influences w hat in te rac tan ts say, CA says th a t on ly som e con tex ts a re relevant in th e u n d e rs tan d in g o f the talk.

If we com e to th is real-life conversa tion a n d try to m ake it fit the a priori exchange s tru c tu re , we find th a t the conversation is far to o ‘chaotic’, especially as there is n o t o n e person w ith th e ro le o r sta tus to in itia te (as in teacher, d o c to r , qu iz m as­ter) an d th e o th e r to respond , and n o r does th e situa tional co n tex t requ ire it. The on ly fo llow -up th a t stands o u t is th e m o th e r’s responses - ‘U h m ’ (lines 10 and 12), a n d ‘M m . M m ’ (line 37) - a n d they are m ore backchannelling a n d agreeing ra ther th an evaluating w hat h e r d au g h te r is saying.

T he ‘chao tic ’ n a tu re o f th e conversa tion can be seen if we look at it using c o n ­v e rsa tio n analy sis, w hich is designed to look at how real da ta unfo lds and u tterances affect each o th e r. W e can n o t ta lk o f tu rn -tak in g in th e sense o f respecting tr a n s it io n re levance p laces. O n ly in th e m idd le o f th e excerpt, lines 2 8 -39 , d o th e speakers w ait till th e o th e r has fin ished ta lk ing before they answ er o r co n tr ib u te to th e conversa­tion. This is because the d augh ter is ran ting abou t no t w anting banana bread and telling h e r m o th e r how far b eh in d she is.

A bout h a lf o f th e tu rn s co n ta in overlap s an d in te r ru p t io n s (ind ica ted w ith a / / in th e tex t), an d th is is q u ite a h igh p ro p o r tio n , even fo r a casual conversa tion betw een fam iliars:

□ In lines 6 -7 , th e d au g h te r takes th e tu rn from h e r m o th e r, w ith ‘U h m it’s OK. O h G od you d o n ’t - First o f all you d o n ’t score so m uch . . . ’ a n d she ho lds the floo r argu ing w ith h e r ‘lesson’ on Scrabble tactics, un til line 14.

□ In line 14, th e m o th e r in te rru p ts and takes th e tu rn back, w ith h e r ‘Yeah. I’m busy eating as a m a tte r o f fact’, an d th u s does n o t allow h e r d au g h te r to ex tend her ‘lesson’ any fu rther. A lthough the dau g h te r overlaps an d seem s to take th e floor in line 18, th e m o th e r takes it back w ith an o th e r in te rru p tio n in lines 19—21: ‘N o b u t I kep t h o p in g it w ou ld get b e tte r . . . ’

Page 82: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

69.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

81

THE P R A G M A T I C S OF C O N V E R S A T I O N 69

□ In lines 4 0 -4 5 , th e d au g h te r in te rru p ts w hat h e r m o th e r is saying ab o u t L inda an d h e r ta lk ing ab o u t h e r ch ild ren a n d Felicity, because she can n o t and does no t w ant to w ait to say th a t she know s all ab o u t it: ‘I have been inu red to th a t fo r years.’

A n analysis o f th e ad jacen cy p a ir s show s th a t th ere is n o t a neat pa iring o f u tterances o r tu rn s . T he exception cou ld be in lines 18 an d 20 in w hich th e dau g h te r ‘accuses’, w ith ‘Y ou’ve packed aw ay m ost o f it all th e sam e’ an d then the m o th e r ‘defends’ in lines 19 an d 21, giving th e p re fe rre d re sp o n se : ‘N o b u t I kep t h o p in g it w ou ld get b e tte r . . . ’ M ore frequen t is th e d isp re fe r re d response :

□ In line 13, th e d au g h te r ‘advises’, w ith ‘I m ean you could do so m u ch b e tte r thanth a t if only yo u ’d . . but the m o th e r n e ither ‘accep ts’ n o r ‘rejects’ th e advice;she justifies her p o o r p laying in line 15: ‘Yeah. I’m busy eating as a m a tte r o f fact.’

□ A gain, in line 24, th e m o th e r ‘offers’ h e r d au g h te r som e b an an a b read , b u tinstead o f an ‘accep t’, she is faced w ith a ‘re ject’ (‘Look. I’m n o t th a t m u ch o f ab an an a b read ea te r’), an d th e reject goes on fo r several lines.

T h is is no t to say tha t there is a fight go ing o n , to hold the floor. N o offence is taken a t th e in te rru p tio n s o r th e d isp referred responses, as it is an am icable exchange. T here m ay, how ever, be th e slightest o f pow er struggles, in th e sense th a t th e d au g h te r seem s to need to show independence: she know s ab o u t Scrabble and she does n o t have to w ait to be asked if she w ants to eat. Likewise, the m o th e r ignores th e show o f in d e ­pendence: h e r ‘I’m busy eating as a m a tter o f fa c t' show s th a t she is un im pressed , as does h e r ‘D o we have “san a” SANA’?

Analysis o f the seq u en ces o f th e conversa tion show s th a t there are n o ‘o p en in g ’ o r ‘c losing’ sequences, as this excerpt is p art o f a longer conversa tion . T h ere are no p re -seq u en ces , w hich is possib ly a reflection o f close re la tionsh ip an d th e triv iality o f th e task th a t they are engaged in: ne ith e r needs to p rep are th e o th e r for a suggestion o r inv ita tion . It cou ld be said th a t there are in s e r tio n sequences, how ever:

□ In lines 1 5 -3 2 the sandw ich an d the b an an a b read top ics com e as an insertion sequence w ith in th e m ain to p ic o f play ing Scrabble.

□ Line 39 onw ards ab o u t L inda and h e r fam ily com e as ano ther.

Yet, it cou ld also be said th a t the Scrabble com m en taries are th e insertions. It d epends w hether, in th e ir m in d , the chat is th e back g ro u n d to th e Scrabble, o r the Scrabble is th e b ack g ro u n d to the chat. T he analyst can n o t tell.

R etu rn ing to th e relevance o f th e in te rp erso n a l rela tions an d the s itua tiona l c o n ­tex t, we can analyse the conversa tion from th e in te ra c tio n a l so c io lin g u is tic s p o in t o f view an d no tice th a t the c o n te x tu a lisa tio n cues p o in t w ith im precise reference to the know ledge th a t they share. T he d au g h te r’s ‘I know w here these things a re ’ refers p re ­sum ab ly to o th e r foods th a t th e m o th e r ten d s to offer an d to th e cu pboards o r shelves in th e refrigera to r w here they are kep t. Sim ilarly, the m o th e r’s ‘A ctually you p ro b ­ably w o u ld n ’t have enjoyed it here’ (lines 4 2 -4 2 ) uses exophoric reference w ith a p e r­sonal p ro n o u n ‘it’ an d a dem onstra tive adverb ‘here’, w hich on ly have m ean ing for th e m because they know th e referring item s because o f th e ir in tertex tual know ledge. T he m o th e r’s ‘you know how she ta lks’ (line 46) is a n o th e r exam ple o f th e w ay th a t

Page 83: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

70.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

82

70 D E V E L O P M E N T

they refer to th e ir shared know ledge in a w ay th a t w ou ld exclude an ou tsider. T his in terac tional ta lk c la im ing co m m o n g ro u n d w ith vague reference, w h e th e r th e re is a m in i pow er struggle o r no t, is a m ark e r o f th e ir friendship .

B 4 .2 F urther read ing » »

□ For a simple check on classroom scripts, see E. Hatch (1992).□ For a simple explanation of IRF, see M. McCarthy and R. Carter (1994) and for a more thorough

discussion, see M. Coulthard (1985) and S. Eggins and D. Slade (1997).

You will find that P. Levinson (1983), J. Mey (1993) and M. Stubbs (1983) provide an in-depth explana­

tion of turn-taking, TRP, adjacency pairs and sequences.For a comprehensive exploration of the history of conversation analysis and examples of the methodo­logy, go to D. Schiffrin (1994).For an early paper on conversation analysis, try H. Sacks. E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974).For a collection of lectures on conversation analysis, read H. Sacks (1992a and 1992b).

For recent developments in conversation analysis and interactional sociolinguistics, try E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson (1996).

J

B 5 .1

C O O P E R A T IO N A N D R E L E V A N C E

A nalys ing te x t using co n cepts

□ observing m axim s□ flou ting /v io lating□ relevance theo ry

T he follow ing tex t is real da ta taken from the B ritish N ationa l C o rpus. It is p a rt o f a casual conversa tion betw een Lisa, a 30-year-o ld housew ife from th e S ou th M idlands, an d M elvin, a 29-year-o ld pan e l beater. T he BNC does n o t give th e s itua tiona l c o n ­text; th e conversa tion suggests th a t th e speakers share a certa in a m o u n t o f cu ltu ral b ackg round know ledge an d in te rpersona l know ledge.

Text

Visiting Louise

Lisa

M elvin

Lisa

M elvinLisa

Oh your mum and dad er popped round last night to see Louise. Guess what tim e they w ent round?

About nine - ten o ’clock?

Quarter past eight. She was in bed. She normally goes to bed about half past seven. They said that's the earliest they could get there.I said that's a load of rubbish I said, cos they have fish and chips

on a Friday night.Yeah.

So she didn’t have to cook.

Page 84: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

71.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

83

C O O P E R A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 71

10 M elv in11

12

13

14

15

1617 Lisa18 M elvin19 Lisa

2021 M elv in

Ah they would have had to wash up the plates and the knives and

forks. But she's just one of those women who don't like leaving

stuff around, you know what I mean? Once they've had something, they've got to do it before they go, can you believe? She's a right pain in the arse sometimes, me mum. That's why they don't go

anywhere, you see. Yeah, that's why they don't come out and

visit his brother very often. So why did they want to see Louise?

It was her birthday.Oh yeah. They should have gone as soon as they got out of work.

Yeah. And they could have got fish and chips on the way home, couldn't they?Yeah.

(BNC: kd3 Lisa, 1992)

Text analysis

V isiting Louise

Because M elvin a n d Louise seem to share such a lo t o f cu ltu ra l b ack g ro u n d k now ­ledge an d in terpersonal know ledge, we can assum e th a t they know each o th e r an d each o th e r ’s w orlds fairly well, an d because o f th e ir shared know ledge, they can f lo u t the m ax im s freely, in th e certa in ty th a t they will each be able to in fer th e o th e r’s im plied m eaning .

□ W h en Lisa says th a t M elv in’s m o th e r and fa ther arrived at L ouise’s h o u se o r flat at q u a rte r past eight, she adds, ‘She was in bed. She norm ally goes to bed ab o u t h a lf past seven. T hey said th a t’s th e earliest they cou ld get there’ (lines 4 -5 ) , w hich im plies th a t it w as n o t actually ‘th e earliest they cou ld get th e re ’, and she feels th a t th is was inconsidera te o f th em as they knew tha t she had to go to bed early an d they w ittingly d is tu rb ed her sleep. All o f th is in fo rm atio n is n o t m en tio n ed an d yet it can be in fe rred by M elvin: the m axim o f q u a n ti ty is flouted .

□ T he m ax im o f re la tio n m ay be flou ted in th e u tterances ‘T hey said th a t’s the earliest they cou ld get there . I said th a t’s a load o f rubb ish I said, cos they have fish an d chips on a Friday n ig h t’ (lines 6 —7), since th e fact th a t they have fish an d ch ips does n o t seem im m edia te ly relevant to th e ir ge tting th ere early, yet M elvin infers it. F lou ting to o th e m ax im o f q uan tity , Lisa om its th e reference to th e fact th a t they w ou ld have b o u g h t fish an d chips in a ch ip shop , w hich w ou ld have m ean t th a t they d id n o t have to spend tim e p reparing , cook ing o r w ashing up , w hich in tu rn im plies th a t they cou ld have arrived before h a lf past seven. M elvin co rrects her, even th o u g h she said n o th in g ab o u t w ashing up: ‘Ah they w ou ld have had to w ash up th e plates an d th e knives an d forks. B ut she’s ju s t one o f those w om en w ho d o n ’t like leaving s tu ff a ro u n d , you k now w hat I m ean?’ (lines 1 0 -1 2 ).

Page 85: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

72.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

84

D E V E L O P M E N T

M elvin flou ts th e m ax im o f q u an tity w hen he says m in im ally , ‘They shou ld have gone as soon as they got o u t o f w ork ’ (line 18). Lisa appears to in fer th a t he m eans th a t they cou ld have go t th e re befo re 7.30, m ade a special e ffort fo r th e special occasion and b roken w ith th e ir rou tine ; h e r answ er ‘they cou ld have go t fish and chips on the w ay h o m e’ (line 19) show s th a t she is follow ing o n h is idea.T here is one exam ple o f th e flou ting o f the m axim o f q u a lity : ‘She’s a righ t pa in in th e arse som etim es, m e m u m . T h a t’s w hy they d o n ’t go anyw here’ (lines 13-15). T h is s ta rts w ith a m e tap h o r th a t is so well established th a t it has becom e a fixed expression an d is no longer any th ing to do w ith pains o r arses. T he second p a rt is a hyperbole; it is an exaggeration w hich h is very next u tte rance w ould seem to con trad ic t if we d id n o t know th a t he was flou ting the m axim o f quality: ‘th a t’s w hy they d o n ’t com e o u t an d visit his b ro th e r very o ften ’ (lines 15 -16).

A v io la tio n o f the cooperative m axim s is m u ch h a rd e r to detect. It cou ld be th a t Louise does n o t in reality go to bed a t 7.30 norm ally , b u t th a t she goes at 9.30, an d th a t Lisa is therefo re lying, v io lating the m ax im o f quality . N o te th a t M elvin asks if they w ent a t n in e o r ten o ’clock. It co u ld be th a t the m o th e r is a d iabetic a n d needs to eat at fixed tim es, an d th a t M elvin know s th is b u t is n o t saying it, in w hich case he is v io l­a tin g the m ax im o f q u an tity . O n e w ould have to know th e speakers and th e ir con tex t very well to know if they w ere try ing to deceive each o th e r and in ten tiona lly gen er­a te a m isleading im plicature.

T here are no obvious exam ples o f a speaker in frin g in g a m axim because o f im p er­fect linguistic p erfo rm ance. N o r is th e re an instance o f e ither speakers o p tin g o u t o f a m axim : ne ith e r o f th em refuse to give in fo rm atio n , fo r eth ical reasons, an d ap o lo ­gise for it, for exam ple.

O n th e o th e r han d , it co u ld also be said th a t cooperative m ax im s are n o t flouted , v io lated , in fringed o r o p ted o u t of. For exam ple, Lisa’s,

She was in bed. She normally goes to bed about half past seven. They said that's the ear­

liest they could get there. I said that's a load of rubbish I said, cos they have fish and chips on a Friday night.

(lines 4 -7 )

show s th a t she is in fact observ ing the m ax im o f qu an tity an d giving M elvin ju s t the a m o u n t o f in fo rm a tio n th a t he needs, ju s t as she is a t the end o f th e excerpt. Sperber a n d W ilson w ou ld say th a t Lisa’s u tterances are h e ld together b y relevance, and indeed M elvin does n o t qu estio n th e connec tion . R elevance th e o ry holds tru e fo r th is little passage: Lisa and M elvin co m m u n ica te successfully, in te rp re tin g the connections betw een utterances as m eaningful, m aking inferences draw ing o n the ir ow n background know ledge o f Louise, th e p aren ts , b irthdays, fish an d chips, an d so on an d selecting th e relevant features o f con tex t. Each new fact m en tio n ed is re levan t to som eth ing already know n, and the in te rac tan ts ap p ea r to recover the facts effortlessly, u n d e r­stan d in g each o th e r by d raw ing on accessible in fo rm atio n belong ing to the con tex t. T his stops w hat they say being am b iguous an d helps th em fill in any incom plete parts o f th e u tte ran ce an d infer th e m ean ing .

Page 86: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

73.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

85

THE P R I N C I P L E OF P O L I T E N E S S 73

F u rth er read ing ► ►>■>■ B 5 .2

□ For a discussion of conversational implicature, with ample examples and explanations, see J. Thomas (1995) and for an advanced, critical discussion of implicature, try A. Cruse (2000).

□ P. Grundy (2000), G. Leech (1983) and S. C. Levinson (1983) provide an extensive discussion of

kinds of implicature and the limitations of each.□ D. Schiffrin (1994) looks at maxims and reference.Q For a more advanced explanation of the cooperative principle and an introduction to relevance

theory, read J. L. Mey (1994).

□ For a classic explanation of the principle of relevance, read D. Blakemore (1992).□ For an in-depth discussion of the most advanced explanation of the theory of relevance, study D.

Sperber and D. Wilson (1982, 1987, 1995).

Imperialism

T his excerp t com es from th e B ritish A cadem ic Spoken English (BASE) co rpus (see References). T his excerpt features a lecture on E uropean im perialism delivered by D r Iain Sm ith.

1 Many of you here today are not from Africa but you are, many of you,2 from parts of the world that have been affected by one of the great global

3 forces at work in world history - what w e loosely call imperialism. And

4 that is why I thought what I should try to talk to you about today is this5 phenomenon of imperialism, not just in term s of the nineteenth and

6 twentieth centuries, and as you w ill see, not just in term s of the impact

7 of Europe on the non-European world.8 Because what w e are grappling w ith in the phenomenon of imperialism is

9 a phenomenon that in various form s is as old as the formation of state10 systems by human beings. So I'm going to, er, at considerable risk er to11 myself, try to set this phenomenon in a much wider, er, more global

12 perspective. I hope that might be of interest to many of you who have13 either been subjected to what you consider imperialism, or indeed have

14 been part of states and societies that have themselves been imperialistic

15 or are still being s o ./.. . /

16 I think w e have to begin by facing up to the fact that today w e live in an17 age of anti-imperialism. All over the world there is a reaction against the

T H E P R IN C IP L E OF P O L IT E N E S S

A n alys in g te x t using concepts

□ negative and positive po liteness□ m ax im s o f po liteness

B 6 .1

Text

Page 87: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

74.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

86

74 D E V E L O P M E N T

18 things which w e associate w ith the phenomenon of imperialism: the

19 domination of the weak countries or societies by the strong; the economic20 exploitation of the natural resources of often poorer countries er in the21 world, by the rich industrialised parts of the world; the gross, and in many22 parts of the world, the widening gap in term s of political, military and

23 economic power and standards of the living between the rich and the poor

24 countries; the belief, in one society, of the absolute superiority of its

25 culture, its values and its beliefs and the attem pt to impose these upon the26 people of other cultures and often of different races.

27 Today in Europe and America, in the countries of the ex-Soviet Union and28 in Asia, as well as in all those areas of what used to be called, the Third

29 World which were until so recently under European influence or indeed30 colonial rule, imperialism is regarded as a bad thing. To call someone an

31 imperialist is a term of abuse, like calling him a racist or a fascist.32 The very word imperialism, I think you'll agree, is loaded w ith emotional33 and ideological overtones. If I say, for instance, that recently I have been34 studying and contributing to a new Oxford History of the British Empire,

35 which I have, that is a clear, concrete and perfectly respectable historical36 subject to study. It was indeed the most powerful and extensive empire in

37 world history. But if I say I'm studying and writing about the history of38 British Imperialism, that's already a somewhat different thing. The kind of39 books that are written about it are different too.

Text analysis

Imperialism

At first sight, th is text m igh t seem a strange one to use fo r the analysis o f politeness. It is n o t a dialogue; it is n o t in teractional; nobody is try ing to o rd e r o r suggest o r invite; there is n o th in g said o ff record a n d n o th in g bald on record . Yet th e re is som eth ing friendly ab o u t th e to n e th a t th e lec tu rer, D r S m ith , sets.

O n close analysis, th ere a re e lem en ts o f w hat we have been looking at, th ro u g h ­o u t the excerp t. Let us s ta rt by no tic ing th a t there are exam ples o f p o s itiv e p o liten ess s tra teg ies .

H e establishes th a t his aud ience m ay have c o m m o n g ro u n d w ith th e to p ic o f his lecture:

by referring d irectly to the studen ts , show ing how w hat he has to say is go ing to be relevant to th em (lines 1 -3 ): ‘M any o f you here today a re n o t from Africa b u t y o u are, m any o f you , from parts o f the w orld th a t have been affected by one o f th e great g lobal forces at w ork in w orld h is to ry — w hat we loosely call im peria lism .’by involving the s tu d en ts b y using the p ro n o u n ‘you’ th ree tim es (lines 1, 2 and 3), a n d em phasising the w ide appeal o f his lec tu re b y saying ‘m an y o f yo u ’ twice. In parag raph tw o, he again addresses th em w ith ‘m an y o f y o u ’ (line 12).

Page 88: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

75.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

87

THE P R I N C I P L E OF P O L I T E N E S S 75

m ain ta in in g his friend ly to n e o f positive politeness th ro u g h o u t th is excerp t by th e use o f th e inclusive p ro n o u n ‘w e’: ‘Because w hat we are g rapp ling w ith . . (line 8) an d ‘I th in k we have to begin by facing up to th e fact t h a t . . ( l ine 16). using ‘here today’ (line 1) to b ring o u t the closeness and solidarity by d raw ing their a tten tio n to th e fact th a t they have co m m o n g ro u n d toge ther in tim e an d space.

H e th en appears to a tten d to th e h eare rs’ in terests, w an ts an d needs:

□ by suggesting th a t it was because o f th e in te rn a tio n a l consciousness a n d aw are­ness o f th e studen ts them selves th a t he chose th e topic - ‘A nd th a t is w hy I th o u g h t w hat I shou ld try to ta lk to you a b o u t today is . . (l ines 3 -4 ) . N o te th e rep e ti­tion o f ‘to d ay ’.

□ by using expressions th a t cap tu re th e ir a tten tio n , as in: ‘I h o p e th a t m igh t be o f in terest to m any o f you . . (l ine 12).

H e explo its the p o liten e ss m ax im s:

□ o f ag reem en t, by try ing to w in th e s tu d en ts over to h is p o in t o f view, a n d even assum ing th a t they already have his p o in t o f view: ‘as you will see’ (line 6) an d ‘I th in k y o u ’ll ag ree’ (line 32).

□ o f m odesty , by suggesting ten tatively th a t he is d o ing his best to serve th e s tu ­den ts in a very unassum ing way: ‘I th o u g h t w hat I shou ld try to ta lk to yo u abou t to d ay is . . . ’ (line 4) an d ‘I h o p e th a t m igh t be o f in te rest to m an y o f you . . .’ (line 12), and he even plays dow n the fact th a t he is w riting an im p o rta n t book , add ing the in fo rm atio n in som eth ing th a t am o u n ts to an ‘aside’, an a fte rthough t: ‘If I say, fo r instance, th a t recen tly I have been study ing an d c o n tr ib u tin g to a new O xford H isto ry o f the B ritish E m pire , w hich I h a v e , . . (l ines 3 3 -5 ) .

□ o f g en ero s ity , saying: ‘So I’m go ing to , er, at considerab le risk er to myself, try to . . .’ (lines 1 0 -1 1 ) , an d m ax im ising th e expression o f cost to h im self, w ith ­o u t exp lain ing exactly w hy it is a risk. It cou ld be th a t th is is in itself a p loy to m ake w hat he is saying in te resting a n d in trigu ing fo r his audience.

Finally, th e lec tu re con ta ins a liberal sp rink ling o f neg a tiv e p o liten ess , in th e sense th a t the re a re hesita tions p h en o m en a an d hedges, m in im is ing the im p o sitio n o f his in fo rm a tio n an d views, as it were:

□ A nd th a t is w hy I th o u g h t w hat I sho u ld try to ta lk to you a b o u t . . . (lines 3 - 4 )□ So I’m going to , er, at considerab le risk er to myself, try to set th is p h en o m en o n

in a m uch w ider, er, m ore global perspective, (lines 1 0 -1 2 )□ I th in k w e have to begin by facing up to the fact t h a t . . . (line 16)

O f course, as an experienced lecturer, D r Sm ith is no t using these linguistic phen o m en a by chance. T hey reflect th e friendly, relaxed a ttitu d e and w elcom ing to n e th a t he is in ten tiona lly ado p tin g , so as to m ake h is lecture b o th m o re enjoyable an d easier to u n d e rs tan d . H ow ever, it is in teresting th a t such an unlikely piece o f da ta con ta in s so m an y o f th e positive an d negative po liteness features an d adheres to so m an y o f the po lite m axim s.

Page 89: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

76.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

88

Page 90: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

77.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

89

Page 91: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

78.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

90

Page 92: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

79.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

91

E X P L O R I N G THE C O N T E X T OF W R I T I N G 79

The ultrasound investigation requires a separate appointment at the Ultrasound

department.

Hysteroscopy is examination of the interior of the wom b w ith a small tele­scope passed through the cervix (neck of the womb)

Pelvic ultrasound uses sound waves to obtain an image of the structure of

the womb, and is performed externally (abdominally) and when appropriate, also

internally (vaginally)

Endometrial biopsy is a standard clinic procedure which involves taking a sample of the wom b lining. It is currently performed using a small plastic tube known as a ‘pipelle'. A newer 'brush' sampler is now available which may give

us more information. W e are therefore keen to compare the results obtained

using the tw o methods, and this study provides an ideal opportunity to do so. W e are therefore asking for your consent to use both methods of endometrial

sampling - the standard pipelle biopsy plus the newer brush sample. This w ill add very slightly to the tim e taken for the procedure but should not cause any addi­tional discomfort.

T ex t B is w ritten by B ritish m edical s ta ff fo r th e general pub lic , w hom they assum e to b e non -m ed ica l specialists.

□ D o you th in k th a t th is is an exam ple o f w riters using th e ir know ledge to in te n ­tionally exclude those w ithou t the knowledge? W hat aspects o f the p rocedures have n o t been m en tioned? W hy not?

□ T h in k back to occasions w hen you have visited a docto r. T o w hat ex ten t d o you feel th a t the way he o r she speaks to you show s the pow er o f know ledge, as in , ‘I’m only going to tell you th is m uch , because you are ju s t a p a tien t’? D o you th ink th a t th is w ou ld vary accord ing to th e class, race o r age o f th e patient? Is th is d if­feren t in o th e r coun tries , in y o u r experience?

Text C

Cookery class: unbaked chocolate cake

T his excerpt com es from a BBC2 p ro g ram m e en titled D elia’s H ow To Cook: Part Two. Delia Sm ith belongs to B rita in ’s heritage o f cookery p rog ram m es an d sim ple cookery books. T he p ro g ram m e (29 O ctober 2000) is su b tid ed ‘A guide to all th ings ch o co ­late’. She starts by saying th a t the choco la te shou ld be m elted , an d th a t tw o ounces o f b u tte r be beaten in to it.

Page 93: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

80.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

92

80 E X P L O R A T I O N

Now the next ingredient that's going to join the melted chocolate and butter is this one here, which is double cream. And it’s been sort o f lightly whipped to the floppy

stage. So I'm just going to add that. And - just clean the bowl - and then I'm just going to stir the chocolate into the cream, combine the tw o thoroughly. This needs

a bit more mixing, it looks sort of marbley, at the moment, and you just need to get all that sort of marble out of it so that it ’s a nice evenly blended colour.

And then the next ingredient is in my bowl here. It looks a bit peculiar but what it is actually - it's eight ounces of these, and these are oat biscuits that are very

lightly sweetened. And what you do w ith them is you take the eight ounces and just break them up into little pieces. And I would say these are roughly sort of quar­

ter of an inch, third of an inch, it's not vital, but not too small because you're going to get some crunch in this. Now they're going to go in to the cream and the choco­late. And w e 're just going to give them a little mix to be thoroughly combined.

And then the next ingredient I've got is the dried cherries that w e used

earlier in the series when w e made the duck sauce, the dried sour cherries. I've got tw o ounces of those and tw o ounces of fat juicy raisins. And these have been soaked, um, overnight in three tablespoons of rum. So they’re going to go in next.

And then finally I've got four ounces of pistachio nuts. You can buy these in packets ready shelled w ith no salt, er, specially for baking. And w hat I've done is

I've just roughly chopped them. And they again shouldn't be too small because

we want lots of nice crunch.So w e've got cherries, raisins, pistachio nuts and biscuits and now I'm

just going to give this another mixing. Now the name of this cake is Un-baked

Chocolate Cake. It’s sometimes called Refrigerator Cake because the lovely thing about it is that it doesn't need any baking. It's just going to go into the refrigerator.

Q A ctiv ityText C is a TV cookery d em o n s tra tio n assum ing very little cu ltu ra l know ledge o f the a rt o f cooking.

O u t o f all the referring expressions, rough ly w hat p ro p o r tio n have exopho ric re f­erence and w hat p ro p o r tio n co n ta in deixis? H ow m u ch have you lost by read ing th e scrip t as opposed to actually seeing th e TV program m e?H ow explicit is th e language? Are th ere any parts th a t you w ou ld rew rite in a less explicit w ay if you w ere to a im a t an aud ience o f m ore experienced cooks?D o a sim ple experim en t; you will need to find n ine ind iv iduals w illing to take p art. C hoose a series o f connec ted ac tions to teach each ind iv idual (separately, n o t as a g roup ); fo r exam ple, you could d em o n s tra te chang ing th e battery fo r the flash in yo u r cam era o r calling a friend using th e address b o o k in y o u r m obile phone . Ask th ree o f th e ind iv iduals to w atch you, listen ing to your in s truc tions (using exophoric reference an d deixis), an d then , once you have fin ished, copy you exactly. Ask a n o th e r th ree to w atch an d copy you, w ith o u t you saying

Page 94: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

81.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

93

E X P L O R I N G THE C O N T E X T OF W R I T I N G 81

any th ing . Ask the o th e r th ree to listen to th e in s tru c tio n s an d th en d o it, w ithou t you giving a d em o n s tra tio n . C o m p are how well each o f th e n in e carry o u t the actions. W hat does this say ab o u t situa tional con tex t an d reference in instructions?

Text D

T. S. Eliot's Nobel Prize

T he follow ing anecdo te is taken from The Cassell D ictionary o f Anecdotes, ed ited b y Nigel Rees (1999). T h is tale was to ld by Philip French o f th e Observer (17 A pril 1994).

T ex t D is w ritten fo r those w ho k now so m eth in g ab o u t T. S. E lio t’s w ork. It show s a b reakdow n in co m m u n ica tio n .

□ T he b reakdow n occurs because th e speaker im plies o n e th ing an d the hea re r infers an o th e r. Explain it in te rm s o f back g ro u n d know ledge.

□ W o u ld you agree th a t this h u m o ro u s piece o f w riting invites readers to share the a ttitu d e o f th e w riter and laugh at those w ho know less th an th em , o r do yo u th ink th e h u m o u r lies in so m eth in g m o re com plex th an this? T o w hat ex ten t is th is ty p ­ical o f jokes, anecdo tes and com edy in general? C an you th in k o f any exam ples?

Text E

Elizabeth and Darcy declare their love

T his is from Jane A usten ’s b o o k Pride A n d Prejudice (1813). E lizabeth h ad loved D arcy for a long tim e b u t h ad always k ep t her d istance because she had fo u n d him p ro u d an d supercilious. She h a d rejected h is advances in th e past because she had h ea rd ru m o u rs ab o u t h im being cruel to h e r sister’s fiancé. Just before th is extract, she learns th a t he had n o t in fact b een cruel, and th a t he had secretly helped her sister o u t o f serious financial difficulties. T his scene takes place at the en d o f th e book . T hey w alk th ro u g h th e g ro u n d s o f h is estate, an d finally alone, open th e ir hearts for th e first tim e.

Page 95: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

82.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

94

82 E X P L O R A T I O N

Now was the moment for her resolution to be executed; and, while her courage was high, she immediately said -

"M r Darcy, I am a very selfish creature; and for the sake of giving relief to my own feelings, care not how much I may be wounding yours. I can no longer

help thanking you for your unexampled kindness to my poor sister. Ever since I have known it, I have been most anxious to acknowledge to you how gratefully

I feel it. W ere it known to the rest of the family, I should not have merely my own gratitude to express."

"I am sorry, exceedingly sorry," replied Darcy, in a tone of surprise and emo­tion, "tha t you have ever been informed of what may, in a mistaken light, have

given you uneasiness. I did not think Mrs Gardiner was so little to be trusted.” "You must not blame my aunt. Lydia's thoughtlessness first betrayed to me

that you had been concerned in the matter; and, of course, I could not rest until I knew the particulars. Let me thank you again and again, in the name of all my

family, for that generous compassion which induced you to take so much trouble, and bear so many mortifications, for the sake of discovering them ."

" If you w ill thank m e," he replied, " le t it be for yourself alone. That the wish

of giving happiness to you m ight add force to the other inducements which led me on, I shall not attem pt to deny. But your family owe me nothing. Much as I

respect them, I believe I thought only of you."

Elizabeth was too much embarrassed to say a word. A fte r a short pause, her companion added, "You are too generous to trifle w ith me. If your feelings are still what they were last April, tell me so at once. M y affections are unchanged;

but one word from you w ill silence me on this subject for ever."Elizabeth, feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his

situation, now forced herself to speak; and immediately, though not very fluently, gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change

since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive w ith gratitude and

pleasure his present assurances. The happiness which this reply produced was such as he had probably never fe lt before, and he expressed himself on the occa­sion as sensibly and as warm ly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do.

Had Elizabeth been able to encounter his eyes, she might have seen how well the

expression of heartfelt delight diffused over his face became him; but, though she

could not look, she could listen, and he told her of his feelings which, in proving of what importance she was to him, made his affection every moment more valuable.

o A ctiv ity

In Text E, E lizabeth and D arcy finally refer to th e ir in tim ate in terpersonal context.□ C an you find exam ples o f in tertextuality? H ow are they expressed?□ W e have said th a t peop le w ho are close m ake vague an d im plicit reference to

en tities an d events in th e ir in te rpersona l contex t. Is th is tru e o f E lizabeth and Darcy? W hy/w hy not?

Page 96: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

83.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

95

I N V E S T I G A T I N G C O -T EX T 83

□□

D o they have a shared a ttitu d e to conven tions in th e ir co m m o n socio­cu ltu ra l context?W atch a film o r a soap o p era o n TV, an d reco rd it if you can. C hoose a ten - m in u te section o f it w ith a substan tia l a m o u n t o f d ialogue, an d m ake no tes o n the references to th e situa tional, cu ltu ra l backg round and in te rpersona l b ackg round context.O u t o f th e th ree contex ts, w hich o n e is referred to m ost?H ow often is there an overlap o r a m ix tu re o f tw o o r all o f situa tiona l, cu l­tu ra l an d in te rpersona l con tex t a t one tim e, assum ed to be know n?H ow m u ch know ledge o f th e th ree con tex ts d o you, as a view er, have? H ow does the sc rip tw rite r play o n this?

IN V E S T IG A T IN G C O -T E X T

S tu d y in g fu rth e r and exp lo ring

□ cohesion

T he texts on the nex t tw o pages have all th e features o f cohesion th a t we have been look ing at, b u t you will find th a t they d o n o t all o ccu r in every text.

Text A, Shark Takes Leg, an d T ext B, Brad P itt, a re descrip tive an d in form ative, a n d they have a story line. T ext C , Saving th e Elk, is also descrip tive an d in fo rm ative , b u t it deals in defin itions and generalities. T he type o f text affects the form o f cohesion.

T ext D , G ram m ar stam m ers, co n ta in s sen tences th a t a re am b iguous because o f cohesive devices th a t have n o t been used clearly.

Text A

Shark takes leg

T his is the beg inn ing o f an article from th e Sydney M orning H erald (7 N ovem ber 2000).

C 2 .1

The patrons at the Blue Duck café overlooking Perth’s Cottesloe Beach were drink­ing coffee and having breakfast as the early morning swim m ers splashed about

just o ff shore.Kim Gamble, owner of the café - a favourite spot of the city 's business and

political elite - was doing his paperwork on the balcony.Suddenly, as he and his customers watched in horror, a five-metre white pointer

shark ploughed into a group of swim m ers, tearing one man's leg off and leaving

him to die, and then chasing one of his companions towards the beach."From the balcony I could see this huge shark - it was really huge," a shaken

M r Gamble said soon after the attack. "There was a whole sea of blood and it was pulling the person."

Page 97: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

84.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

96

84 E X P L O R A T I O N

Q A ctiv ityText A con ta in s synonym s an d an apho ric reference.

□ W here are they?□ W hy are they necessary?

Text B

Brad P itt

Brad P itt is a p o p u la r young film sta r w ho has sp ru n g to fam e since 1991. This excerpt com es from yahoo.com Internet. It is part o f Rebecca Flint’s All-M ovie Guide to his career.

W ith looks that have inspired countless People magazine covers, Internet shrines, and record estrogen surges, Brad Pitt is an actor whose very name inspires more drooling platitudes about male beauty than it does about acting. Following his break­through as the w ickedly charming drifter who seduces Geena Davis and then robs

her blind in Thelma and Louise (1991), Pitt became one of Hollywood's hottest properties and spent most of the 1990s being lauded as everything from Robert

Redford's heir apparent to the 'sexiest man alive.'1991 marked the end of Pitt's sojourn in the land of obscurity, as it was the

year he made his appearance in Thelma and Louise. P itt's next major role did not come until 1994, when he was cast as the lead of the gorgeously photographed

but woefully uneven Legends o f the Fall. As he did in A River Runs Through It, Pitt portrayed a free-spirited, strong-willed brother, but this time had greater oppor­

tunity to further develop his enigmatic character. Following the film 's release, People magazine dubbed Pitt 'the sexiest man alive.’ That same year, fans watched in anticipation as Pitt exchanged his outdoorsy persona for the brooding, Gothic pos­turing of Anne Rice's tortured vampire Louis in the film adaptation of Interview

with a Vampire. Starring opposite Tom Cruise, Pitt enjoyed the further helping of fame that was served up by the film 's success.

Pitt next starred in the forgettable romantic comedy The Favor [ 1994) before going on to play a rookie detective investigating a series of gruesome crimes oppos­

ite Morgan Freeman in Seven (1995). In 1997, Pitt received a Golden Globe award

and an Oscar nomination fo r his portrayal of a visionary mental patient in Terry

Gilliam's 12 Monkeys', the same year, Pitt attempted an Austrian accent and put on a backpack to play mountaineer Heinrich Harrar in Seven Years in Tibet. The

film met w ith mixed reviews and generated a fair amount of controversy, thanks in part to the revelation that the real-life Harrar had in fact been a Nazi. Furthermore, due to its pro-Tibetan stance, the film also resulted in P itt’s being

banned from China for life. In 1998, Pitt tried his hand at romantic drama, por­traying Death in M eet Joe Black, the m ost expensive non-special effects film ever

made. The film, which weighed in at three hours in length, met w ith excessively

mixed reviews, although more than one critic remarked that Pitt certainly made a very appealing representative of the afterlife.

Page 98: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

85.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

97

I N V E S T I G A T I N G C O - T E X T 85

A ctiv ityT ex t B d em onstra tes th a t in p o p u la r w ritten English w ith a jou rna listic flavour, som e features o f cohesion o r reference to co -tex t p red o m in a te at th e expense o f o thers.

□ T here are very few features o f g ram m atica l cohesion: w hich type o f g ram m atica l cohesion occurs m ost frequently?

□ T he cohesion is m ain ly lexical; w ha t is the m ain device?□ W hy d o you th in k th e characteristics described here in (a) an d (b) are p resen t in

th is text? W h a t does it tell you ab o u t th e text?

Text C

Saving the elk

T his is taken from a C anad ian T o u ris t B oard w ebsite: C anad ianP arks.com . T he w ebsite describes all th e na tiona l parks, and Elk Island N ational P ark is one o n th e ir list.

T ex t C differs fro m Texts A and B in th a t it deals in generalities. H ow is th is reflected in th e form o f cohesion?

Text D

Grammar stammers

T he follow ing m in i-ex trac ts are taken from R ichard L ederer’s am u sin g M ore Anguished English (1987), w hich he calls ‘A n exposé o f em barrassing , excruciating , and egregious e rro rs in English’. These ex tracts com e from the ch ap te r en titled ‘G ram m ar s tam m ers’, w hich lists funny cases o f am b iguous g ram m ar taken from U S new s­papers and m agazines.

Page 99: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

86.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

98

86 E X P L O R A T I O N

During the summer, m y sister and I milked the cows, but now that school has started, my father milks the cows in the morning, and us at night.

Mrs McAllister watched as the giant airplane taxied out of the gate. Then like some w ild beast she pointed her nose down the runway and screamed

terrifically into the sky.Mr Yoshiko said the donkey owners should clearly state w hy they want to

keep the animals. " If they cannot give good reasons why they need the don­keys, then they w ill be shot."

Please place your garbage in this barrel. It w ill be here weekends for use. Recent visitors were Jonathan Goldings and their in-laws the Brett Packards,

from Lake Placid, NY. Brett had his tonsils removed in Centerville. It was a pleasant surprise to have them for supper.

© Activities

□ T ake each o f th e sen tences in T ext D anda Explain th e ir am bigu ity in te rm s o f cohesion,b R ew rite th em so th a t th e m ean ing is clear.

□ F ind a sh o rt text, o f the sam e so rt as T exts A and B, in th a t it co n ta in s p o p u lar w ritten English w ith a jou rna lis tic flavour.a List the g ram m atica l a n d lexical cohesive devices th a t p red o m in a te ,b C om pare th e devices th a t p red o m in a te in y o u r texts w ith th e devices th a t p re ­

d o m in a te in Texts A an d B. c T o w hat ex ten t can you say th a t th e genre (type o f text) d e te rm in es the so rt

o f cohesion th a t is used?□ F ind a tex tbook w hich y o u have had to read for a course th a t you a re d o ing o r

have done, an d w hich you have fo u n d particu larly difficult to follow.a Analyse th e cohesive devices o f a page o r tw o th a t you rem em b er hav ing to

read an d reread in o rd e r to unders tand , b D ecide w hether you can say y o u r difficulty in u n d e rs tan d in g is partly d u e to

the p resence o f som e devices o r the absence o f others.□ D o you th in k th a t ch ild ren o f 7 -9 years use g ram m atica l cohesion efficiently?

a Find a child o f ab o u t th a t age an d reco rd them .b Ask th em to relate to you an inc iden t th a t they w itnessed o r to tell you a story

(n o t a w ell-know n one), c Ask them to keep it sh o rt, so th a t they speak for only th ree o r fo u r m inutes,d T ranscribe it. T h is m eans w riting every w ord th a t they say. Before you start,

find a colleague w ho will w ork o n it w ith you. T hen look th ro u g h the tr a n ­scrip tions o f real spoken data in U n its A1 and B1 to see how it is done, and check the tran sc rip tio n conven tions m en tio n ed in ‘H ow to use th is b o o k ’,

e Look a t each o f th e g ram m atica l cohesion devices an d see if they are used correctly.

Page 100: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

87.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

99

E X P L O R I N G S P E E C H A C T S 87

See if there are any occasions in the reco rd ing w hen g ram m atica l cohesion cou ld have been used b u t was no t.C o m p are yo u r findings w ith those o f o th e r s tu d en ts in y o u r class.C onclude w hether ch ild ren o f 7—9 years use g ram m atical cohesion efficiendy o r no t.

E X P L O R IN G S P E E C H A C T S

S tu d y in g fu rth e r and exp lo ring

□ Speech acts an d cu ltu ra l variables

T he texts an d questions in th is u n it ask you to consider th e socio linguistic aspect o f speech acts. T hey cen tre ro u n d th e fact th a t th e expression o f speech acts is affected by th e social differences th a t can d ictate th e need fo r ind irec tness (s ta tus , roles, age, gender, education , class, occupation an d ethn icity ) an d the con tex tual co nstra in ts (the size o f im position ; fo rm ality o f s itu a tio n ). T h is u n it also asks you to explore th e rules su rro u n d in g speech acts and the effect o f each co u n try ’s cu ltu re o n the choice and expression o f speech acts.

Texts A, B and C are exam ples o f speech acts in action . Text A com es from a new s­p ap e r an d con ta in s verbs th a t describe speech acts. T ext B is from a ch ild ren ’s bo o k an d illustrates th e use o f ind irec t speech acts in re la tions o f un eq u a l pow er. T ex t C is in fact tw o texts, b o th o f w hich show th a t speech acts are b o u n d by rules.

T ext D is n o t an exam ple o f speech acts b u t a list o f cu ltu ra l d im en sio n s w hich vary from co u n try to co u n try an d reflect a view o f life a n d society.

Text A

Aborigines' rights

T his is from th e n a tio n a l new spaper The Australian , da ted 1 June 2000. It com es from an article w ritten by M egan Saunders en titled ‘Blacks in push fo r seats q u o ta ’. T he issue is th a t th e A borig ines’ C om m ission a n d ind igenous leaders (Ridgew ay, C lark , P erk ins and O ’D o noghue) are calling fo r A borig ines to be rep resen ted in th e A ustra lian P arliam en t; they w ant a set n u m b e r o f seats to be reserved fo r A borig inal M em bers o f P arliam en t. T h is excerpt describes th e discussions.

C 3 .1

Two days after he refused to contemplate a treaty, the Prime Minister yesterday flatly rejected any suggestion of special or separate parliamentary representation

for indigenous people, saying both issues would divide the nation.Senator Ridgeway told The Australian that four seats should be set aside "in

order not to alter the balance". He said it should be a temporary measure until the situation improved to the point where Aborigines were elected on their merits. "There

would not be a need for the type of intervention that would currently be required

Page 101: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

88.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

100

88 E X P L O R A T I O N

once an indigenous person could get the sort of support others would ," he said.

The concept was backed by M r Perkins, who suggested five seats in each house

to give Aborigines an "opportunity to have their voice in parliament regardless of political parties". Ms O'Donoghue supported the proposal but said that she would prefer Aborigines to increase their representation in mainstream parties.

But Mr Howard publicly dismissed the idea. "I know that if w e got into any

kind of treaty negotiations, you would be talking about things like representa­

tion in parliament, special indigenous seats," he said. "You'd be talking about land ownership issues, you'd be talking about regional governance issues, and they

would be seen quite w idely by the rest of the community as divisive."Mr Clark refused to comment until indigenous leaders met to develop a

united front. But in his speech during Corroboree 2000 ceremonies last Saturday, he pointed to New Zealand, where Maoris had reserved seats, to Inuit home-rule

in Greenland, and Sami parliaments in Finland, Norway and Sweden, as examples Australia could draw on in advancing indigenous rights.

Text B

Winnie the Pooh

W inn ie the P ooh is the w orld -fam ous teddy b ear created by th e w rite r A. A. M ilne (1882-1956). T he characters o f M ilne’s ch ild ren ’s books are based o n h is son C hris topher R ob in ’s nursery toys; the ir adventures are set in A shdow n Forest, in so u th ­east E ngland, w here the M ilnes lived. T his excerpt is from a ch ap te r in W innie the Pooh en titled ‘In w hich Eeyore loses a tail an d P ooh finds o n e ’. Eeyore is a donkey w ho has a g loom y o u tlo o k o n life and h um an ity ; he assum es th a t so m eo n e has taken his tail. P ooh offers to find it an d goes to consu lt Owl. T he ‘highly ed u ca ted ’ O w l gives th e highly lovable bear o f very little b ra in his advice.

"W ell," said Owl, "the customary procedure in such cases is as fo llow s.”"W hat does Crustimoney Proseedcake mean?" said Pooh. "For I am a Bear

of Very Little Brain, and long words Bother m e."

"It means the Thing to Do."

"As long as it means that, I don't m ind,” said Pooh humbly."The thing to do is as follows. First, Issue a Reward. Then "Just a m om ent," said Pooh, holding up his paw. "W hat do w e do to this -

what you were saying? You sneezed just as you were going to tell m e."

"I d idn 't sneeze.""Yes, you did, Ow l.""Excuse me, Pooh, I didn't. You can't sneeze w ithout knowing it."

"W ell, you can't know it w ithout something having been sneezed."

"W hat I said was, 'First Issue a Reward’ .""You're doing it again," said Pooh sadly.

Page 102: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

89.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

101

E X P L O R I N G S P E E C H A C T S 89

"A Reward!" said Owl very loudly. "W e w rite a notice to say that w e will

give a large something to anybody w ho finds Eeyore's tail."

"I see, I see," said Pooh, nodding his head. "Talking about large somethings," he w ent on dreamily, "I generally have a small something about now - about this tim e in the m orning," and he looked w istfu lly at the cupboard in the corner of

O w l's parlour; "just a mouthful of condensed milk or what-not, w ith perhaps a

lick of honey

"W ell, then," said Owl, "w e w rite out this notice, and we put it up all over the Forest."

"A lick of honey", murmured Bear to himself, "o r - or not, as the case may be." And he gave a deep sigh, and tried very hard to listen to what Owl was saying.

But Owl w ent on and on, using longer and longer words, until at last he came

back to where he started, and he explained that the person to write out this notice was Christopher Robin.

Text C

Invitations

a To garden p a rtie sT his tex t is taken from a fascinating b o o k en titled Hom e Managem ent, by G arth and W ren ch , w hich a im s to p repare new ly-w eds to ru n a househo ld an d behave co rrectly in society. N o te th a t it w as pub lished in 1934 (D aily Express Publications, L ondon).

When writing your notes of invitation to a garden party, it is well to mention whether

tennis or any other game w ill be a feature of the afternoon. Guests at a garden party wear their very smartest frocks and hats, and probably carry parasols, but

if the tennis players among them know that the tennis court w ill be in play, they

will put on their tennis frocks or flannels, and bring their racquets w ith them.Answers to all formal invitations m ust be in the third person: "M r. and Mrs.

Dugdale accept w ith pleasure Mrs. W ynston's kind invitation for Wednesday, June

15, at nine o-clock." Do be careful to avoid that very frequent mistake of writing

"w ill be" pleased to accept. You are referring, remember, to the pleasure you feel at the moment of accepting, not to some future pleasure. Never answer an informal note in the third person. W hen the letters R.S.V.P. are not on an invita­tion card, an answer is neither expected nor necessary, but when they are, it is

essential that a reply be sent - and PROMPTLY.

b To d in n e r p a rtie sT his text is from w ebsite o f the O ffice o f In te rn a tio n a l S tuden ts Affairs, th e U niversity o f Illinois, USA, w hich aim s to p rep a re s tu d en ts to in te rac t w ith th e ir A m erican hosts.

Page 103: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

90.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

102

90 E X P L O R A T I O N

□ L ooking at th e tex ts ind iv iduallya W hich m acro-class, d irec t speech acts an d ind irec t speech acts are involved

the m ost, in Texts A, B and C? b In th e th ree texts, w hat reasons can you see fo r th e ind irec t speech acts being

used? C o n sid er th e social differences and con tex tual constra in ts, c In Text A, ‘A borig ines’ righ ts’, w hy d o you th in k there are so m any verbs ac tu ­

ally describing the speech acts? Find o ther national broadsheet new spaper reports ab o u t cam pa igns/nego tia tions an d decide w h eth er ‘verbs n am in g speech ac ts’ is p a rt o f th e n a tio n a l b roadshee t new spaper rep o rtin g genre o r not.

d W ou ld you say th a t T ext B, ‘W inn ie th e P ooh ’, show s a pow er-struggle? Is the ind irec t speech ac t a n d the w ay it is re sponded to ap p ro p ria te for a book for children?

□ Speech acts are governed by social conventions dependent on the context o f culture, a T he tw o T ext C ‘In v ita tio n s’ excerpts are ab o u t th e speech acts o f inv iting

an d accepting inv ita tions, an d co n ta in exam ples o f a series o f ways o f expressing directives, giving advice. T hey illustrate how th e social conventions vary from co u n try to coun try , an d from tim e to tim e. C o m p are th e tex t’s conven tions an d how they are expressed indirectly ,

b T h in k o f a n o th e r s itu a tio n in w hich a speech act is governed by conven tions;w rite a descrip tion o f it. You m ay w an t to look at th e w ords used to ask som e­one o u t, o r the w ords used to com p lim en t som eone o n th e ir clo thes and the response o f th e com plim en ted one, o r the w ords used to apologise. T he speech act s itua tions an d realisa tions are endless: th e choice is yours,

c Ask 20 people to tell you w hat the conven tions are. You can either w rite aqu estionna ire o f responses for th em to label true o r false o r you can give them a relatively free qu estio n n a ire in w hich you describe a situ a tio n a n d leave the responden ts free to w rite w hat th e partic ip an ts w ou ld say.

d W rite a b rie f d escrip tion o f y o u r resu lts an d add a d iscussion , exp lain ing whyyou th in k you got th e answ ers th a t you did.

□ R em em ber th a t speech ac t theo ry has lim ita tions.a As you w ere iden tify ing th e speech acts in T exts A, B an d C , d id you have a

p ro b lem w ith overlap , o r u tterances th a t d id n o t fit in to m acro-classes? W hich was th e greatest prob lem ? Explain th e p rob lem an d give exam ples.

Page 104: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

91.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

103

E X P L O R I N G S P E E C H A C T S 91

b D o you feel th a t speech act th eo ry is a satisfactory w ay o f cod ing the fu n c ­tio n o f language? C an you th in k o f an im provem en t o r be tte r alternative?

□ T h in k o f a lo cu tio n th a t co n stitu tes a decla ra tion speech act in y o u r cu ltu re , a Explain th e felicity co n d itio n s using A u stin ’s m odel and th en Searle’s. b W hich m odel d o you prefer? W hy?

Text D

Understanding the m ulti-cultural dimension

T he findings sum m arised below are tak en from th e Royal Philips E lectronic w ebsite (h ttp ://w w w .new s.ph ilip s.com /m ondial/arch ive/1999 /august/artikel4 .h tm l). T he su m ­m ary o f th e research is p rov ided to gu ide people d o in g business w ith com pan ies from o th e r coun tries.

Understanding the multicultural dimensionDutch engineer and social scientist Geert Hofstede has conducted extensive research into the problems of doing business across many cultures. A fter a com ­

prehensive study of 80,000 IBM employees in 66 countries, he established four

dimensions of national culture. These help managers identify areas in which they may encounter cultural difficulties:

□ Uncertainty avoidance: this dimension refers to how comfortable people feel

towards uncertainty. Cultures that ranked low (Great Britain) feel more com ­fortable w ith the unknown. Cultures high on uncertainty avoidance (Greece) prefer formal rules.

□ Power distance: this is defined as "the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed unequally". In other words people in high power distance cultures (Philippines)

are much more comfortable w ith a larger status differential than low power distance cultures (Sweden).

□ Masculinity-femininity. th is refers to expected gender roles in a culture. Masculine cultures (Japan) tend to have distinct roles for males and females,

while feminine cultures (The Netherlands) have a greater ambiguity in what is expected of the genders.

□ Individualism-collectivism: this is defined by the extent to which an individual's

behavior is influenced and defined by others. Individual cultures (USA) prefer

self-sufficiency while collectivists (Indonesia) recognize the obligations to the group.

For more information see Cultures and Organizations by Geert Flofstede

(HarperCollins).

Activities

□ Text D lists social d im ensions th a t vary from cu ltu re to cu ltu re an d can affect a speaker’s choice o f d irect and ind irec t speech acts. T o w hat extent w ould you agree

o

Page 105: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

92.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

104

□ 9 2 E X P L O R A T I O N

th a t you can m ake b lanket sta tem en ts ab o u t cu ltu ra l differences in th is way? W hat d ifficulties m ight arise, if business people w ere to take these d im en sio n s as sci­entifically p roven fo r all occasions?

□ H ow often d o w e really use ind irec t speech acts?a O ver the nex t week, d o one o f the follow ing alternatives:

□ m ake a n o te o f every single d irec t an d ind irec t directive speech act th a t is addressed to you , w ord fo r w ord if you can, an d m ake a b rie f n o te o f th e con tex t, e.g. ‘go ing th ro u g h a d o o r’ o r ‘a t a ticket office’.

□ w rite dow n all w ritten in s tru c tio n s th a t you see a ro u n d you on notices,e.g. ‘N o S m oking’, and m ake a b rie f no te o f th e con tex t, e.g. ‘at a pe tro ls ta tio n ’ o r ‘at th e en tran ce to a p a rk ’.

b See w hich you have m o re o f - d irec t o r indirect.c Exam ine how th e in d irec t directives a re expressed, to see w hich w ords and

g ram m atica l fo rm s are used m ost, d C o n sid er th e ex ten t to w hich th e con tex t affects th e d irectness o f the act.e D raw conclusions,f W rite up y o u r study.

□ L ook at all th e texts to decide w hether they have a m ain ly tran sac tio n a l o r m ain ly in te rna tiona l fun c tio n , o r w hether they have an equal mix.

□ M ake a reco rd ing o f tw o friends o r relatives having a long casual conversation . Y ou m igh t have to w ait un til you know th a t they have settled dow n in a qu ie t place for an a fte rn o o n ’s ch a t over a coffee, o r such like, so th a t you can get ab o u t an h o u r’s record ing . D o n o t give them any in s truc tions as to w hat they shou ld talk ab o u t o r how ; let it be sp o n taneous an d natural.a D ivide th e reco rd ing u p in to th ree -m in u te chunks, regardless o f w hat is h a p ­

p en in g at th e th re e -m in u te in terval; do n o t b o th e r tran scrib in g all th is data , b Listen to each th ree -m in u te ch u n k and decide w hether its function is p rim arily

transactional o r p rim arily in terac tional, o r a 50/50 m ix ture, c C alculate w hat p ro p o r tio n o f th e 20 chunks is p rim arily tran sac tio n a l, w hat

p ro p o r tio n is p rim arily in terac tional, an d w hat p ro p o r tio n a 50/50 m ix tu re , and say w hich p ro p o r tio n is biggest and w hy you th in k so.

d Look a t each o f th e th ree g ro u p s o f chunks a n d see w hat d irec t speech acts

e W rite up y o u r findings u n d e r th e title ‘T he overall fu n c tio n o f a casual conversa tion ’.

TH E A N A L Y S IS OF C O N V E R S A T IO N

□ conversa tion analysis□ in terac tional sociolinguistics□ social con tex t

T he da ta th a t you are inv ited to w ork w ith in th is section is all to d o w ith spoken lan ­guage, since exchange s tru c tu re and conversa tion analysis look at how people speak

are there.

C4.1 S tu dy in g fu rth e r and exp lo ring

Page 106: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

93.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

105

THE A N A L Y S I S OF C O N V E R S A T I O N 93

an d in terac t orally, b u t n o t how peop le w rite to each o ther. H ow ever, T exts A an d D are w ritten versions o f how people speak: Text A com es from a bo o k th a t con ta in s d ialogue, an d T ext B is from a film . Y ou will find som e o f th e features o f exchange s tru c tu re and conversa tion analysis a re p resen t, despite th e fact th a t it is n o t na tu ra lly occu rrin g data . T he features are exp lo ited to d ram atic advantage. By co n trast, Texts B an d C are transcrip tions o f real conversations. Text B takes place in a hospital k itchen an d Text C in a lift. T he difference betw een these conversa tions an d the ‘d ram a tic ’ ones o f T exts A and D is striking.

Text A

Mr Kaplan

T his excerp t com es from th e lig h t-h earted book The Education o f H ym an Kaplan, by Leo R osten (2000); it show s u n in sp ired teach ing m eth o d s o f th e betw een-the-w ars pe rio d , the com plica tions o f th e English language and th e pow er struggles betw een studen ts. K aplan is a pup il in th e English class o f N ew Y ork’s P repara to ry N igh t School for A dults. H is teacher, M r Parkhill has asked th e s tuden ts to w rite a sen tence fo r each o f th ree w ords, an d read o u t th e ir sentences. M r K aplan has ju s t read his first sen ­tence , and n ow M r Parkhill p ro m p ts h im to go o n w ith h is second. Be p rep a red for som e strange English here: if you read th e passage a loud , you will be able to u n d e r­s tan d w hat p o o r K aplan m eans.

"Read your next sentence, Mr. Kaplan."Mr. Kaplan w ent on, smiling. "De second void, ladies an' gentleman, is

'fascinate' - an' believe me is a planty hod void! So is mine santence: 'In India is all kinds snake-fescinators.'"

"You are thinking of snake-charmers." (Mr. Kaplan seemed to have taken the

dictionary's description of "fascinate" too literally.) "Try 'fascinate' in another sen­tence, please."

Mr. Kaplan gazed ceilingward w ith a masterful insouciance, one eye half-closed. Then he ventured: "You fescinate m e."

Mr. Parkhill hurried Mr. Kaplan on to his last word.

"Toid void, faller-students, is 'univoisity.' De santence usink dis void:

'Elaven yiss is married mine vife an’ minesalf, so is tim e commink for our tvalft univoisity. ' "

It was the opportunity for which M iss M itnick had been waiting. "M r. Kaplan

mixes up tw o words," she said. "Fie means 'anniversary.' 'University' is a high

college - the highest college."

Mr. Kaplan listened to this unwelcome correction w ith a fine sufferance. Then he arched his eyebrows and said, "You got right, Mitnick. Hau Kay! So I givink

anodder santence: "Some pipple didn't have aducation in a univoisity’ " - he glanced

meaningfully at Miss M itnick - "but just de same, dey havink efter elaven yiss de tvalft annoiversery. ' "

Page 107: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

94.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

106

94 E X P L O R A T I O N

Q ActivityR ew rite the d ialogue parts o f T ext A as a play scrip t, as in:

Teacher Read your next sentence, M r Kaplan.

Kaplan De second void, ladies an' gentleman, is 'fascinate' - . . .

an d th en analyse it in te rm s o f IRF. T o w hat ex ten t does it follow th e m odel, an d to w hat ex ten t do you th in k it reflects w hat goes o n in a real even ing class for adults? H ow w ould you say th a t th e w riter exploits IRF an d classroom trad itions, and the devi­a tions from it, to d ram atic advantage?

Text B

Tamara's photos from the fancy dress

T his excerpt is taken from a casual conversation in D iana Slade’s (Eggins an d Slade 1997: 11-12) database. It is a tea-break chat am ong th ree A ustralian w om en em ployees in a hosp ita l k itchen . Slade says th a t th e chat co n ta in s ‘gossip’, w hich ‘involves p a r­tic ipan ts engaging in exchanging negative o p in io n s an d pejorative evalua tions ab o u t th e beh av io u r o f a person w ho is ab sen t’ an d the p u rp o se o f w hich is in terpersonal ‘to d o w ith th e position ing o f partic ipan ts in relation to each o th e r a n d to critical issues in th e ir social w orld ’. N o te th a t in S lade’s tran sc rip tio n system , = = indicates an over­lap, . . . indicates a b rie f pause, and ( ) is a n o n -tran scrib ab le segm ent.

o

Jo

Jenny

JoJenny

DonnaJenny

JoJennyJo

Did she see the photos in her coz*?She walks in . . . She stopped me she stopped me and she said, umm "Oh, by the way, have you have you seen any photos of = = me?" I

thought, you know, you're a bit sort of, you know . ..= = No one told her there were photos.She said, "Have you seen any photos of me at the fancy dress?" And

I said, I said, "W ell, as a matter of fact, I've seen one or two, um, of you Tamara, but you know, nothing . . . " And, um, she said "Do you know of anyone else w ho 's taken = = any photos of me at the fancy dress?"

= = I wouldn't be taking any photos. = = I mean, I would have asked.

= = I mean, if anyone had taken any of me at the fancy dress I'd want to = = burn them.

W hy does she always want to get her picture? ()

She said, "I just wanted to see how well the costume turned out." She's pretty insecure, that girl.

* As Slade explains 'Coz' is common Australian slang for costume.

ActivityW h at features o f tu rn -ta k in g can you see in T ext B? W hy do yo u th in k they are present? T ry and read it o u t w ith som eone, and say w hether you k now o f any films w ritten w ith a scrip t like tha t, and why.

Page 108: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

95.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

107

THE A N A L Y S I S OF C O N V E R S A T I O N 95

Text C

Greetings in a lift

T his excerp t is from Janet H o lm es’ (2000: 39) database. H ere, M att and Bob are m ale colleagues o f equal sta tus in a N ew Z ealand gov ern m en t d ep a rtm en t. T hey m eet and gree t in th e lift an d the exchange is b ro u g h t to an end w hen they reach B ob’s floor. T h is is social talk w ith a reference to the shared con tex t o f w ork . N o te tha t in H om es’ tran sc rip tio n system , there are n o capitals, com m as o r full stops, an d she o n ly uses? to ind ica te a rising in to n a tio n . T he sym bol + indicates a pause o f u p to one second .

M hi how 's thingsB hi good good + haven't seen you for ages how are you M fine busy though as always + must meet my performance objectives eh [laugh] B [laughl yeah me too

L ift arrives at Bob's floor ah well see you later

M yea bye

ActivityD escribe T ext C in te rm s o f sequences a n d discuss w hy it has th e characteristics th a t it does. W ou ld you class it as a conversation?

©

Text D

The Full M onty

T his text is from the British com edy film The Fu ll M onty ( 1997). Six unem ployed Sheffield steelw orkers are driven to p rep are a s trip show to solve th e ir m oney prob lem s. As the b lu rb on the video says, ‘D irector Peter C attaneo com bines black com edy, roaring h ilar­ity an d all the absu rd ity , h eartache an d p a thos o f six m en try ing to keep body, soul a n d d ign ity to g e th e r.’ In th is scene, G az and his ten -year o ld son N ath an a re in the p o st office. T he boy w ants to w ithd raw th e £100 th a t th e ow ner o f th e club d em an d s to cover his losses. N o te th e tran sc rip tio n conven tion o f n u m b ers in b rackets to in d i­cate the leng th o f pause in seconds.

GN

N

G

Nath - Nath - you can't give this, kid! It's your savings!I can. It just needs your signature. It says in t'book. [To the assistant at the counterI I'd like to take out my money out please.ITo Nathanl\Ne\\ you bloody well can't have it. ITo the assistant! You -

you're all right love. It's sorted.

ITo Gazl It's my money. I want it. ITo the assistantl A hundred pounds please. [To Nathanl Well, when you're eighteen, you-you-you you can walk in and get it yourself, can't you?

Page 109: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

96.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

108

96 E X P L O R A T I O N

N You said you'd get it back.

G I know. (0.5) but you don't want to listen to what I say. (0.5)

N You said so. (0.5) I believe you. (0.5)G You do? (1)N Yeah. (2.5)

G Blimey, Nath.

o Activities

Is it possible to look a t T ext D from th e p o in t o f view o f ad jacency pairs and sequences? D iscuss w hy /w hy no t. Analyse, in te rm s o f tu rn -tak in g , how the change in d ram atic effect h a lf way th ro u g h th is little extract is achieved.G oing back now to in te rac tio n a l sociolinguistics, you will recall th a t it takes in to accoun t th e con tex t, a n d th e fact th a t social g roups have th e ir ow n varieties o r in -g ro u p codes. Look again a t all fo u r ex tracts an d th in k a b o u t h ow th ei location th a t th e exchange takes place inii re la tionsh ip betw een the peop le (look a t roles, sta tus and pow er)iii h is to ries they shareiv p u rp o se in speaking affect thei exchange s tru c tu reii tu rn -tak in giii adjacency pairsiv sequencesv g ram m arvi lexis.R ecord a lesson o r sem in a r and analyse a stre tch o f it (n o m o re th an ten m in ­utes) in w hich th e teacher is talk ing an d in te rac ting w ith the s tu d en ts . R ecording m ust o f course be overt, so you will have to get th e a u th o risa tio n from the teacher befo re th e session. Analyse th e te n -m in u te stre tch in term s o f IRF.i W hat are th e factors th a t d e te rm in e w hether th e IRF s tru c tu re is followed?ii W o u ld you like to suggest a d ifferen t m odel for classroom in teraction? Design a questionnaire to see w hat language people use in pre-sequences. A way to d o it w ou ld be to describe a s itua tion an d ask th em w hat they w ou ld say, as in:

You are in the library sitting next to a colleague whom you do not know very well. The colleague lives near you and has a car. You are feeling tired from your day’s reading and want them to run you home (they have never

given you a lift before). What might you say, to prepare the ground, before

you actually come out w ith your request?

Page 110: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

97.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

109

F O L L O W I N G THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 97

As you can see, th is question is ph rased in such a way to ensure th a t you r subjects w ould use a pre-sequence; otherw ise, you m ay find tha t they just w rite th e ir request sequence. M ake su re th a t yo u inc lude as m any types o f p re-sequence as possible, fo r exam ple, p re-requests, p re -inv ita tions, p re -an n o u n cem en ts , p re -co m m an d s, p re-advice. Y our question shou ld also co n ta in th e socio -cu ltu ra l d im ensions o f situa tional con tex t, an d th e contex t o f shared know ledge ab o u t speakers, th e ir h is­tories and th e ir p u rp o se in speaking. A list o f ten s itu a tio n s shou ld be enough . You will only start to get answers that you can group into trends and typical responses if you give the questionnaire to a m in im um o f tw enty people. W rite u p your findings ab o u t th e language th a t people use in p re-sequences and the soc io -cu ltu ra l fac­to rs in fluencing th e ir choice. Inc lude an ap p en d ix in yo u r questionna ire .

F O L L O W IN G T H E C O O P E R A T IV E P R IN C IP L E

S tu d y in g fu rth e r and exp lo ring

□ cooperative p rincip le□ relevance theo ry□ cu ltu ra l variables

Y ou are go ing to read five qu ite d ifferen t scripts. T ext A is a th ea tre ’s descrip tion o f a m em b er o f staff, taken from its p rog ram m e; T exts B an d C a re from th e television, th e first be ing a celebrity chat show an d th e second th e news; an d T ext D is p ro m o ­tiona l w eb m ateria l for a concert. In all o f these, there is evidence o f conversa tional im p lica tu re b u t in each case it is q u ite d ifferen t an d is used fo r a d ifferen t pu rpose . T ex t E is from a classic play, fea tu ring a d ram atic m o m en t betw een a h u sb an d and w ife, an d it show s evidence o f m ax im vio lation .

Text A

Peter Pan programme

T his excerp t is taken from a p ro g ram m e fo r Peter Pan, p e rfo rm ed in th e Royal Lyceum T heatre , E d inburgh , (C h ristm as 1999). Peter Pan is a ch ild ren ’s sto ry , w rit­ten by J. M . B arrie in 1904, ab o u t a fam ily o f th ree ch ild ren w ho fly away to th e N ever N ever Land w ith Peter Pan, live w ith th e Lost Boys an d fight th e p irates. T his excerpt is p a r t o f th e p ro g ram m e’s d escrip tion o f the cast and th e technical su p p o rt: it describes M ike Travis, o n percussion .

C 5 .1

Mike Travis spends his life hitting things of various shapes and sizes. When he is

not hitting things, he lives in the country w ith two dogs, tw o cats, two goats, twenty-

one ducks, five geese, two pigs and eight hens (but not all in the same house, the smell would be minging!*) He loves playing for the Lyceum Christmas shows (Peter

Page 111: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

98.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

110

98 E X P L O R A T I O N

Pan is his twelfth) because he gets to make up funny sounds for people like scratch­ing, creeping, fighting, getting kicked on the bum and getting their noses tweaked.

Mike really likes small children but he couldn't eat a whole one.

* Scots English meaning sm elly

Q ActivityD escribe T ext A in term s o f m ax im observing, flou ting an d vio lating . H ow is m axim flou ting used to reach th e ch ild ren in th e text? C o m p are it w ith T ext D below .

Text B

Parkinson

T his excerp t is taken from a TV celebrity chat show hosted by M ichael Park inson , 31 M arch 2001, in w hich he talked to T am sin from the L ondon TV soap Eastenders. T am sin described an inc iden t in a celebrity party, w hen she was a barm aid . She d ropped a bow l o f p u n ch and it spilt everywhere. M ichael Palin, a fam ous TV personality , helped her by p u ttin g salt o n the spill to d ry up the w ine and stop it sta in ing the carpet. In the follow ing text, she m en tions m eeting R onnie C orbett, a very sh o rt s tan d -u p com edian .

Tam sin

Parkinson

Tam sin

ParkinsonTam sin

ParkinsonTam sin

Parkinson

Tam sin

ParkinsonTam sin

ParkinsonTam sin

And Michael Palin and I spent the next tw o hours on our hands

and knees w ith salt. Literally mopping it up. But you know I’ve never met Rennie - Ronnie Corbett and I remember - one thing I

remember - I was kneeling down and the whole tw o hours he was at my eye-level. And I never knew how tall he was / . . . /

A - and also too you doing this er this drama series // called Redcap.

// It’s a film actually It’s a BBC1 film == BBC1 film.And - er - it’s about the special investigation branch w ith in the army.

Yes.Which basically entails being under cover em solving crime within the army and Patrick Harvinson and he’s w ritten E.R. and Soldier

Soldier and the BBC’s been kind enough to let me go and do it and then go back to Eastenders in the - er - summer.

Have you got to learn to be a soldier?

Got to learn how to hold a gun, and I’ve got to be three weeks

training in the army.That'll be fun eh?Can't wait.|heh heh heh)

Not like that.

Page 112: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

99.

http

://s

ite.e

brar

y.co

m/li

b/ke

ris/

Doc

?id=

1001

6807

&pa

ge=

111

F O L L O W I N G THE C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E 99

Activity ©T ex t B is full o f m ax im flou tings - w here are they? Explain how the au d ien ce u n d e r­stan d s th e h u m o u r o f th e floutings.

Text C

Foot and mouth and elections

T he year 2001 saw th e w orst o u tb reak o f foot and m o u th disease in th e UK for a h u n d re d years. In M ay, fa rm ers’ u n io n s a n d oppo sitio n parties p u t p ressu re on th e P rim e M inister, T ony Blair, to delay the elections, an d concen tra te on w ip ing o u t th e d isease. O n 2 A pril, he an n o u n ced th a t he w ould p u t th em o ff un til June. T h is is from the BBC1 news.

M r Blair Any period of uncertainty is also bad for the economy asa whole. Business needs stability in order to plan ahead.

Uncertainty is also bad for our public services, which would

also lose from weeks or months of uncertainty.C om m enta tor Does this mean the General Election's in June, too? Well of

course it does and he can't say so.In terv iew er Everybody watching and listening w ill take it from what you

said that there is going to be a General Election on June 7,h.Is it not possible simply to confirm that?

M r B la ir I think it's very important (0.5) that (0.5) w e ensure that the

proper process of government goes on. I mean the very

reason I've announced this d - delay to the local elections is precisely so that w e can carry on w ith the business of government, putting in place the mechanisms to eradicate the

disease. Now, you know, I've no doubt there'll be lots of speculation. I'm not (0.5) er - standing here and saying to you

there w o n 't be, but it's important that the formal process is gone through in the proper way.

ActivityD oes T ext C co n ta in m ax im violation? I f you th in k so, w hich m ax im does th e P rim e M in is te r violate? If you th in k n o t, how does he get ro u n d answ ering th e in terv iew er’s question? T o w hat ex ten t is th is typical o f po litic ian -speak w hen they are in terv iew ed b y th e media?

©

Text D

Australian Bach

T his is an excerpt from a new spaper article en titled ‘P laying it straight: A ustralian Bach E nsem ble’ from The Sydney M orning Herald, 19 M arch 2000. T he reviewer, H arrie t

Page 113: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

100.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

2

100 E X P L O R A T I O N

C u n n in g h am , discusses perfo rm ances o f Bach, the G erm an e ig h teen th -cen tu ry c o m ­poser, w hich ab o u n d because it is the 250th ann iversary o f his death .

How do you like your Bach? Hard, soft, poached or fried? The 250th anniversary

of his death has prompted a rash of reinterpretations. Glenn Gould hums along, Paul Grabowsky scrambles the Matthew Passion, and this year's Melbourne Festival promises three weeks of technicolour Bach.

The Australian Bach Ensemble does it straight. The ensemble has only just

begun to explore the range of repertoire by this highly productive composer, and it shows. Clunky moments, and a stumble here and there were outweighed by some glorious playing.

o ActivityD escribe T ext D in te rm s o f m ax im observing, flou ting and vio lating . H ow is m axim flouting used to reach the children in Text A and to review the A ustralian Bach Ensemble in T ext D? W o u ld you say th is is typical o f p rog ram m es an d reviews? F ind som e o thers, to back up y o u r o p in ion .

Text E

Death o f a Salesman

This excerpt is from the opening scene from Death o f a Salesman (1949) by th e A m erican p layw right A rth u r M iller. T he characters, W illy and Linda L om an live in N ew York. W illy is sixty an d has to drive to N ew E ngland every w eek to w ork.

Linda [hearing W illy outside the bedroom, calls w ith some trepidation]: Willy!

W illy It's all right. I came back.Linda Why? What happened? [Slight pause ] Did something happen, Willy?W illy No, nothing happened.

Linda You didn't smash the car, did you?W illy [w ith casual irritation] I said nothing happened. Didn't you hear me?Linda Don't you feel well?W illy I'm tired to death. [The flute has faded away. He sits on the bed beside

her, a little numb.] I couldn't make it. I just couldn't make it, Linda. Linda [very carefully, delicately]: Where were you all day? You look terrible.W illy I got as far as a little above Yonkers. I stopped for a cup o f coffee.

Maybe it was the coffee.

Linda What?

W illy [after a pause] I suddenly couldn't drive any more. The car kept goingoff on to the shoulder, y'know?

Page 114: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

101.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

3

A P P L Y I N G P O L I T E N E S S 101

Linda Ihelpfully] Oh. Maybe it was the steering again. I don't think Angelo knows the Studebaker.

W illy No, it's me, it’s me. Suddenly I realise I’m goin’ sixty miles an hour and I don’t remember the last five minutes. I'm - I can't seem to - keep my mind to it.

Linda Maybe it's your glasses. You never w ent for your new glasses.

W illy No, I see everything. I came back ten miles an hour. It took me nearly

four hours from Yonkers.Linda I resigned]: Well, you’ ll just have to take a rest, Willy, you can’t

continue this way.

Activity o

In T ext E, a h u sb an d violates m axim s, talk ing to his wife. H ow does she react? D o you feel th a t th is is typical o f people w ho k now each o th e r well an d fo r a long tim e (spouses, close friends, an d so on)?W o u ld yo u agree th a t ch ild ren have to be tau g h t to apprecia te m ax im flou ting w hereas m ax im vio lating com es to th e m naturally? T h in k o f exam ples to su p p o rt y o u r o p in io n , in y o u r ow n experience.M ake you r ow n record ing o f a TV com edy show w ith w ell-know n actors, o r stand- u p com edy, an d pick o u t th e instances o f m axim flou ting fo r com ic effect. W hich m ax im is flou ted m ost, w ou ld you say? W hy d o you th in k th is is?T est th e theo ry th a t a lo t o f w hat w e say con ta in s m ax im flouting . W rite an essay based o n th e follow ing:i T ranscribe p a rt o f a sp o n tan eo u s, ungu ided casual conversation betw een a

h u sb an d an d wife, o r lo n g -te rm girlfriend and boyfriend.ii C ategorise each u tte ran ce as ‘m ax im observ ing’ o r ‘m axim flou ting ’ (o r

‘m axim v io lating ’ if you know for sure) an d calculate th e percen tage o f u tte r­ances co n ta in in g m axim flou ting (and m ax im violating).

iii In terview th e husb an d /b o y frien d an d w ife/g irlfriend, separately, ab o u t w hat they m ean t each tim e they m ean t m ore th an w hat they said, w hy they v io l­a ted a m axim .

D o any o f th e texts con ta in exam ples o f a speaker o r w riter in fring ing a m axim , o r o p tin g out? Explain w hy, o r w hy no t.M ake a 10-m inu te reco rd ing o f a casual conversa tion betw een people w ho know each o th e r well, a n d tran scribe it. A re th ere exam ples o f th em in fring ing o r o p tin g o u t o f a m axim ? If th e re are none, w hy is this? If there are instances,— analyse th e language th a t is u sed to in fringe o r o p t o u t, to see if th ere are any

in teresting features o f no te- have a look at th e pow er re la tionsh ip betw een speakers, an d describe the social

factors involved.

Page 115: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

102.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

4

□ 102 E X P L O R A T I O N

A P P L Y IN G P O L IT E N E S S

C 6 .1 S tu dy in g fu rth e r and exp lo ring

□ politeness an d social variables

T his u n it con ta in s a selection o f au th en tic w ritten texts d em o n s tra tin g d ifferen t aspects an d uses o f po liteness strategies an d m axim s. T he m ajo rity are w ritten texts w ith spoken characteristics: T ext A is a m obile p h o n e tex t m essage, and T exts C a n d D are e-m ails. Text B is a poem w ith a particu la r co m m un ica tive objective req u irin g delicacy. Finally, T ext E is a film tran sc rip t w ith an id iosyncratic b ran d o f politeness. All the texts have been chosen for you to analyse because each offers an in teresting d im ension o r p ro b lem , be it o f a cu ltu ra l n a tu re o r a social na tu re .

Text A

Mobile phone tex t messages

T his is an exchange o f text m essages on a m obile phone. The nam es have been changed, an d te lephone n u m b e r rep laced w ith ‘X X X X X X X X ’. Joan d id n o t k n o w w ho sent the first text.

Robert Hi, any chance of getting a copy of 2000 today at some point? Rob.

Joan You are my first wrong number text message.Robert Why? W ho are you? Not pete i assume?Joan No. Do you mean Smith?

Robert Yes.Joan I'm Mary's mum.Robert I’m robert, petes mums partner. Sorry to bother y o u :)))

Joan How funny! OK - now tell me what a copy of 2000 is. [message senttwice]

Robert Do you want the answer twice?? : )) 2000 is an operating system for the computer. Just like w indows 98 but better and more secure.

Joan I w ish I hadn't asked. How did you get my number? Can I put this

conversation into a book on linguistics I'm writing?

Robert It’s the number ive had for peter for a while. Not had call to use it till

Joan Thanks. This is not his phone or card.Robert Do you have the number he uses now? Sorry to hear about their

split.Robert Sorry again. I really dont know where i got your number from.

Joan XXXX XXXX. Have a nice day!

Robert Thanks. And you.

now. You must have his old phone or sim card. Yes, feel free to use

it: ))

Page 116: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

103.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

5

A P P L Y I N G P O L I T E N E S S 103 □ActivityIn T ext A, the m obile p h o n e text m essage exchange, w hich p red o m in a tes - positive po liteness o r negative politeness? W hy? In w hat w ay is it s im ilar to a casual conversa­tion? H ow does it d iffer an d why?

o

Text B

To his coy mistress

To his coy mistress is o n e o f A ndrew M arvell’s (1621—78) m ost fam ous poem s. T his ‘inv ita tional lyric’ (the ed ito r D o n n o ’s te rm , Pengu in , 1972) is addressed to h is m is­tress, w ho is re luctan t to co n su m m ate th e ir re lationsh ip . T he poem co n ta in s a ba l­ance o f teasing h u m o u r an d im patien t passion.

Had we bu t world enough and time,This coyness, lady, were no crime.

We would s it down and think which way

To walk, and pass our long love's day.

Thou by the Indian Ganges' side Shouldst rubies find: I by the tide O f Humber would complain. I would Love you ten years before the Flood;

And you should, i f you please, refuse Till the conversion o f the Jews.M y vegetable love should grow Vaster than empires, and more slow.

An hundred years should go to praise Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; Two hundred to adore each breast,

But thirty thousand to the rest;

An age at least to every part,And the last age should show your heart.

For, lady, you deserve this state;

Nor would I love at lower rate.But at m y back I always hear

Time's w inged chariot hurrying near;And yonder all before us lie Deserts o f vast eternity.

Thy beauty shall no more be found,Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound M y echoing song; then worm s shall try

That long-preserved virginity;And your quaint honour turn to dust,

And into ashes all m y lust.

Page 117: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

104.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

6

Page 118: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

105.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

7

Page 119: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

106.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

8

Page 120: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

107.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=11

9

Page 121: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

108.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

0

□E X T E N S I O N

R E A D I N G S

C O N T E X T : K N O W L E D G E A N D S T E R E O T Y P E S

As you will see in th is reading, W ardhaugh starts by saying th a t we ‘assum e th a t those

o n to explain th a t ‘there a re d ifferences betw een th e parties in th e specific th a t they know in con trast to the k inds o f b ackg round know ledge th a t they share’. H e m akes th e p o in t th a t co m m o n know ledge is cu ltu re -loaded an d varies from group to g roup .

ing is rcstrictcd to a very narrow range of activities. Indeed, we go further and

world. One simple way of convincing yourself that this is so, that there is con­siderable shared background knowledge in any conversation, is to insist that each party make everything quite explicit in the very next conversation you have. That conversation will quickly degenerate: you may find yoursell accused of being crazy, pedantic, or disruptive, or you may be assigned some other clearly antisocial label. Tempers are also likely to become frayed. Another way is to attempt to find out from newspapers, magazines, or radio and TV reports what is happening on some issue by using only the actual words you read or hear on a single specific occa­sion, completely disregarding any previous knowledge you might have of the topic. You will probably not be able to make much sense of what you either read or hear. One of the great difficulties you encounter in reading a local newspaper in a place you happen to be visiting is your lack of the background knowledge nec­essary to interpret what you are reading. This lack makes many items of local news either obscure or elusive: you lack knowledge of the people, the events, and the issues and have little or nothing on which to hang any details you arc presented with. But the locals do not experience this difficulty.

w ith w hom we deal share m u ch specific in fo rm atio n ab o u t th e w o rld ’ and then goes

D1.1 Reading and researching

R. Wardhaugh (1985) How Conversation Works, pp. 16-20, Oxford: Blackwell.

We function in a world of normal appearances and usually do not probe beneath the surface of events, and in general, we believe that everybody else behaves in that respect much as we do, sharing with us a similar approach to daily existence. Those who probe are people like scientists and psychiatrists, but even their prob-

assume that those with whom we deal share much specific information about the

Page 122: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

109.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

1

C O N T E X T : K N O W L E D G E A N D S T E R E O T Y P E S 109

Common knowledge, then — that is, ‘what everyone knows’ — is necessarily something that is culture-loaded and varies from group to group. Much of what everyone knows is also either scientifically unwarranted or very superficial. For example, there are numerous stereotypes in this kind ol knowledge — ideas we have about the ‘typical’ behaviour and characteristics of people or objects. But that should not surprise us, because, after all, that is essentially what norms them­selves are in one sense — abstractions based on certain kinds of experiences which apparently typify some kind of general behaviour. Many people go through life holding the view' that common knowledge and stereotypes characterize a sort of truth about the world; others are somewhat more critical and conscious ol the complexities that lie behind such a simple belief. What we must not assume, how­ever, is that common knowledge is always false and stereotyping is always bad; social harmony is possible only if there arc things w'e can agree on, and there are measures of agreement. What may be important is how fixed are the measures any society uses, not the existence of the measures themselves.

In periods of rapid social change old norms and stereotypes come under attack at a time when new ones are not available, so it is not surprising that confusion results. Linguistic behaviour at such times tends to reflect the disorder. Some strive to preserve the old ways, as conservative factions in Greece did in the 1960s to reimpose a ‘high’ variety of Greek. Others want to create a new' set of condi­tions, for example, to rid a language of a tu—vous distinction in address forms, as did both the French and Russian revolutionaries (but eliminating the rous form in one case and the tu form in the other). Eventually new norms emerge, new appear­ances, new conventions, and new w'ays of using language to express these new norms with all the advantages, and disadvantages, of the old, offering as they do a way of constructing a certain kind of reality as well as providing blinkers which make other realities somewhat inaccessible to view.

One consequence of all this is that we must set limits on the amount of trust wre place in others and in our view' of the world. Similarly, in conversation we should not trust absolutely: that is too severe a demand to make both of our­selves and of others. Those who give their absolute trust to others are almost cer­tain at one time or another to be disappointed. But we must also be aw'are that distrust cannot be the norm either, for a climate in which everyone distrusts every­one else would prohibit entirely all hope of mutually beneficial social contact. Therefore, we must err at all times on the side of trust. Unfortunately, those who would deceive us know' that too, and, having confidence in their ability' to exploit this basic social need, proceed to do so, often with impunity.

For any particular conversation it is also possible to show' that there are differences between the parties in the specific things that they know in contrast to the kinds of background knowledge that they share. No two people have identical backgrounds, so in any conversation the participants will have different kinds of knowledge about almost any topic that is likely to be mentioned. If only two people, Fred and Sally, arc involved, there will be certain matters known to both, some because ‘everybody knows such things’ and others because both Fred and Sally happen to know' them. Then there will be matters known to only one

Page 123: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

110.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

2

of the speakers, so that Fred will know something that Sally does not know, or Sally something that Fred does not know. In addition, there will be partly known information: Fred or Sally, or both, may partly know something or know parts of something, but not necessarily the same parts. And Fred or Sally, or both again, may believe that the other knows something that the other actually does not know. As we can see, there are numerous possible permutations in who knows what, who believes who knows what, and so on. Again, there are predictable conse­quences: conversation can proceed only on the basis that the participants share a set of beliefs, that is, certain things must be known to all parties; others may be known; some will have to be explained; questions may be asked for clarification; difficulties will be negotiated or cleared up somehow; people will be understand­ing and tolerant; and the various processes that arc involved will be conducted decently. If only one participant in a conversation refuses to subscribe to these beliefs and to conduct himself or herself accordingly, the others will become irri­tated, confused, or frustrated, and may well abandon any attempt to continue what they have begun.

Since most participants in a conversation usually do share a certain amount of background knowledge about ‘proper’ behaviour and the ‘right’ way to do things, much of what they say can be understood if we, too, are familiar with the know­ledge they share. Their references to places, times, and events, and their accounts and descriptions are related to what they know and what they believe the others know. A participant in a conversation must believe that he or she has access to the same set of reference points that all the other participants have access to;all he or she needs do in conversing is use those points for orientation, andlisteners will comprehend. And such a belief is largely justified. What is hardly ever necessary in a conversation is to begin at the very beginning of anything and to treat everyone and everything as unique and somehow without antecedents. In a trivial sense every occasion is unique, but procedures exist which minimize novelty and maximize normality — accepted ways of asking and giving directions, rules for regulating who speaks to whom and about what, and basic principles for conducting yourself, for example, with complete strangers.

A conversation between familiars offers a very special mix of knowledge. Thereare matters in it which the parties know but are reluctant to refer to directly,although they may allude to them if necessary. There are matters which are not in the conversation by reason of the fact that they are deliberately avoided their

J J J

absence is conspicuous. And then there arc the actual topics of the conversation. However, these topics are not introduced logically, as it were, but rather in avariety of ways according to the needs of the individuals and of the occasion, witheach participant willing to let a topic emerge as seems natural at the time in theexpectation that its various bits and pieces will hold together.

In general conversation with others it is ordinary, everyday, ‘commonsense’ knowledge that we assume they share with us. In certain circumstances, as between professionals, we can also assume a sharing of specialized knowledge. We must always take great care when wre refer to items outside these shared areas. We cannot rely on others knowing what we know. They may not even share the same

Page 124: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

111.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

3

C O N T E X T : K N O W L E D G E A N D S T E R E O T Y P E S 111

assumptions about what it means to ‘know’ something. A physicist’s knowledge of matter is different from a lay person’s, and an actor’s view of character is unlikely to be the same as that of a psychiatrist. Explanations may well become necessary, and they may not be easily provided. Briefing is one kind of explain­ing behaviour in such circumstances. But a recurrent difficulty is knowing just how much to say on a particular occasion and then judging how successful we have been in saying it. This is particularly crucial if we then proceed to treat this ‘new’ information we supply henceforth as part of our listeners’ everyday knowledge. It may not be easily incorporated into existing knowledge, as anyone who has ever taught well knows, for it is one thing to teach something and quite another to learn it.

Activities o

H ave a look a t the W ard h au g h read ing , anda explain , in te rm s o f con tex t, w hy tem pers m ay becom e frayed if a speaker

asks th e people th a t she is ta lk ing to , to be explicit; b sum m arise th e parag raph b eg inn ing ‘In periods o f rap id social change . . . ’

and en d in g ‘. . . som ew hat inaccessible to view ’, giving an exam ple; c explain the parag raph beg inn ing ‘F or any particu la r c o n v e rsa tio n . . . ’ an d

end ing ' . . . a ttem p t to co n tin u e w hat they have b eg u n ’ in te rm s o f a ttitude ; d Explain the p o in t th a t he m akes ab o u t th e language o f discourse com m unities;F ind a new spaper o r m agazine artic le , ande list all th e assum ptions o f know ledge accord ing to type o f context: situational,

cultural and interpersonal, and th en draw a diagram o f the cultural inform ation assum ed, th a t show s how som e in fo rm atio n is p art o f a n o th e r b igger sphere o f in fo rm atio n - you m ay w an t to use co ncen tric circles;

f w ith in each concen tric circle, say w hat so rt o f person sh o u ld be expected to have th a t so rt o f know ledge;

g p ick o u t exam ples o f very inexplicit o r vague language an d suggest w hy you th in k th e w riter chose to use such vague reference;

h find exam ples o f exophoric reference, and say w hether they com e at th e beg in­n ing , m idd le o r end o f th e artic le , an d how they fit in to th e artic le itse lf and are u n d e rs to o d even th o u g h they a re exophoric;

i find exam ples o f in tertex tual reference an d say w hat you th in k it refers to. Test W ardhaugh’s theory tha t we usually d o no t p robe beneath the surface o f events, th a t ‘m u ch o f w hat everyone know s is . . . e ither scientifically u n w arran ted o r very superficia l’, an d th a t we usually deal w ith stereotypes.j C o n stru c t ten co n d itiona l sentences, ju s t supp ly ing th e first h a lf an d leaving

th e second b lank , as ini I f you go in to th e bush in A u s tra lia ,. . .ii I f you stand by m istake o n an E ng lishm an’s f o o t , . . .iii I f you eat in a French re s ta u ra n t , . . .Put, at th e to p o f each sheet, spaces for them to w rite the ir sex, age and occupa­tion . T his is th e social da ta o f y o u r subjects.

Page 125: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

112.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

4

k T hen give o u t ty p ed -u p copies o f th e ten half-sentences fo r people to c o m ­plete. T ry to reach at least 50 people so th a t y o u r results a re significant.

1 M ake a n o te o f all th e answ ers received for each question ,m C o u n t up th e instances o f an answ er th a t com es again and again for p a rticu ­

lar questions.n P u t together all th e answ ers th a t com e repeatedly for all th e questions and

look at the social da ta o f the subjects an d see if th ere is a defin ite tendency as to the characteristics o f people w ho w ork in stereotypes,

o H ave a look a t those unexpected , o u t-o f-th e -o rd in a ry , o u trag eo u s an d even‘fu n n y ’ answ ers th a t som e people have given back to you. W h a t does th is say ab o u t the ir a ttitu d e to being asked to stereotype?

p W rite up ju s t the m ain findings o f y o u r test in a 250-w ord le tte r as you m igh tfor the o p in ion co lum n o f a new spaper, add ing a sh o rt co m m en t o f yo u r ow n.

□ T est W ard h au g h ’s p o in t th a t we have co m m o n back g ro u n d know ledge ab o u t ‘p ro p e r’ b ehav iou r and th e ‘rig h t’ way to do th ings.q R ecord a g ro u p o f peop le hav ing a casual, n a tu ra l, sp o n tan eo u s conversa­

tion . T hey m ay be s tu d en ts having a coffee to ge ther in th e k itchen o f a s tu d en t flat; they m ay be people m ak ing po lite conversa tion together at the beg inn ing o f a m eeting before it starts . T he choice o f w ho, w here and w hen is yours.

r M ake su re th a t th e peop le know th a t you are reco rd ing th em an d th a t theyd o n o t m in d you d o in g it. I f they do m in d , take th e m ach in e away, and find a n o th e r g ro u p o f recordees, a n o th e r tim e, a n o th e r place,

s M ake sure th a t there is no ex traneous background noise, such as voices, m usico r m ach ines ru n n in g , th a t is go ing to m ake it d ifficult fo r you to h ear w hat they said, w hen you are playing it th ro u g h afterw ards,

t D o not tell th em th a t you are investigating co m m o n back g ro u n d know ledgeab o u t ‘p ro p e r’ beh av io u r an d the ‘r ig h t’ w ay to d o th ings; otherw ise you m igh t m ake th em ta lk ab o u t top ics th a t they m igh t n o t have chosen , an d in an u n n a tu ra l way. Just say th a t you a re study ing th e ir language in general,

u Tell th em to talk as na tu ra lly as possible, ab o u t any th ing they w ant. D o no tgive them a top ic o r p ro m p t them in any way.

v Keep o u t o f th e conversa tion , b u t close enough to th e speakers to be able totu rn th e reco rd e r o ff if they get particu larly u n co m fo rtab le w ith it.

w R ecord ab o u t 10 m in u te s’ conversa tion w hen th e speakers are in full flow.If yo u try to reco rd befo re they have really go t sta rted , it will be stilted and aw kw ard since they a re still getting used to hav ing th e m ach in e there,

x W hen you tu rn th e m ach ine off, and they have finished talk ing, ask th em verybriefly w hat brings them together, how long they have know n each other, where they m eet, how often an d w hy. D o n o t overdo th is in te rro g a tio n : all you are try ing to find o u t is ‘Is there reason for them sharing substan tial cultu ral know ­ledge and even a little in te rpersona l know ledge?’

y N ow go back to W ard h au g h ’s p o in t ab o u t us hav ing co m m o n b ackg roundknowledge about ‘p roper’ behaviour and the ‘right’ way to do things, and answer th e follow ing questions:

Page 126: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

113.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

5

CO-T EXT : R E P E T I T I O N A N D R E F E R E N C E 113

i A re there any instances o f som e people know ing m ore ab o u t o n e p a r­ticu la r top ic th a n o thers do?

ii D oes th is upset th e conversa tion o r enhance it fo r th e o thers, as far as you can see?

iii Is there an exam ple o f som ebody w rongly assum ing h is /h er hearers share know ledge o f a con tex t, an d giving less in fo rm a tio n th an is needed fo r people to understand?

iv D oes a b rie f b reakdow n in co m m u n ica tio n o ccu r as a result o f this inexplicitness, o r does it so u n d as if they let it pass by?

v Is th ere an exam ple o f so m eo n e w rongly assum ing th e ir heare rs d o no t share know ledge o f a context, and giving m ore in fo rm ation than they need in o rd e r to follow him /her?

vi D o th e hearers p ro test ab o u t th is over-explicitness: do they sub tly in te r­rup t w ith new inform ation , o r do they politely ‘backchannel’, saying ‘M h m \ ‘A ha’, ‘R ight’ and so on?

vii W h en you have tr ied to answ er these questions, play y o u r reco rd ing to som eone from th e g ro u p w ho was actually reco rded , an d see if y o u have got y o u r answ ers ‘r ig h t’.

viii L ooking at all y o u r answ ers above, w hat seem s to be th e ‘p ro p e r’ b eh a­v iou r an d the ‘rig h t’ w ay to do th ings in conversations? W h a t are the ‘ru les’ ab o u t referring to co m m o n know ledge an d new know ledge, as far as th is conversa tion seem s to show?

ix W rite up yo u r findings in a sh o rt essay. Y our essay shou ld co n ta in b rie f answ ers to q u estions i to vii, an d then the list o f conversa tion ru les th a t you m ade u p in question viii.

C O -T E X T : R E P E T IT IO N A N D R E FE R E N C E

T he first excerp t is taken from a book w hich discusses types o f lexical cohesion , and exam ines p a tte rn s o f lexically cohesive links th ro u g h texts. W hereas U n its A2, B2 and C2 looked a t cohesion from the p o in t o f view o f analysing w hat speakers have said an d w riters have w ritten , th is u n it looks a t it th e o th e r w ay on , from the p o in t o f view o f p roduc tive skills, and how we shou ld w rite. W e said in U n it A2 tha t p ro n o u n s , su b ­stitu tes, ellipsis, synonym s, su p ero rd in a tes an d general w ords avoid repe tition , and give ju s t th e a m o u n t o f in fo rm atio n as is necessary, thereby suggesting th a t it is advis­able to avoid repetition . T his read ing considers th e im p o rtan ce o f using repe tition , an d questions tha t idea th a t learners o f English shou ld use g ram m atical cohesion at th e expense o f lexical cohesion .

Be aw are th a t w hat we have been calling ‘g ram m atical cohesion ’ a n d ‘g ra m m a t­ical cohesion devices’, H oey sim ply calls ‘coh esio n ’ an d ‘cohesive devices’, a n d w hat we have been calling ‘the lexical cohesive device o f rep e titio n ’ he calls ‘rep e titio n ’ and ‘repe tition devices’. N o te th a t w hen he talks o f ‘com plex rep e titio n ’, he m eans related w ords th a t share a co m m o n ro o t o r base fo rm , know n as a lexical m o rp h em e , e.g. ‘d ru g s’ and ‘d ru gg ing ’, ‘eco n o m ist’ and ‘econom y’.

Page 127: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

114.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

6

114 E X T E N S I O N

D1.2 Reading and researching

M. Hoey (1991) Patterns o f Lexis in Text, pp. 242-5, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Repetition and w ritin g

Most of this chapter has been devoted to consideration of the implications of lexical patterning for reading. We cannot end this chapter, and with it the book, without brief consideration of the implications for writing. The teaching and practice of cohesion has become a regular part of many teaching programmes. It is not, however, certain that this is either necessary or sufficient to produce good writers. Brodine (1983) reported that when the essays of a group of Italian learners were compared with those of native speaker teachers, there was no significant difference between the two groups as regards frequency of use of various cohe­sive devices. Skuja (1984) reported a similar result; concerned to find out in what respects advanced learners in Singapore were failing to produce natural English, she compared her learners’ essays with those elicited on the same topic from a group of experienced native speakers. Her results show that advanced learners in Singapore actually use slightly more cohesive ties than do native speaker users when writing on the same topic at the same length. This implies that the teach­ing of cohesive features for writing may, on occasion, be counter-productive and that mastery of the cohesive system does not automatically produce native style fluency in composition.

Interested by her findings, Skuja went on to consider the range of text covered by the cohesive features in the essays of both groups and found that what distinguished the work of the two groups was that the native speakers character­istically used repetition devices to connect over a considerable distance in a text, whereas the Singaporean students, skilled though they were in other ways, tended to repeat at shorter distances, typically within the paragraph boundaries. Mountain (1987) sought to replicate these findings for Italian students using English under­graduates as her point of comparison. Although her findings are not conclusive, they are supportive of the same general position.

In the light of what we have said in this book, we can suggest that one of the characteristics of mature native speaker writing is that the writer’s sentences will relate to each other in non-linear ways, though not necessarily by the means we have been describing. Writers who fail to connect what they are saying in any particular sentence to what they have said earlier arc likely to be open to the charge of drifting from topic to topic. We should, therefore, be encouraging those who are learning to write, whether in their own or another language, to think of their writing non-linearly. They need to make connections between what they arc currently saying and what they have previously said and later intend to say.

The implications made earlier are that making connections across the text would be particularly important with regard to topic sentences. If topic-opening sentences arc typically identifiable in terms of the number of sentences that later refer back to them, then it would seem advisable for writers to keep in mind their topic sentence(s) as they write, rather than allowing the difficulties of the composition

Page 128: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

115.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

7

CO-T EXT : R E P E T I T I O N A N D R E F E R E N C E 115

process to swamp them. Although our findings do not support the distinction between macrostructure and microstructurc, at least as it is usually defined, the implica­tions of the existence of central sentences arc that writers who see what thev have

J

to say in terms of a series of interconnected macropropositions are more likely to succeed in producing highly valued writing than those who make it up as they go along.

One thing seems certain: the traditional advice to avoid repetition needs to be couched with special care if it is not to interfere actively with the development of mature writing skills. The advice grew out of two quite reasonable worries. First, when an inexperienced writer does not know what else to say, they some­times resort to restating what they have already said. Nothing in this book should have shaken the reader’s conviction that this is an unsatisfactory practice; the existence of patterns of lexis in text is not to be interpreted as an incitement to padding.

Second, especially among less experienced writers, limitations of vocabulary and ignorance of the means whereby one can repeat in a language may lead a learner to juxtapose the same lexical item clumsily in adjacent sentences. Again, it has been noted in earlier chapters that the tendency for adjacent sentences to bond is not great; the reason is that, in English, care is usually taken to avoid the clumsy juxtaposition just referred to. So, here too, the advice as traditionally given still stands.

But it cannot rest there. Reasonable as the worries concerning repetition may be, the advice to avoid repetition may be harmful unless it is immediately sup­plemented by something more. To begin with, if a learner is to avoid clumsiness, he or she must be taught how to avoid it. One of the most important ways is by means of complex repetition. So, in the first sentence of the previous paragraph, I used the lexical item clumsily; in the following sentence it has become clumsy while in the third sentence of this paragraph it appears as clumsiness. Similarly, juxtapose becomes juxtaposition, anti repeat becomes repetition. There is nothing contrived about these examples; my practice is that of most writers need­ing to repeat without making the repetition obtrusive. Stotsky (1983) comments that ‘an increase in the use of morphologically complex words [i.e. complex rep­etition], rather than repetition of a simple w ord or the use of a cumbersome para­phrase, may be an important index of growth.’

If we need to protect our learners against this aspect of avoiding repetition, still more must we protect them against misuse of the counsel to avoid padding. Learners should not be encouraged to say the same thing over and over again, but they should be advised to make connections between what they are currently saying and what they said before. There should, in non-narrative text, be some relationship between sentences at a distance from each other. What this means for learners is that they need to take time out of grappling with the difficulties of composing the sentence they are currently working on to consider its relationship with what they have already written. This may impose on the writer an additional burden but it also relieves him or her of at least some of the task of lexical selec­tion. Indeed, knowledge that it is legitimate to reuse in different combinations

Page 129: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

116.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

8

116 E X T E N S I O N

lexical items already brought into play, may actually serve to lighten some aspects of the writing task.

The advice a learner needs will vary from person to person and from group to group. For some the main need may be to avoid going around in circles; such learners will need reminding that new information always accompanies repetition in mature writing. For others the need may be to prevent the text drifting; such learners will need telling that repetition usually provides the grounding for new information. In either case, materials may need developing that give the student practice in bonding back to earlier sentences. The well-tried strategy of supply­ing the learners with an incomplete text and asking them to complete it may be adaptable to this purpose; indeed, there is no reason why more than one text organizing principle at a time might not be practised in this way.

All of this is rather obvious, but it is easy for second language learners to lose sight of the applicability of what they already know in their first language when faced with the twin tasks of selecting appropriate lexis and avoiding ungram­matically. As so often is the case with language learning, encouraging the learners to transfer a skill from their first language is half the battle.

T he sh o rt W odak excerp t is q u ite d ifferent. It is taken from a bo o k th a t looks at linguistic barrie rs to co m m u n ica tio n in a variety o f in s titu tio n a l con tex ts. The excerp t focuses o n th e d iscourse o f th e m edia, specifically rad io broadcasts o f the news. W o d ak m en tio n s im precise references in new s stories, and says th a t because little b ackg round con tex t is p rov ided for those w ho d o n o t already know ab o u t the news item so th a t they can iden tify th e referent, th e new s is inaccessible to parts o f th e p o p u la tio n .

D2.2 R eference and th e new s

Wodak, R. (1996) Disorders o f Discourse, pp. 100-2, London: Longman.

Depending on the content of the item, we may identify three types of news story:

fact-storics — individual facts arc assembled according to their importance action (event)-stories — the same action is reported repeatedly but with ever more detailsquote-stories — quotations and summaries alternate, the importance decreasing gradually.

(Warren 1953)

A typical story should contain suspense, highlights, a beginning and an end (Labov/Waletzky 1967). But stories of this structure just do not occur in news bulletins. There is evidence of this text-inherent deficiency at both the macro- and micro-levels. Important units of the kind Sacks has established for narratives, such as interaction units ( ‘today’), justification units (‘of course’) and recognition type- descriptions ( ‘aha’, ‘mm’) arc missing (Sacks 1986). These arc units occurring nat­urally in spoken language, in conversations where backchanncls are possible. That is a completely different setting than news in the media.

Page 130: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

117.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=12

9

CO-T EXT : R E P E T I T I O N A N D R E F E R E N C E 117

Imprecise references, pronominalizations, and a lack of feed-back are thus also characteristics of these texts. Typically they arc produced unconstrained by a need for self-justification. Consequently, they cannot really be considered stories, as the latter are normally conceived. The relevance of the story is never really explained, background knowledge and hints as to orientation are absent, no frame is avail­able within which to embed the news item. As a result there is almost no possi­bility of ‘updating’ it. This situation was confirmed by Larsen, who analysed the intelligibility of Danish news spots (Larsen 1983) (sec Wodak/Lutz 1986: 202ft ). This suggests that it is often impossible to integrate new information into already available knowledge as long as the present form ol providing news items pertains. Little or no acquisition of new knowledge takes place. As Larsen writes:

The main effect of news bulletins apparentlv is to confirm the listener’s view of the current events, or occasionally, to put new topics on a mental list of current events.

(Larsen 1983: 36)

On the one hand, listening to the news is a process of opinion-making, where opinions are formed and then — often misunderstood and unreflected — integrated. Thus stereotypes, cliches and prejudices are confirmed instead of being subjected to critical evaluation.

On the other hand, a large part of the population is excluded altogether from the information provided. To meet its obligations regarding information and edu­cation, the Austrian Broadcasting Company (ORF) would have to alter the text and the style of presentation of the news and make it more comprehensible. And even then we would need tests to see whether simpler news reports are ‘better understood’ . As long as news broadcasts retain their inaccessibility, they will con­tinue to present the large symbolic capital of the elites. The elites possess infor­mation, others arc excluded (van Dijk 1993a). And even if news texts arc made more comprehensible, the elites and better educated profit more from the greater accessibility (see below'). As soon as one considers the complete ncwrs-cycle — from news agency report to newswriter, to radio reporter or the newspaper that accepts an item, and from there to the uncomprehending reader — one realizes all the more clearly what power there is in the passing of news information.

This leads us to our main questions: What do reformulations mean? What is their impact?

Activities o

Read th ro u g h the H oey excerp t an d , to help you grasp his a rg u m en t, give b rie f answ ers to these questions:a W hat differences did Skuja find betw een the w riting o f native speakers o f English

and th a t o f advanced learners o f English in Singapore? b W h a t p o in t does H oey m ake ab o u t to p ic -o p en in g sentences?c W h a t tw o reasons does H oey give fo r the desire o f linguists an d teachers o f

w riting skills to m ake inexperienced w riters avoid repetition?

Page 131: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

118.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

0

d If we d o advise s tu d en ts n o t to use rep e titio n an d padd ing , w hat shou ld we tell th em to use in th e ir place?

e W hat d o you th in k he m eans by ‘learners will need rem in d in g th a t new in fo r­m a tio n always accom pan ies rep e titio n in m a tu re w riting .’?

□ D o you agree w ith every th ing tha t H oey says? Explain y o u r answ er.□ Im agine tha t you are trying to show a sm all g roup o f learners o f English as a Foreign

Language how they can avoid clum sy ‘n ear rep e titio n ’, an d th a t you w an t to use an exam ple. W rite a sh o rt parag raph co n ta in in g tw o o r th ree sentences, full o f clum sy ‘near repetition ’; then rew rite it using com plex repetition , synonym s, super­o rd ina tes an d general w ords.

□ L ook now at the W odak excerp t, and th in k ab o u t the follow ing:a W hat exactly does she m ean by ‘im precise references, p ronom inalisa tions, and

a lack o f feedback’, d o you think? Give exam ples, b D o you agree th a t it is im possib le to up d a te in fo rm atio n , in teg ra ting new

info rm ation?c D o you agree th a t rad io new s broadcasts are only accessible to th e elite? W ho

are th e elite an d w hy are th ey elite? d C ou ld th e sam e be said o f television news broadcasts?

□ Take a new spaper article from a quality new spaper (broadsheet), and an o th e r from a m ore p o p u la r o n e (tab lo id ), an d com pare th em in term s o f the reference and th e b ackg round con tex t know ledge th a t they assum e. Is one m o re im precise and inexplicit th an ano ther? D o they d em an d d ifferen t types o f b ackg round con tex t know ledge?

□ R ecord a sh o rt television new s p rog ram m e, w hich is a im ed at ch ild ren . In B ritain, you cou ld use so m eth in g like ‘N ew sround ’, w hich is p a rt o f BBC ch ild ren ’s TV. P resum ably th e b ack g ro u n d con tex t know ledge o f th e young view ers is assum ed to be non -ex isten t. W hat is it ab o u t the g ram m ar an d th e vocabulary th a t m akes it explicit, accessible an d com prehensib le?

□ T ake ten sh o rt essays o f na tive speakers o f English (they cou ld be cooperative colleagues in you r tu to ria l o r sem inar g roup ).a W hich d o they use m ost: repe tition , com plex repe tition , synonym s, su p e r­

o rd in a tes an d general w ords? W hich do y o u th in k m akes fo r b e tte r reading? b Analyse each essay from th e p o in t o f view o f lexical cohesion , quan tify ing how

m any instances th ere a re o f rep e titio n , com plex repe tition , synonym s, su p e r­o rd in a tes an d general w ords, in each,

c Give copies o f th e ten essays to ten people, a n d ask th em to rate th em (and o rd e r th em ) acco rd ing to h ow well they th in k they are w ritten ,

d P u t the essays in th e m o s t p o p u la r o rder, tak ing in to acco u n t all th e answ ers, and go back to your analysis o f them from the po in t o f view o f lexical cohesion,

e D iscover w hich features a re m ost used in the m ost p o p u la r essays, an d w hichfeatures are m ost used in th e least p o p u la r essays,

f D iscuss w ith colleagues to see if they h ad th e sam e find ings and then draw conclusions ab o u t the possible reasons for this,

g Finally, give som e th o u g h t to w hat im plica tions y o u r findings a n d y o u r c o n ­clusions have for the teach ing o f w riting to native speakers o f English.

Page 132: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

119.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

1

S P E E C H A C T S A N D P O W E R 119

W rite u p y o u r p ro ject. Y ou co u ld use th e follow ing headings, if you like, o radap t them :i in troduction : w hat lexical cohesion is an d which device you th o u g h t w ould

be th e m ost p opu la rly used;ii m ethod : how you analysed th e essays, w ho you gave th em to , how you

analysed th e responses, w ha t difficulties you encoun te red ;iii results: w hich device featured in the essays was felt to be the best w ritten;iv discussion: w hy you th in k th is is so;v conclusion : how y o u r results com pare w ith w hat you orig inally th o u g h t

w ould be th e m o s t p o p u la r , w hat th e im plications are fo r th e teach ing o f w riting.

S P E E C H A C T S A N D PO W ER

Fairclough says th a t th e idea o f speech acts, ‘u tte rin g as ac ting ’, is cen tra l to w hat he calls CLS (C ritical Language S tudy). CLS ‘analyses social in te rac tions in a w ay w hich focuses u p o n th e ir linguistic e lem en ts’, and how language affects an d is affected by th e system o f social re la tionsh ips (1989: 5).

In th e first ex tract, Fairclough criticises p ragm atics fo r w hat he sees as its ind iv idualism and its idealism . H e says th a t ind iv iduals are n o t usually free to m an ip ­u la te language to achieve th e ir goals, b u t th a t they are co nstra ined by social co n v en ­tions. H e also says th a t people d o n o t have equal co n tro l in in terac tions, because there a re inequalities o f pow er.

In the second , he looks a t the speech act o f ‘requesting ’ an d th e way in w hich it relates to inequalities o f pow er. H e says th a t ind irec t requests leave the p o w er rela­tio n sh ip im plicit, an d he show s how th e g ram m ar o f a request can express varying degrees o f indirectness.

In th e th ird ex tract, F airclough says th a t speech acts are a cen tral p a r t o f p rag ­m atics, w hich is in tu rn co n cern ed w ith th e m eanings th a t p a rtic ipan ts in a d iscourse give to e lem ents o f a text. H e refers to th e m u lti-fu n c tio n a lity o f speech acts, a n d then focuses on th e w ay th a t they a re re la ted to th e co -tex t, the in te rtex tua l con tex t, and the s itua tiona l and cu ltu ra l back g ro u n d con tex t. H e sees th e social factors tha t in fluence the use o f ind irec t speech acts in te rm s o f pow er relations, an d concludes th a t th e d iscourse type d ictates th e conven tions fo r speech acts, an d th a t th e co n v en ­tio n s reflect th e p a rtic ip an ts’ ideology an d social re la tionsh ips.

R eading and researching

N. Fairclough (1989) Language and Power, pp. 9-11, 54 -5 and 155-7, Harlow: Longman.

D3.1

PragmaticsAnglo-American pragmatics is closely associated with analytical philosophy, partic­ularly with the work of Austin and Scarle on ‘speech acts’ . The key insight is that language can be seen as a form of action: that spoken or written utterances con­stitute the performance of speech acts such as promising or asking or asserting or

Page 133: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

120.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

2

warning; or, on a different plane, referring to people or things, presupposing the existence of people or things or the truth of propositions, and implicating mean­ings which arc not overtly expressed. The idea ol uttering as acting is an impor­tant one, and it is also central to CLS in the form ol the claim, that discourse is social practice.

The main weakness of pragmatics from a critical point of view is its individ­ualism: ‘action’ is thought of atomistically as emanating wholly from the individ­ual, and is often conceptualized in terms of the ‘strategies’ adopted by the individual speaker to achieve her ‘goals’ or ‘intentions’. This understates the extent to which people are caught up in, constrained by, and indeed derive their individual iden­tities from social conventions, and gives the implausible impression that conven­tionalized ways of speaking or writing arc ‘reinvented’ on each occasion of their use by the speaker generating a suitable strategy for her particular goals. And it correspondingly overstates the extent to which people manipulate language for strate­gic purposes. O f course, people do act strategically in certain circumstances and use conventions rather than simply following them; but in other circumstances they do simply follow them, and what one needs is a theory of social action — social practice — which accounts for both the determining effect of conventions and the strategic creativity of individual speakers, without reducing practice to one or the other.

The individuals postulated in pragmatics, moreover, are generally assumed to be involved in cooperative interactions whose ground rules they have equal con­trol over, and to which they are able to contribute equally. Cooperative interac­tion between equals is elevated into a prototype for social interaction in general, rather than being seen as a form of interaction whose occurrence is limited and socially constrained. The result is an idealized and Utopian image of verbal inter­action which is in stark contrast with the image offered by CLS of a sociolinguistic order moulded in social struggles and riven with inequalities of power. Pragmatics often appears to describe discourse as it might be in a better world, rather than discourse as it is.

Pragmatics is also limited in having been mainly developed with reference to single invented utterances rather than real extended discourse, and central notions like ‘speech act’ have turned out to be problematic when people try to use them to analyse real discourse. Finally, Anglo-American pragmatics bears the scars of the way in which it has developed in relation to ‘linguistics proper’. While it has provided a space for investigating the interdependence of language and social con­text which was not available before its inception, it is a strictly constrained space, for pragmatics tends to be seen as an additional ‘level’ of language study which fills in gaps left by the more ‘core’ levels of grammar and semantics. Social con­text is acknowledged but kept in its place, which docs it less than justice.

Cognitive psychology and artificial intelligenceOne of the concerns of pragmatics has been with the discrepancies which standardly exist between what is said and what is meant, and with how people work out what is meant from what is said; but the detailed investigation of the processes

Page 134: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

121.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

3

S P E E C H A C T S A N D P O W E R 121

of comprehension involved, as well as of processes of production, has been under­taken by cognitive psychologists, and workers in artificial intelligence concerned with the computer simulation of production and comprehension. From the per­spective of CLS, the most important result of work on comprehension is the stress which has been placed upon its active nature: you do not simply ‘decode’ an utter­ance, you arrive at an interpretation through an active process of matching fea­tures of the utterance at various levels with representations you have stored in your long-term memory. These representations arc prototypes for a very diverse collection of things — the shapes of words, the grammatical forms of sentences, the typical structure of a narrative, the properties of types of object and person, the expected sequence of events in a particular situation type, and so forth. Some of these are linguistic, and some of them arc not. Anticipating later discussion, let us refer to these prototypes collectively as 'members’ resources’, or MR for short. The main point is that comprehension is the outcome of interactions between the utterance being interpreted, and MR.

Not surprisingly, cognitive pyschology and artificial intelligence have given little attention to the social origins or significance of MR. I shall argue later that attention to the processes of production and comprehension is essential to an under­standing of the interrelations of language, power and ideology, and that this is so because MR are socially determined and ideologically shaped, though their ‘common sense’ and automatic character typically disguises that fact. Routine and unselfconscious resort to MR in the ordinary business of discourse is, I shall sug­gest, a powerful mechanism for sustaining the relations of power which ultimately underlie them.

Conversation analysis and discourse analysisPower is also sometimes hidden in face-to-face discourse. For instance, there is obviously' a close connection between requests and power, in that the right to request someone to do something often derives from having power. But there are many grammatically different forms available for making requests. Some are direct and mark the power relationship explicitly, while others are indirect and leave it more or less implicit. Direct requests arc typically expressed grammatically in impera­tive sentences: type this letter for me by 5 o ’clock, for instance. Indirect requests can be more or less indirect, and they are typically expressed grammatically in ques­tions of various degrees of elaborateness and corresponding indirectness: can you type this letter fo r me by 5 o ’clock, do you think you could type this letter fo r me by 5 o ’clock, could I possibly ask you to type this letter for me by 5 o ’clock. There are also other ways of indirectly requesting — through hints, for instance: I would like to hare the letter in the 5 o ’clock post.

Why' would a business executive (let us say) choose an indirect form to request her secretary to type a letter? It could be, particularly if a hint or one of the more elaborate questions is used, for manipulative reasons: if the boss has been pressurizing the secretary hard all day, such a form of request might head off resentment or even refusal. But less elaborate forms of indirect request (can y o u / will you /cou ld you type . . . ) are conventionally used in the sort of situation I have

Page 135: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

122.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

4

122 E X T E N S I O N

described, so the question becomes why business executives and other power- holders systematically avoid too much overt marking of their power.

© Activities

□ T ake a look at the read ing an d discussa w hat his criticism s o f p ragm atics are;b w hy he says th a t n o tio n s like ‘speech ac t’ a re p rob lem atic;c w hat he m eans by th e te rm ‘m em bers resources’ (M R);d w hat he says co m p reh en sio n is;e w hether you agree w ith w hat he is saying.

□ G o now to the read ing an df sum m arise w hat he says ab o u t th e pow er ho ld e r using b o th e laborate an d less

elaborate ind irec t fo rm s to m ake a request; g th ink o f a n o th e r s itu a tio n in w hich a pow er ho lder m akes a request an d list

all th e ways th a t they m ig h t express th e request, an d see if the pow er ho lder uses ind irec t form s; can w e generalise, therefore?

□ T he follow ing lines are tak en from the th ird Fairclough read ing . D o you agree w ith them ? Explain yo u r answ er and give an exam ple o f yo u r ow n.a ‘Speech acts can n o t be assigned sim ply on th e basis o f fo rm al features o f an

u tte ran ce .’b ‘D iscourse types d iffer in th e ir conven tions fo r th e d irectness o f expression

o f speech acts.’c T he parag raph beg inn ing ‘Let us take as a fu r th e r exam ple th e first tw o tu rn s ’,

and end ing ‘one th a t ju s t gives th e in fo rm a tio n asked fo r’.□ T his questio n a im s to help you to w rite an essay on c lassroom talk. In o rd e r

to m ake com parisons , it w ou ld be a good idea if you d iscussed th e questions e ither w ith o th e r peop le in y o u r class o r w ith friends ou tside class from differen t educational backgrounds.a T h in k back to th e teach ing app roach used in you r school,b Define the teaching approach as traditional o r liberal, and the level o f education, c T h in k ab o u t th e ex ten t to w hich ind irectness w ou ld have been used, an d in

w hat s itua tions and to do w hat, d See if y o u r experience confirm s F airc lough’s theory th a t ind irec tness is used

in trad itio n a l classroom s b u t no t in liberal ones, an d less in h igher education th an in schools.

e T h in k ab o u t w h eth er th e re any o th e r factors ap a rt from ideology in th e class­ro o m th a t m igh t have in fluenced w h eth er ind irec tness w as used,

h W rite ab o u t your c lassroom language and th e use o f ind irec tness an d say tow hat ex ten t you agree w ith Fairclough (be su re n o t to inc lude anecdo tes).

□ Look at th e last paragraph o f the penu ltim ate paragraph , in w hich he talks o f asym ­m etries o f speech act conven tions, anda th ink o f situations in w hich conventions o f speech acts and indirectness reflect

asym m etrical social re la tionsh ip s (the second abstrac t gave a very useful exam ple);

Page 136: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

123.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

5

C O N V E R S A T I O N A N D R A C E 123

choose o n e o f these situa tions, and find a v ideo film th a t co n ta in s an ex­am ple o f the situa tion ; m ake su re th a t it is a sho rt ep isode o f on ly ab o u t ten m inu tes; w atch it several tim es;m ake a n o te o f w ho can use w hat speech act, w ho can be ind irec t a n d w ho canno t, an d also tran scribe th e language used to realise the speech act; decide w hether you agree w ith Fairclough tha t th e conven tions o f speech acts em body social relationsh ips.

C O N V E R S A T IO N A N D RA CE

T he first o f the G um perz excerpts begins w ith a fo rm u la tion o f ‘con tex tualisa tion cues’ and m iscom m unications. It describes m iscom m unications that can occur w hen a speaker from one social g ro u p addresses a m em b er o f an o th e r social g roup , an d it d iscusses an exchange th a t is unsatisfactory because o f th e d ifferences in variety o f English an d speech style betw een the tw o speakers. T he fo rm ula ic phrases o f any social g ro u p u su ­ally serve to establish personal con tac t betw een m em bers.

T he second G u m p erz excerpt co n ta in s an o th e r exam ple o f m isco m m u n ica tio n in b r ie f encoun te rs . T h is tim e it is the in to n a tio n th a t causes th e p rob lem because it is m isin te rp re ted as com m u n ica tin g a negative a ttitude .

R eading and researching

J. Gumperz (1982) Discourse Strategies, pp .133-4 and 173-4. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

The conversational analyses described in this chapter extend the methodological principle of comparing ungrammatical and grammatical sentences, by which linguists derive generalizations about grammatical rules, to the analysis of contextualization phenomena that underlie the situated judgements conversationalists make of each other. Naturally occurring instances of miscommunication arc compared with func­tionally similar passages of successful communication in the same encounter or findings from other situations to derive generalizations about subculturallv and sit­uationally specific aspects of inferential processes.

The following example illustrates the type of miscommunication phenomena we look for and shows how we begin to isolate possible linguistic sources of mis­understanding. The incident is taken from an oral report by a graduate student in educational psychology who served as an interviewer in a survey.

(1) The graduate student has been sent to interview a black housewife in a low income, inner city neighborhood. The contact has been made over the phone by someone in the office. The student arrives, rings the bell, and is met by the husband, who opens the door, smiles, and steps towards him:Husband: So y’re gonna check out ma ol lady, hah?Interviewer: Ah, no. I only came to get some information. They called from

the office.(Husband, dropping his smile, disappears without a word and calls his wife.)

D4.1

Page 137: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

124.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

6

The student reports that the interview that followed was still' and quite unsatis­factory. Being black himself, he knew that he had ‘blown it’ by failing to recognize the significance of the husband’s speech style in this particular case. The style is that of a formulaic opening gambit used to ‘check out’ strangers, to see whether or not they can come up with the appropriate formulaic reply. Intent on follow­ing the instructions he had received in his methodological training and doing well in what he saw as a formal interview, the interviewer failed to notice the hus­band’s stylistic cues. Reflecting on the incident, he himself states that, in order to show that he was on the husband’s wave-length, he should have replied with a typically black response like ‘Yea, I ma git some info (I’m going to get some information) to prove his familiarity with and his ability to understand local verbal etiquette and values. Instead, his Standard English reply was taken by the husband as an indication that the interviewer was not one of diem and, perhaps, not to be trusted.

The opener ‘So y’re gonna check out ma ol lady’ is similar to the ‘Ahma git me a gig’ discussed elsewhere. Both are formulaic phrases identifiable through co- occurrent selections of phonological, prosodic, morphological and lexical options. Linguists have come to recognize that, as Fillmore (1976) puts it, ‘an enormous amount of natural language is formulaic, automatic and rehearsed, rather than pro- positional, creative or freely generated.’ But it must be emphasized that although such formulas have some of the characteristics of common idioms like kick the bucket and spill the beans, their meaning cannot be adequately described by lexical glosses. They occur as part of routinized interactive exchanges, such as Goffman describes as ‘replies and responses’ (1981). Their use signals both expectations about what is to be accomplished and about the form that replies must take. They are similar in function to code switching strategies. Like the latter they are learned by interacting with others in institutionally defined networks of relationships. Where these relationships arc ethnically specific they arc often regarded as markers of ethnic background. But, as our example shows, their use in actual encounters is ultimately determined by activity specific pre-suppositions so that failure to react is not in itself a clear sign of ethnic identity. Basically, these formulaic phrases reflect indirect conversational strategies that make conditions favorable to estab­lishing personal contact and negotiating shared interpretations. . . .

Interethnic communication

Chapters 6 and 7 outline a perspective to conversation that focuses on conversa­tional inference and on participants’ use of prosodic and phonetic perceptions as well as on interpretive preferences learned through previous communicative experi­ence to negotiate frames of interpretation. Using this perspective we can account for both shared grammatical knowledge and for differences in communicative style that characterize our modern culturally diverse societies.

This approach to speaking has both theoretical and practical significance. On the theoretical level it suggests a way of carrying out Garfinkel’s program for study­ing naturally organized activities through language without relying on a priori and generally untestable assumptions about what is or is not culturally appropriate.

Page 138: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

125.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

7

C O N V E R S A T I O N A N D R A C E 125

Although it might seem at first glance that contextualization cues are surface phe­nomena, their systematic analysis can lay the foundation for research strategies to gain insights into otherwise inaccessible symbolic processes of interpretation.

On the practical level, the study of conversational inference may lead to an explanation for the endemic and increasingly serious communication problems that affect private and public affairs in our society. We can begin to see why individ­uals who speak English well and have no difficulty in producing grammatical English sentences may nevertheless differ significantly in what they perceive as meaning­ful discourse cues. Accordingly, their assumptions about what information is to be conveyed, how it is to be ordered and put into words and their ability to fill in the unverbalized information they need to make sense of what transpires may also vary. This may lead to misunderstandings that go unnoticed in the course of an interaction, but can be revealed and studied empirically through conversational analysis.

The main purpose of earlier chapters was to illustrate the nature of the cues and the inferential mechanisms involved. To that end, the discussion largely relied on examples of brief encounters. Miscommunications occurring in such brief encoun­ters are annoying and their communicative effect may be serious. But the social import of the phenomena in question and their bases in participants’ cultural back­ground is most clearly revealed through case studies of longer events. The fol­lowing two chapters present in depth analyses of two such events. To begin with, let me give one more brief example to illustrate the scope of the analysis and the subconscious nature of the interpretive processes involved.

In a staff cafeteria at a major British airport, newly hired Indian and Pakistani women were perceived as surly and uncooperative by their supervisor as well as by the cargo handlers whom they served. Observation revealed that while rela­tively few words were exchanged, the intonation and manner in which these words were pronounced were interpreted negatively. For example, when a cargo handler who had chosen meat was asked whether he wanted gravy, a British assistant would say ‘Gravy?’ using rising intonation. The Indian assistants, on the other hand, would say the word using falling intonation: ‘Gravy.’ We taped relevant sequences, includ­ing interchanges like these, and asked the employees to paraphrase what was meant in each case. At first the Indian workers saw no difference. However, the English teacher and the cafeteria supervisor could point out that ‘Gravy,’ said with a falling intonation, is likely to be interpreted as ‘This is gravy,’ i.e. not interpreted as an offer but rather as a statement, which in the context seems redundant and con­sequently rude. When the Indian women heard this, they began to understand the reactions they had been getting all along which had until then seemed incompre­hensible. They then spontaneously recalled intonation patterns which had seemed strange to them when spoken by native English speakers. At the same time, super­visors learned that the Indian women’s tailing intonation was their normal way ol asking questions in that situation, and that no rudeness or indifference was intended.

After several discussion/teaching sessions of this sort, both the teacher and the cafeteria supervisor reported a distinct improvement in the attitude of the Indian workers both to their work and to their customers. It seemed that the

Page 139: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

126.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

8

126 E X T E N S I O N

Indian workers had long sensed they had been misunderstood but, having no way of talking about this in objective terms, they had felt they were being discrimi­nated against. We had not taught the cafeteria workers to speak appropriate English; rather, by discussing the results ol our analysis in mixed sessions and locusing on context bound interpretive preferences rather than on attitudes and stereotypes, we have suggested a strategy for self-diagnosis of communication difficulties. In short, they regained confidence in their own innate ability to learn.

The first of the longer case studies examines excerpts from an interview- counselling session recorded in an industrial suburb in London. The participants are both educated speakers of English; one is a Pakistani teacher of mathematics, who although born in South Asia went to secondary school and university in England. The other is a staff member of a center funded by the Department of Employment to deal with interethnic communication problems in British industry'. The teacher has been unable to secure permanent employment and having been told that he lacks communication skills for high school teaching, he has been referred to the center. While both participants agree on the general definition of the event as an interview—counselling session, their expectations of what is to be accomplished, and especially about what needs to be said, differ radically. Such differences in expectation are of course not unusual even where conversationalists have similar cultural backgrounds. Conversations often begin with an introductory phase where common themes are negotiated and differences in expectation adjusted. What is unusual about this situation is that participants, in spite of repeated attempts at adjustment over a period of more than an hour, utterly fail to achieve such nego­tiation. Our analy'sis concentrates on the reasons for this failure and shows how it is based on differences in linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge.

o Activities

Read th ro u g h th e first tw o pages o f th e first excerp t and sum m arisei w hat is m ean t by ‘con tex tua lisa tion cues’ii w hat G um perz m eans by ‘m isco m m u n ica tio n ’.F rom y o u r read ing o f G um perz , w hat was it th a t separa ted th e in terv iew er from th e interview ee, socially? D iscuss th e exchange betw een th em in te rm s o f ad ja­cency pairs an d say w h e th e r you feel th a t conversa tion analysis can explain w hat h ap p en ed , an d why. Is it possib le to explain it from th e p o in t o f view o f in te r­actional sociolinguistics?D iscuss the factors th a t caused the superv isor and cargo hand le rs to th in k th a t th e In d ian an d P akistan i cafeteria assistan ts w ere being surly. D o you agree w ith G um perz’s in te rp re ta tion o f w hat w ent w rong o r do you th ink th a t there was m ore to it th an that?O ver th e nex t week, m ake a n o te o f any m isco m m u n ica tio n o f th is so rt, th a t you h ap p en to overhear. It cou ld be th a t you have to sit o r stand qu ite close to the people w ho are talk ing an d in a good light because the m isco m m u n ica tio n s m ay be qu ite sm all o r am b iguous, an d on ly detec tab le in a hesita tion o r a slight flinch before the next speaker talks. W hat linguistic features are involved, and w hat socio-

Page 140: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

127.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=13

9

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 127

cu ltu ra l factors? A re th e features o f overlaps, in te rru p tio n s an d pauses, th e ad ja ­cency p a ir s tru c tu re an d sequences any th ing to d o w ith th e m iscom m un ica tion? T he m iscom m un ica tions in the pages selected from G u m p erz o ccu r betw een p eo ­ple o f d ifferen t social class an d d ifferen t e thn ic g roups. D o you th in k th a t lessons can be lea rn t from these findings? S hou ld courses be designed fo r social w orkers an d im m ig ran ts w ith a d ifferen t first language from th e co u n try th a t they are now in, to tra in them to apprecia te the sub tle ties o f language such as fo rm ulas and in to n a tio n an d th e ir soc io -cu ltu ra l effect? W hat so rt o f exercise cou ld b e given to sensitise those assistan ts in th e a irp o rt cafeteria? Look at som e advanced course books fo r teach ing English as a Foreign Language an d see how m u ch o f th is is so rt o f th ing is included.Flave a look th ro u g h several novels th a t you are fam iliar w ith an d see if the w riters have m ade th e ir characters speak w ith overlaps, in te rru p tio n s an d pauses, th e adjacency p a ir s tru c tu re and sequences. W hat use do th e w riters m ake o f all these features o f na tu ra l speech? Is there alw ays supposed to be a m ean ing o r significance b eh in d them ? W hich o f the features is m ost rep resen ted in the books? W hy d o you th in k th is is?R ecord a casual conversa tion betw een tw o o r th ree people w hom you k n o w to be friends, an d tran scribe five m in u tes from the m idd le o f th e reco rd ing , inc lud ing the overlaps, in te rru p tio n s an d pauses. T ry an d label each tu rn now , as p a rt o f an adjacency pair. W h at conclusions can you draw ? T o w hat ex ten t w ou ld you say th a t th e overlaps, in te rru p tio n s a n d pauses, an d the adjacency p a ir s tru c tu re a re a resu lt o f th e speakers be ing friends?R ecord a cross-cu ltu ra l p ro g ram m e on the TV o r radio ; th is cou ld be an in te r­view betw een people fro m d ifferen t coun tries o r sim ply an in fo rm al exchange o f ideas, o r m aybe even a travel p rog ram m e. O bserve th e backchannels o f each p a r­tic ipan t an d observe th e pauses.i Are th ere any differences?ii W h a t seem s to be th e fu nc tion o f each?iii A re th ere any m isu n d ers tan d in g s o r b reakdow n in co m m u n ica tio n tha t

o ccu r as a result o f th e differences?iv W hy do you th in k th is is?

C O M M U N IC A T IO N A N D R E L E V A N C E

T he S perber an d W ilson ex trac t is m o re com plex th a n th e readings in th is b o o k have been so far. It con ta ins p art o f the exp lana tion o f how relevance is achieved, su p p o rted by several exam ples illu stra ting th e concep ts th a t they discuss. Let us look briefly at th e concep ts.

Sperber an d W ilson say th a t G rice’s appeals to th e m ax im o f re lation are ‘n o m ore th a n d ressed -up appeals to in tu it io n ’. In o rd e r to arrive at an u n d e rs tan d in g o f relev­ance, they describe th e ‘cognitive en v iro n m e n t’, an d say th a t co g n ition is relevance- o rien ted an d th a t a c o m m u n ica to r’s in ten tio n is to a lter th e cognitive en v iro n m en t o f th e addressees. T hey th en explore the concep t o f o stension and say th a t a speaker

Page 141: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

128.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

0

128 E X T E N S I O N

only draw s the addressee’s a tten tion to som eth ing if they th ink it will be relevant enough to m ake it w o rth th e ir a tten tio n .

T hey argue th a t in o rd e r fo r th e addressee to process th e in fo rm a tio n , they have to recognise and in fer th e speaker’s in ten tio n beh ind th e ostension . T hey conclude tha t, ‘O stens ive-inferen tia l co m m u n ica tio n consists in m ak ing m anifest to an a u d i­ence o n e ’s in ten tio n to m ake m anifest a basic layer o f in fo rm atio n .’ T h is in ten tio n is in fo rm ative and com m unicative .

D5.1 Reading and researching

D. Sperber and D. Wilson (1995) Relevance, pp. 36 -64 , Oxford: Blackwell.

Problems of explanation: Grice's theory of conversationThe Gricean analysis of communication has been discussed almost exclusively by philosophers, whose main concern has been to define the terms ‘meaning’ or ‘communication’ . From our current, more psychological point of view, defining communication is not a primary' concern. For one thing, communication docs not necessarily involve a distinct and homogeneous set of empirical phenomena. Our aim is to identify underlying mechanisms, rooted in human psychology, which explain how humans communicate with one another. A psychologically well-founded definition and typology of communication, if possible at all, should follow from a theoretical account of these underlying mechanisms. We see Grice’s analysis as a possible basis for such a theoretical account. From this perspective, the main defect of Grice’s analysis is not that it defines communication too vaguely, but that it explains communication too poorly.

The code model has the merit of explaining how communication could in prin­ciple be achieved. It fails not on the explanatory but on the descriptive side: humans do not communicate byr encoding and decoding thoughts. The inferential model, despite the technical problems discussed earlier, provides a description of human communication which rings true. By itself, however, it explains very little. The temptation to return to the code model will remain powerful as long as the infer­ential model is not developed into a plausible explanatory account of communica­tion. However, the basis for such an account is suggested by another work of Grice’s, his W illiam James Lectures, in which he puts forward the view that communication is governed by a ‘co-operative principle’ and ‘maxims of conversation’ .

According to the inferential model, communication is achieved by the audience recognising the communicator’s informative intention. However, it is not enough to point out, as we have done, that recognising intentions is a normal feature of human cognition. The recognition of informative intentions presents problems which the recognition of other human intentions docs not.

How does one recognise another individual’s intentions? One observes his behaviour; using one’s knowledge of people in general and of the individual in particular, one infers which of the efTects of this behaviour he could have both predicted and desired; one then assumes that these predictable and desirable effects were also intended. In other words, one infers the intention behind the behaviour

Page 142: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

129.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

1

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 129

from its independently observed or inferred effects. This pattern of inference is generally not available to an audience trying to recognise a communicator’s infor­mative intention. As we have seen, the informative effects of communication arc normally achieved, if at all, via recognition of the informative intention. Hence, it seems, the audience cannot firs t observe or infer these effects, and then use them to infer the informative intention.

However, the problem is not that it is hard to come up with hypotheses about what the communicator might have intended to convey: it is that too many hypo­theses arc possible. Even a linguistic utterance is generally full of semantic ambi­guities and referential ambivalences, and is open to a wide range of figurative interpretations. For non-coded behaviour there is, by definition, no predetermined range of information it might be used to communicate. The problem, then, is to choose the right hypothesis from an indefinite range of possible hypotheses. How can this be done? First, it is easy enough to infer that a certain piece of behaviour is communicative. Communicative behaviour has at least one characteristic effect which is achieved before the communicator’s informative intention is recognised: it overtly claims the audience’s attention.

Grice’s fundamental idea in his William James Lectures is that once a certain piece of behaviour is identified as communicative, it is reasonable to assume that the communicator is trying to meet certain general standards. From knowledge of these general standards, observation of the communicator’s behaviour, and the con­text, it should be possible to infer the communicator’s specific informative inten­tion. Grice, talking only of verbal communication, argues,

Our talk exchanges . . . are characteristically, to some degree at least, co­operative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direc­tion. . . . at each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

(Grice 1975: 45)

This Grice calls the co-operative principle. He then develops it into nine maxims classified into four categories:

Maxims o f quantity1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes

of the exchange).2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxims o f qualitySupermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true.1 Do not say what you believe to be false.2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Page 143: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

130.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

2

¿Maxim o f relation

Be relevant.

/Maxim.? o f manner Supermaxim: Be perspicuous.1 Avoid obscurity of expression.2 Avoid ambiguity.3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).4 Be orderly.

This account of the general standards governing verbal communication makes it possible to explain how the utterance of a sentence, which provides only an incomplete and ambiguous representation of a thought, can nevertheless express a complete and unambiguous thought. O f the various thoughts which the sentenceuttered could be taken to represent, the hearer can eliminate anv that are incom­patible with the assumption that the speaker is obeying the co-operative principle and maxims. If only one thought is left, then the hearer can infer that it is this thought that the speaker is trying to communicate. Thus, to communicate effici­ently, all the speaker has to do is utter a sentence only one interpretation of which is compatible with the assumption that she is obeying the co-operative principle and maxims.

Recall, for instance, our example (16)—(18):

(16) Jones has bought the Times.(17) Jones has bought a copy of the Times.

(18) Jones has bought the press enterprise which publishes the Times.

There might be situations where only interpretation (17) of the utterance in (16) would be compatible with the assumption that the speaker docs not say what she believes to be false (first maxim of quality). There might be situations where only' interpretation (18) would be compatible with the assumption that the speaker is being relevant (maxim of relation). In those situations, the intended interpretation of (16) can easily be inferred. Hence the maxims and the inferences they give rise to make it possible to convey an unambiguous thought by uttering an ambiguous sentence.

Grice’s approach to verbal communication also makes it possible to explain how utterances can convey not just explicit but also implicit thoughts. Consider dialogue (32):

(32) Peter: Do you want some coffee?Mary: Coffee would keep me awake.

S uppose th a t P eter is aw are o f (33). T hen from th e assu m p tio n explicitly expressed by M ary’s answ er, to ge ther w ith a ssu m p tio n (33), he cou ld in fer conc lu s ion (34):

(33) Mary does not want to stay awake.(34) Mary does not want any coffee.

Page 144: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

131.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

3

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 131

In just the same way, if Peter is aware of (35), he could infer conclusion (36):

(35) Mary’s eyes remain open when she is awake.(36) Coffee would cause Mary’s eyes to remain open.

Now in ordinary circumstances, Mary would have wanted to communicate (34) but not (36), although both arc inferable in the same way from the thought she has explicitly expressed. This is easily explained on the assumption that Mary obeys Grice’s maxims. The explicit content of her utterance does not directly answer Peter’s question; it is therefore not relevant as it stands. If Mary has obeyed the maxim ‘be relevant’, it must be assumed that she intended to give Peter an answer. Since he can obtain just the expected answer by inferring (34) from what she said, she must have intended him to draw precisely this conclusion. There is no parallel reason to think that she intended Peter to infer (36). Hence, just as the Gricean maxims help the hearer choose, from among the senses ol an ambiguous sentence, the one which was intended by the speaker, so they help him choose, from among the implications of the explicit content of an utterance, the ones which arc implic­itly conveyed.

Suppose now that the exchange in (32) takes place in the same circumstances as before, except that Peter has no particular reason beforehand to assume that Mary docs not want to stay awake. Without this assumption, no answer to his question is derivable from Mary’s utterance, and the relevance of this utterance is not immediately apparent. One of Grice’s main contributions to pragmatics was to show how, in the event of such an apparent violation of the co-operative prin­ciple and maxims, hearers arc expectcd to make any additional assumptions needed to dispose of the violation. Here Peter might first adopt (33) as a specific assump­tion jointly suggested by the utterance, his knowledge of Mary, and the general assumption that Mary is trying to be relevant. He might then infer, as in the pre­vious example, that she docs not want any coffee. To eliminate the apparent vio­lation of the maxims, Peter would have to assume that Mary had intended him to reason just as he did: that is, that she was intending to convey implicitly both assumption (33) and conclusion (34).

Grice calls additional assumptions and conclusions such as (33) and (34), sup­plied to preserve the application of the co-operative principle and maxims, impli-

catures. Like his ideas on meaning, Grice’s ideas on implicature can be seen as an attempt to build on a commonsense view of verbal communication by making it more explicit and exploring its implications. In his W illiam James Lectures, Grice took one crucial step away from this commonsense view towards theoretical sophis­tication; but of course one step is not enough. Grice’s account retains much of the vagueness of the commonsense view. Essential concepts mentioned in the max­ims arc left entirely undefined. This is true of relevance, for instance: hence appeals to the ‘maxim of relation’ are no more than dressed-up appeals to intuition. Thus, everybody would agree that, in ordinary circumstances, adding (33) and (34) to the interpretation of Mary’s answer in (32) makes it relevant, whereas adding (35) and (36) does not. However, this fact has itself to be explained before it can be used in a genuine explanation of how Mary’s answer is understood.

Page 145: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

132.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

4

Grice’s view of implicature raises even more basic questions. What is the ratio­nale behind the co-operative principle and maxims? Arc there just the nine max­ims Grice mentioned, or might others be needed, as he suggested himself? It might be tempting to add a maxim every time a regularity has to be accountedfor. However, this would be entirely ad hoc. What criteria, then, do individualmaxims have to meet? Could the number ol maxims be not expanded but reduced?

How are the maxims to be used in inference? Grice himself seems to think that the hearer uses the assumption that the speaker has observed the maxims as a premise in inference. Others have tried to reinterpret the maxims as ‘conver­sational postulates’ (Gordon and LakofI 1975), or even as code-like rules which take semantic representations of sentences and descriptions of context as input, and yield pragmatic representations of utterances as output (Gazdar 1979). The flavour of such proposals can be seen from the following remarks:

The tactic adopted here is to examine some of the data that would, or shouldbe, covered by Grice’s quantity maxim and then propose a relatively simpleformal solution to the problem of describing the behaviour of that data. This solution may be seen as a special case of Grice’s quantity maxim, or as an alternative to it, or as merely a conventional rule for assigning one class of conversational meanings to one class of utterance.

(Gazdar 1979: 49)

The pragmatic phenomena amenable to this sort of treatment are rather lim­ited: they essentially arise when the utterance of a certain sentence is so regularly correlated with a certain pragmatic interpretation that it makes sense to set up a rule linking the one to the other. For example, the utterance of (37) regularly suggests (38), the main exception being when it is already assumed that (38) is, or might be, false:

(37) Some of the arguments are convincing.(38) Not all of the arguments are convincing.

The proposal is to deal with this by setting up a general rule associating (37) with the pragmatic interpretation (38), and effectively blocking its application in con­texts where it is assumed that (38) is, or might be, false (Gazdar 1979: 55 — 9). However, in most cases of implicature, as for instance in example (32)—(34), the context does much more than filter out inappropriate interpretations: it provides premises without which the implicature cannot be inferred at all. The translation of Grice’s maxims into code-like rules would dius reduce them to dealing with a narrow set of interesting but quite untypical examples of implicature.

What, then, are the forms of inference involved in the normal operation of the maxims? If, as seems plausible, non-demonstrative (i.e. non-deductive) infer­ence is involved, how does it operate? Without pursuing these questions in any depth, most pragmatists have adopted one form or another of the Gricean approach to implicatures, and are otherwise content to explain the explicit core of verbal communication in terms of the code model. The results arc as can be expected. Although based on an insight which seems quite correct, and although somewhat

Page 146: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

133.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

5

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 133

more explicit and systematic than the intuitive reconstructions supplied by un­sophisticated speakers, the analyses of implicature which have been proposed by pragmatists have shared with these intuitive reconstructions the defect of being almost entirely ex post facto.

Given that an utterance in context was found to carry particular implicatures, what both the hearer and the pragmatic theorist can do, the latter in a slightly more sophisticated way, is to show how in very intuitive terms there was an argu­ment based on the context, the utterance and general expectations about the behaviour of speakers, that would justify the particular interpretation chosen. What they fail to show is that on the same basis, an equally convincing justification could not have been given for some other interpretation that was not in fact chosen. There may be a whole variety of interpretations that would meet whatever standards of truthfulness, informativeness, relevance and clarity have been proposed or envis­aged so far. The theory’ needs improving at a fundamental level before it can be fruitfully applied to particular cases.

In his [Villiam James lectures, Grice put forward an idea of fundamental import­ance: that the very act of communicating creates expectations which it then exploits. Grice himself first applied this idea and its elaboration in terms of the maxims to a rather limited problem of linguistic philosophy: do logical connectives ( ‘and’, ‘or’ , ‘if . . . then’) have the same meaning in natural languages as they do in logic? He argued that the richer meaning these connectives seem to have in natural languages can be explained in terms not of word meaning but of implicature. He then suggested that this approach could have wider applications: that the task of linguistic semantics could be considerably simplified by treating a large array of problems in terms of implicatures. And indeed, the study of implicature along Gricean lines has become a major concern of pragmatics. We believe that the basic idea of Grice’s W illiam James Lectures has even wider implications: it offers a way of developing the analysis of inferential communication, suggested by Grice him­self in ‘Meaning’ (1957), into an explanatory model. To achieve this, however, we must leave aside the various elaborations of Grice’s original hunches and the sophisticated, though empirically rather empty debates they have given rise to. What is needed is an attempt to rethink, in psychologically realistic terms, such basic questions as: What form of shared inlormation is available to humans? How is shared information exploited in communication? What is relevance and how is it achieved? What role does the search for relevance play in communication? It is to these questions that we now turn.

Cognitive environments and mutual manifestnessWe have argued that mutual knowledge is a philosopher’s construct with no close counterpart in reality. This is not to deny that humans do, in some sense, share inlormation. In the first place, the communication process itself gives rise to shared information; in the second place, some sharing of information is necessary if com­munication is to be achieved. Any account of human communication must thus incorporate some notion of shared information. In this section, we want to go beyond both the empirically inadequate notion ol ‘mutual knowledge’ and the

Page 147: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

134.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

6

conceptually vague notion of ‘shared information’. We will discuss in what sense humans share information, and to what extent they share information about the information thev share.

All humans live in the same physical world. We are all engaged in a lifetime’s enterprise of deriving information from this common environment and construct­ing the best possible mental representation of it. We do not all construct the same representation, because of differences in our narrower physical environments on the one hand, and in our cognitive abilities on the other. Perceptual abilities vary in effectiveness from one individual to another. Inferential abilities also vary, and not just in effectiveness. People speak different languages, they have mastered dif­ferent concepts; as a result, they can construct different representations and make different inferences. Thev have different memories, too, different theories that thev

J 1 7 J

bring to bear on their experience in different ways. Hence, even if they all shared the same narrow physical environment, what we propose to call their cognitive

environments would still differ.To introduce the notion of a cognitive environment, let us consider a parallel

case. One human cognitive ability is sight. With respect to sight, each individual is in a visual environment which can be characterised as the set of all phenomena visible to him. What is visible to him is a function both of his physical environ­ment and of his visual abilities.

In studying communication, we are interested in conceptual cognitive abilities. We want to suggest that what visible phenomena are for visual cognition, mani­fest facts are for conceptual cognition. Let us define:

(39) A fact is manifest to an individual at a given time if and only if he is capable at that time of representing it mentally and accepting its representation as true or probably true.

(40) A cognitive environment of an individual is a set of facts that are manifest to him.

To be manifest, then, is to be perceptible or inferable. An individual’s total cognitive environment is the set of all the facts that he can perceive or infer: all the facts that arc manifest to him. An individual’s total cognitive environment is a function of his physical environment and his cognitive abilities. It consists of not only all the facts that he is aware of, but also all the facts that he is capable of becoming aware of, in his physical environment. The individual’s actual awareness of facts, i.e. the knowledge that he has acquired, of course contributes to his ability to become aware of further facts. Memorised information is a component of cognitive abilities.

We want to elaborate the notion of what is manifest in two ways: first, we want to extend it from facts to all assumptions; and second, we want to distin­guish degrees of manifestness. Our point of view here is cognitive rather than epistemological. From a cognitive point of view, mistaken assumptions can be indis­tinguishable from genuine factual knowledge, just as optical illusions can be indis­tinguishable from true sight. Just as illusions arc ‘visible’, so any assumption, whether true or false, may be manifest to an individual. An assumption, then, is manifest

Page 148: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

135.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

7

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 135

in a cognitive environment if the environment provides sufficient evidence for its adoption, and as we all know, mistaken assumptions are sometimes very well evidcnccd.

Anything that can be seen at all is visible, but some things are much more visible than others. Similarly, we have defined ‘manifest’ so that any assumption that an individual is capable of constructing and accepting as true or probably true is manifest to him. We also want to say that manifest assumptions which are more likely to be entertained are more manifest. Which assumptions arc more manifest to an individual during a given period or at a given moment is again a function of his physical environment on the one hand and his cognitive abilities on the other.

Human cognitive organisation makes certain types of phenomena (i.e. perceptible objects or events) particularly salient. For instance, the noise of an explosion or a doorbell ringing is highly salient, a background buzz or a ticking clock much less so. When a phenomenon is noticed, some assumptions about it are standardly more accessible than others. In an environment where the doorbell has just rung, it will normally be strongly manifest that there is someone at the door, less strongly so that whoever is at the door is tall enough to reach the bell, and less strongly still that the bell has not been stolen. The most strongly manifest assumption of all is the assumption that the doorbell has just rung, the evidence for which is both salient and conclusive. We will have more to say, in chapter 3, about the factors which make some assumptions more manifest than others in a given situ­ation. For the moment it is the fact rather than the explanation that matters.

Our notion of what is manifest to an individual is clearlv weaker than theJnotion of what is actually known or assumed. A fact can be manifest without being known; all the individual’s actual assumptions are manifest to him, but many more assumptions which he has not actually made are manifest to him too. This is so however weakly the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘assumption’ arc construed. In a strong sense, to know some fact involves having a mental representation of it. In a weaker sense, to say that an individual knows some fact is not necessarily to imply that he has ever entertained a mental representation of it. For instance, before read­ing this sentence you all knew, in that weak sense, that Noam Chomsky never had breakfast with Julius Caesar, although until now the thought of it had never crossed your mind. It is generally accepted that people have not only the know­ledge that they actually entertain, but also the knowledge that they are capable of deducing from the knowledge that they entertain. However, something can be manifest without being known, even in this virtual way, if only because some­thing can be manifest and false, whereas nothing can be known and false.

Can something be manifest without being actually assumed? The answer must again be yes. Assumptions arc unlike knowledge in that they need not be true. As with knowledge, people can be said to assume, in a weak sense, what they are capable of deducing from what they assume. However, people do not assume, in any sense, what they are merely capable of inferring non-demonstratively — that is, by some creative process of hypothesis formation and confirmation — from what they assume. Although it presumably followed non-demonstratively from what you

Page 149: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

136.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

8

knew and assumed before you read this sentence that Ronald Reagan and Noam Chomsky never played billiards together, this was not, until now, an assumption of yours: it was only an assumption that was manifest to you. Moreover, some­thing can be manifest merely by being perceptible, and without being inferable at all from previously held knowledge and assumptions. A car is audibly passing in the street. You have not yet paid any attention to it, so you have no knowledge of it, no assumptions about it, even in the weakest sense of ‘knowledge’ and ‘assumption’. But the fact that a car is passing in the street is manifest to you.

We will now show that because ‘manifest’ is weaker than ‘known’ or ‘assumed’, a notion of mutual manifestness can be developed which does not sufler from the same psychological implausibility as ‘mutual knowledge’ or ‘mutual assumptions’.

To the extent that two organisms have the same visual abilities and the same physical environment, the same phenomena arc visible to them and they can be said to share a visual environment. Since visual abilities and physical environments are never exactly identical, organisms never share their total visual environments. Moreover, two organisms which share a visual environment need not actually see the same phenomena; they are merely' capable of doing so.

Similarly, the same facts and assumptions may be manifest in the cognitive environments of two different people. In that case, these cognitive environments intersect, and their intersection is a cognitive environment that these two people share. The total shared cognitive environment of two people is the intersection of their two total cognitive environments: i.e. the set of all facts that are manifest to them both. Clearly, if people share cognitive environments, it is because they share physical environments and have similar cognitive abilities. Since physical envir­onments are never strictly identical, and since cognitive abilities are affected by' previously memorised information and thus differ in many respects from one per­son to another, people never share their total cognitive environments. Moreover, to say that two people share a cognitive environment docs not imply that they make the same assumptions: merely that they are capable of doing so.

One thing that can be manifest in a given cognitive environment is a charac­terisation of the people who have access to it. For instance, every Freemason has access to a number of secret assumptions which include the assumption that all Freemasons have access to these same secret assumptions. In other words, all Freemasons share a cognitive environment which contains the assumption that all Freemasons share this environment. To take another example, Peter and Mary are talking to each other in the same room: they' share a cognitive environment which consists of all the facts made manifest to them by their presence in this room. One of these facts is the fact that they share this environment.

Any shared cognitive environment in which it is manifest which people share it is what we will call a m utual cognitive environment. In a mutual cognitive environ­ment, for every manifest assumption, the fact that it is manifest to the people who share this environment is itself manifest. In other words, in a mutual cognitive environment, every manifest assumption is what we will call m utually manifest.

Consider, for example, a cognitive environment E shared by Peter and Mary, in which (41) and (42) are manifest:

Page 150: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

137.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=14

9

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 137

(41) Peter and Mary share cognitive environment E.

(42) The phone is ringing.

In this environment, (43)—(45) and indefinitely many assumptions built on the same pattern are also manifest:

(43) It is manifest to Peter and to Mary that the phone is ringing.(44) It is manifest to Peter and to Mary that it is manifest to Peter and to Mary

that the phone is ringing.(45) It is manifest to Peter and to Mary that it is manifest to Peter and to Marv

that it is manifest to Peter and to Mary that the phone is ringing.

The more complex assumptions of type (43)—(45) get, the less likely they are actually to be made. However, in such a series, assumption n does not have to be actually made by the individuals it mentions for assumption n + I to be true. There is therefore no cut-off point beyond which these assumptions arc likely to be lalse rather than true; they remain manilest throughout, even though their degreeof manifestness tends asymptotically toward zero. (41)—(45) and all the assump­tions in £ arc not only manifest to Peter and Mary; they arc mutually manifest.

The notion of a mutually manifest assumption is clearly weaker than that ol a mutual assumption (and a Jortiori than that of mutual knowledge). Consider assumptions (46)—(48) and all the further assumptions that can be built on the same pattern:

(46) Peter and Mary assume that the phone is ringing.(47) Peter and Mary assume that Peter and Mary assume that the phone is

ringing.(48) Peter and Marv assume that Peter and Marv assume that Peter and Marv

assume that the phone is ringing.

As belore, the more complex assumptions of type (46)—(48) get, the less likely they are actually to be made. In this case, however, assumption n does have to be made by Peter and Mary for assumption n + 1 to be true. Moreover, thereis sure to be some point — quite soon actually — at which Mary docs not assumethat Peter assumes that she assumes that he assumes, etc. At this point and beyond, all the assumptions in this series are false, and mutuality of assumptions is not achieved. Another way of seeing that mutuality of assumptions is stronger than mutual manifcstncss is to notice that (43) may be true when (46) is not, (44) may be true when (47) is not, (45) may be true when (48) is not, and so on, while the converse is not possible.

Mutual manifcstncss is not merely weaker than mutual knowledge or mutual assumption; it is weaker in just the right way. On the one hand, it is not open to the same psychological objections, since the claim that an assumption is mutu­ally manifest is a claim about cognitive environments rather than mental states or processes. On the other hand, as we will show in section 12, the notion of mutual manifcstncss is strong enough to give a precise and interesting content to the notion of overtness discussed in section 6. However, by rejecting the notion ol mutual

Page 151: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

138.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

0

knowledge and adopting the weaker notion of mutual manifestness, we deprive ourselves of a certain type of explanation in the study of communication.

Communication requires some degree of co-ordination between communica­tor and audience on the choice of a code and a context. The notion of mutual knowledge is used to explain how this co-ordination can be achieved: given enough mutual knowledge, communicator and audience can make symmetrical choices of code and context. A realistic notion of mutual manifestness, on the other hand, is not strong enough to explain such symmetrical co-ordination. However, before concluding that mutual manifestncss is too weak after all, ask yourself what arc the grounds for assuming that responsibility for co-ordination is equally shared between communicator and audience, and that both must worry, symmetrically, about what the other is thinking. Asymmetrical co-ordination is often easier to achieve, and communication is an asymmetrical process anyhow.

Consider what would happen in ballroom dancing if the responsibility for choosing steps was left equally to both partners (and how little help the mutual- knowledge framework would be for solving the resulting co-ordination problems in real time). Co-ordination problems are avoided, or considerably reduced, in dancing, by leaving the responsibility to one partner who leads, while the other has merely to follow. We assume that the same goes for communication. It is left to the communicator to make correct assumptions about the codes and contex­tual information that the audience will have accessible and be likely to use in the comprehension process. The responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings also lies with the speaker, so that all the hearer has to do is go ahead and use whatever code and contextual information come most easilv to hand.

J

Suppose Mary and Peter are looking at a landscape where she has noticed a distant church. She savs to him,

(49) I ’ve been inside that church.

She does not stop to ask herself whether he has noticed the building, and whether he assumes she has noticed, and assumes she has noticed he has noticed, and so on, or whether he has assumed it is a church, and assumes she assumes it is, and so on. All she needs is reasonable confidence that he will be able to identify the building as a church when required to: in other words, that a certain assumption will be manifest in his cognitive environment at the right time. He need not have accessed this assumption before she spoke. In fact, until she spoke he might have thought the building was a castle: it might be onlyr on the strength of her utter­ance that it becomes manifest to him that the building is a church.

Inspired by the landscape, Mary says,

(50) It’s the sort of scene that would have made Marianne Dashwood swoon.

This is an allusion to Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, a book she knows Peter has read. She does not stop to think whether he knows she has read it too and knows she knows he has read it, and so on. Nor is she unaware of the fact that they may well have reacted to the book in different ways and remember it dif­ferently. Her remark is based on assumptions that she does not mention and that

Page 152: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

139.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

1

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 139

he need never have made himself before she spoke. What she expects, rightly, is that her utterance will act as a prompt, making him recall parts of the book that he had previously forgotten, and construct the assumptions needed to understand the allusion.

In both these examples Mary makes assumptions about what assumptions are, or will be, manifest to Peter. Peter trusts that the assumptions he spontaneously makes about the church and about Sense and Sensibility, which help him understand Mary’s utterances, are those she expected him to make. To communicate success­fully, Mary had to have some knowledge of Peter’s cognitive environment. As a result ot their successful communication, their mutual cognitive environment is enlarged. Note that symmetrical co-ordination and mutual knowledge do not enter into the picture at all.

The most fundamental reason tor adopting the mutual-knowlcdge framework, as tor adopting the code model, is the desire to show how successful communi­cation can be guaranteed, how there is some failsafe algorithm by which the hearer can reconstruct the speaker’s exact meaning. Within this framework the fact that communication often fails is explained in one of two ways: either the code mech­anism has been imperfectly implemented, or there has been some disruption due to ‘noise’. A noiseless, well-implemented code mechanism should guarantee per­fect communication.

In rejecting the mutual-knowledge framework, we abandon the possibility of using a failsafe algorithm as a model of human communication. But since it is obvious that the communication process takes place at a risk, why assume that it is governed by a failsafe procedure? Moreover, if there is one conclusion to be drawn from work on artificial intelligence, it is that most cognitive processes are so complex that they must be modelled in terms of heuristics rather than failsafe algorithms. We assume, then, that communication is governed by a less-than-perfect heuristic. On this approach, failures in communication arc to be expected: what is mysterious and requires explanation is not failure but success.

As we have seen, the notion of mutual manifestness is not strong enough to salvage the code theory of communication. But then, this was never one of our aims. Instead of taking the code theory for granted and concluding that mutual knowledge must therefore exist, we prefer to look at what kind of assumptions people are actually in a position to make about each other’s assumptions, and then see what this implies for an account of communication.

Sometimes, we have direct evidence about other people’s assumptions: for instance, when they tell us what they assume. More generally, because we mani­festly share cognitive environments with other people, we have direct evidence about what is manifest to them. When a cognitive environment we share with other people is mutual, we have evidence about what is mutually manifest to all of us. Note that this evidence can never be conclusive: the boundaries of cogni­tive environments cannot be precisely determined, if only because the threshold between very weakly manifest assumptions and inaccessible ones is unmarked.

From assumptions about what is manifest to other people, and in particular about what is strongly manifest to them, we are in a position to derive further,

Page 153: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

140.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

2

though necessarily weaker, assumptions about what assumptions they are actually making. From assumptions about what is mutually manifest to all of us, we arc in a position to derive further, and weaker, assumptions about the assumptions they attribute to us. And essentially, this is it. Human beings somehow manage to communicate in situations where a great deal can be assumed about what is manifest to others, a lot can be assumed about what is mutually manifest to them­selves and others, but nothing can be assumed to be truly mutually known or assumed.

The situations which establish a mutual cognitive environment arc essentially those that have been treated as establishing mutual knowledge. We have argued that assumptions of mutual knowledge are never truly warranted. Examples (49) and (50) arc anecdotal evidence that they arc unnecessary. The detour via mutual knowledge is superfluous: mutual cognitive environments directly provide all the information needed for communication and comprehension.

The notions of cognitive environment and of manifestness, mutual or other­wise, arc psychologically realistic, but by themselves shed little light on what goes on in human minds. A cognitive environment is merely a set of assumptions which the individual is capable of mentally representing and accepting as true. The ques­tion then is: which of these assumptions will the individual actually make? This question is of interest not only to the psychologist, but also to every ordinary communicator. We will argue that when you communicate, your intention is to alter the cognitive environment of your addressees; but of course you expect their actual thought processes to be affected as a result. In the next section we will argue that human cognition is rclevance-oricntcd, and that as a result, someone who knows an individual’s cognitive environment can infer which assumptions he is actually likely to entertain.

Relevance and ostensionAn individual’s cognitive environment is a set of assumptions available to him. Which particular assumptions is he most likely to construct and process? There may, of course, be no general answer to this question. We want to argue that there is. This section is essentially an exploration of the idea that there is a single property — relevance — which makes information worth processing for a human being. Chapter 3 will contain a relatively technical discussion of relevance. In this section, we simply want to characterise the notion in very general, informal terms, and to make some suggestions about the role of rclcvancc in communication.

Human beings are efficient information-processing devices. This is their most obvious asset as a species. But what is efficiency in information processing?

Efficiency can only be defined with rcspect to a goal. Some goals, such as catching a prey, winning a game or solving a problem, arc absolute: they consist in bringing about a particular state of affairs which at any given moment either exists or does not exist. Other goals, such as multiplying one’s offspring, improving one’s backstroke, or understanding oneself, are relative: they consist in raising the value of some variable, and can thus only be achieved to a degree. Efficiency with respect to absolute goals is simply a matter of reaching them with the smallest

Page 154: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

141.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

3

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 141

possible expenditure of whatever resource (time, money, energy . . . ) it takes. Efficiency with respect to relative goals is a matter of striking a balance between degree of achievement and expenditure. In the special case where the expenditure is fixed — say all the time available is going to be spent anyhow — efficiency con­sists in achieving the goal to the highest possible degree.

Most discussions of information processing, whether in experimental psycho­logy or in artificial intelligence, have been concerned with the realisation of abso­lute goals. ‘Problem solving’ has become the paradigm of information processing. The problems considered have a fixed solution; the goal of the information­processing device is to find this solution; efficiency consists in finding it at the minimal cost. However, not all cognitive tasks fit this description; many tasks con­sist not in reaching an absolute goal, but in improving on an existing state of affairs. Hence, cognitive efficiency may have to be characterised differently for dif­ferent devices.

Simpler information-processing devices, whether natural, such as a frog, or artificial, such as an electronic alarm system, process only very specific informa­tion: for example, metabolic changes and fly movements for frogs, noises and other vibrations for alarm systems. Their information-processing activity consists in mon­itoring changes in the values of a few variables. They could be informally described as engaged in answering a few set questions: ‘Is there a fly-like object within reach?’, ‘Is there a large body moving in the room?’ More complex information­processing devices, by contrast, can define and monitor new variables or formu­late and answer new questions.

For the simpler devices, efficiency consists in answering their set questions at the minimal processing cost. Efficiency cannot be so easily defined for more com­plex devices such as human beings. For such devices, efficient information pro­cessing may involve formulating and trying to answer new questions despite the extra processing costs incurred. Formulating and answering specific questions must then be seen as subservient to a more general and abstract goal. It is in relation to this general goal that the efficiency of complex information-processing devices must be characterised.

On the general goal of human cognition, we have nothing better to offer than rather trivial speculative remarks. However, these remarks have important and non-trivial consequences. It seems that human cognition is aimed at improving the individual’s knowledge of the world. This means adding more information, infor­mation that is more accurate, more easily retrievable, and more developed in areas ol greater concern to the individual. Information processing is a permanent life­long task. An individual’s overall resources for information processing are, if not quite fixed, at least not very flexible. Thus, long-term cognitive efficiency consists in improving one’s knowledge of the wforld as much as possible given the avail­able resources.

What, then, is short-term cognitive efficiency — efficiency, say, in the way your mind spends the next few seconds or milliseconds? This is a more concrete question, and one that is harder to answer. At every moment, many different cog­nitive tasks could be performed, and this for two reasons: first, human sensory

Page 155: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

142.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

4

abilities monitor much more information than central conceptual abilities can pro­cess; and second, central abilities always have plenty of unfinished business. The key problem for efficient short-term information processing is thus to achieve an optimal allocation of central processing resources. Resources have to be allocated to the processing of information which is likely to bring about the greatest con­tribution to the mind s general cognitive goals at the smallest processing cost.

Some information is old: it is already present in the individual’s representa­tion of the world. Unless it is needed for the performance of a particular cogni­tive task, and is easier to access from the environment than from memory, such information is not worth processing at all. Other information is not only new but entirely unconnected with anything in the individual’s representation of the world. It can only be added to this representation as isolated bits and pieces, and this usually means too much processing cost for too little benefit. Still other informa­tion is new but connected with old information. When these interconnected new and old items of information are used together as premises in an inference pro­cess, further new information can be derived: information w hich could not have been inferred without this combination of old and new premises. When the pro­cessing of new information gives rise to such a multiplication effect, we call it relevant. The greater the multiplication effect, the greater the relevance.

Consider an example. Mary and Peter arc sitting on a park bench. He leans back, which alters her view. By leaning back, he modifies her cognitive environ­ment; he reveals to her certain phenomena, which she may look at or not, and describe to herself in different ways. Why should she pay attention to one phe­nomenon rather than another, or describe it to hersell in one wav rather than another? In other words, why should she mentally process any of the assumptions which have become manifest or more manifest to her as a result of the change in her environment? Our answer is that she should process those assumptions that arc most relevant to her at the time.

Imagine, lor instance, that as a result of Peter’s leaning back she can see, among other things, three people: an ice-cream vendor who she had noticed before when she sat down on the bench, an ordinary stroller who she has never seen before, and her acquaintance William, who is coming towards them and is a dread­ful bore. Manv assumptions about each of these characters are more or less man­ifest to her. She may already have considered the implications of the presence of the ice-cream vendor when she first noticed him; if so, it would be a waste of processing resources to pay further attention to him now. The presence of the unknown stroller is new information to her, but little or nothing follows from it; so there again, what she can perceive and infer about him is not likely to be of much relevance to her. By contrast, from the fact that William is coming her way, she can draw many conclusions from which many more conclusions will fol­low. This, then, is the one truly relevant change in her cognitive environment; this is the particular phenomenon she should pay attention to. She should do so, that is, if she is aiming at cognitive efficiency.

Our claim is that all human beings automatically aim at the most efficient information processing possible. This is so whether they are conscious of it or not;

Page 156: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

143.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

5

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 143

in fact, the very diverse and shifting conscious interests of individuals result from the pursuit of this permanent aim in changing conditions. In other words, an indi­vidual's particular cognitive goal at a given moment is always an instance of a more general goal: maximising the relevance ol the information processed. We will show that this is a crucial factor in human interaction.

Among the facts made manifest to Mary by Peter’s behaviour is the very fact that he has behaved in a certain way. Suppose now that she pays attention to this behaviour, and comes to the conclusion that it must have been deliberate: per­haps he is leaning back more rigidly than if he were merely trying to find a more comlortable position. She might then ask herself why he is doing it. There may be many possible answers; suppose that the most plausible one she can find is that he is leaning back in order to attract her attention to some particular phenomenon. Then Peter’s behaviour has made it manifest to Mary that he intends to make some particular assumptions manifest to her. We will call such behaviour — behaviour which makes manifest an intention to make something manifest — ostensive behav­iour or simply ostension. Showing someone something is a case of ostension. So too, we will argue, is human intentional communication.

The existence of ostension is beyond doubt. What is puzzling is how it works. Any perceptible behaviour makes manifest indefinitely many assumptions. How is the audience of an act of ostension to discover which of them have been inten­tionally made manifest? For instance, how is Mary to discover which of the phe­nomena which have become manifest to her as a result of Peter’s behaviour are the ones he intended her to pay attention to?

Information processing involves effort; it will only be undertaken in the expec­tation of some reward. There is thus no point in drawing someone’s attention to a phenomenon unless it will seem relevant enough to him to be worth his attention. By requesting Mary’s attention, Peter suggests that he has reason to think that by paying attention, she will gain some relevant information. He may, of course, be mistaken, or trying to distract her attention from relevant informa­tion elsewhere, as the maker of an assertion may be mistaken or lying; but just as an assertion comes with a tacit guarantee of truth, so ostension comes with a tacit guarantee of relevance.

This guarantee of relevance makes it possible lor Mary to infer which of the newly manifest assumptions have been intentionally made manifest. Here is how the inference process might go. First, Mary notices Peter’s behaviour and assumes that it is ostensive: i.e. that it is intended to attract her attention to some phe­nomenon. If she has enough confidence in his guarantee of relevance, she will infer that some of the information which his behaviour has made manifest to her is indeed relevant to her. She then pays attention to the area that has become visible to her as a result of his leaning back, and discovers the ice-cream vendor, the stroller, this dreadful William, and so on. Assumptions about William are the only newly manifest assumptions relevant enough to be worth her attention. From this, she can infer that Peter’s intention was precisely to draw her attention to William’s arrival. Any other assumption about his ostensive behaviour is inconsis­tent with her confidence in the guarantee of relevance it carries.

Page 157: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

144.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

6

Mary has become aware not only that there is someone coming who she wants to avoid, but also that Peter intended her to become aware of it, and that he is aware of it too. On the basis of his observable behaviour, she has discovered some of his thoughts.

Ostensive behaviour provides evidence of one’s thoughts. It succeeds in doing so because it implies a guarantee ol relevance. It implies such a guarantee because humans automatically turn dieir attention to what seems most relevant to them. The main thesis of section is that an act of ostension carries a guarantee of relevance, and that this fact — which we will call the principle o f relevance — makes manifest the intention behind the ostension. We believe that it is this principle ol rele­vance that is needed to make the inferential model of communication explanatory.

Ostensive-inferential communicationOstension provides two layers of information to be picked up: first, there is the information which has been, so to speak, pointed out; second, there is the infor­mation that the first layer of information has been intentionally pointed out. One can imagine die first layer being recovered without the second. For example, as a result of Peter’s leaning back, Mary might notice William coming their way, even if she paid no attention to Peter’s intentions. And as for Peter, he might not care much whether Marv recognises his intention, as long as she notices William.

In general, however, recognising the intention behind the ostension is neces­sary for efficient information processing: someone who fails to recognise this inten­tion may fail to notice relevant information. Let us modify our example slightly and suppose that William is in the distance, barely visible in a crowd. II Mary pays no attention to the fact that Peter’s behaviour is ostensive, she might well look in the right direction and yet not notice William. If she pays attention to the ostension, she will be inclined to take a closer look and find out what infor­mation Peter thought might be relevant to her.

In our modified example, what Peter’s ostension mostly does is make much more manifest some information which would have been manifest anyhow, though very weakly so. Sometimes, however, part of the basic information will not be manifest at all unless the intention behind the ostension is taken into account. Suppose a girl is travelling in a foreign country. She comes out of the inn wear­ing light summer clothes, manifestly intending to take a stroll. An old man sit­ting on a bench nearby looks ostensively up at the sky. When the girl looks up, she secs a few' tiny clouds, which she might have noticed for herself, but which she would normally have paid no further attention to: given her knowledge — or lack of knowledge — of the local weather, the presence of these tiny clouds is not relevant to her. Now, however, the old man is drawing her attention to the clouds in a manifestly intentional way, thus guaranteeing that there is some relevant infor­mation to be obtained.

The old man’s ostensive behaviour opens up for the girl a whole new strat­egy of processing. If she accepts his guarantee of relevance, she has to find out what makes him think that the presence of the clouds would be relevant to her. Knowing the area and its weather better than she does, he might have reason to

Page 158: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

145.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

7

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 145

think that the clouds are going to get worse and turn to rain. Such an assump­tion is of a very standard sort and would probably be the first to come to mind. The old man can thus be reasonably confident that, prompted by his behaviour, she will have no difficulty in deciding that this is what he believes. II it were not manifest to the old man that it was going to rain, it would be hard to explain his behaviour at all. The girl thus has reason to think that in drawing her atten­tion to the clouds, he intended to make manifest to her that he believed it was going to rain. As a result of this act of ostension, she now has some information that was not available to her before: that he thinks it is going to rain, and hence that there is a genuine risk of rain.

In this example, the state of affairs that the old man drew the girl’s attention to had been partly manifest to her, and partly not. The presence of the clouds and the fact that clouds may always turn to rain had been manifest and merely became more so. However, until that moment she had regarded the fact that the weather was beautiful as strong evidence that it would not rain. The risk of rain in that particular situation was not manifest to her at all. In other words, the clouds were already evidence of oncoming rain, but evidence that was much too weak. The old man made that evidence much stronger by pointing it out; as his intentions became manifest, the assumption that it would rain became manifest too.

Sometimes, all the evidence displayed in an act of ostension bears directly on the agent’s intentions. In these cases, only by discovering the agent’s intentions can the audience also discover, indirectly, the basic information that the agent intended to make manifest. The relation between the evidence produced and the basic information conveyed is arbitrary. The same piece of evidence can be used, on different occasions, to make manifest different assumptions, even mutually' in­consistent assumptions, as long as it makes manifest the intention behind the ostension.

Here is an example. Two prisoners, from different tribes with no common language, are put in a quarry to work back to back breaking rocks. Suddenly, prisoner A starts putting some distinct rhythm into the sound of his hammer — one—two—three, one-two, one—two-three, one-two — a rhythm that is both arbi­trary and noticeable enough to attract the attention of prisoner B. This arbitrary pattern in the way the rocks are being broken has no direct relevance for B. However, there are grounds for thinking that it has been intentionally produced, and B might ask himself what A’s intentions were in producing it. One plausible assumption is that this is a piece of ostensive behaviour: that is, that A intended B to notice the pattern. This would in turn make manifest A ’s desire to interact with B, which in the circumstances would be relevant enough.

Here is a more substantial example. Prisoners A and B arc at work in their quarry, each with a guard at his shoulder, when suddenly the attention of the guards is distracted. Both prisoners realise that they have a good chance of escaping, but only if they can co-ordinate their attack and overpower their guards simultaneously. Here, it is clear what information would be relevant: each wants to know when the other will start the attack. Prisoner A suddenly whistles, the prisoners overpower their guards and escape. Again, there is no need for a pre­

Page 159: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

146.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

8

existing code correlating a whistle with the information that now is the moment to attack. The information is obvious enough: it is the only information that A could conceivably have intended to make manifest in the circumstances.

Could not the repetition of such a situation lead to the development of a code? Imagine that the two prisoners, caught again, find themselves in the same predicament: again a whistle, again an escape, and again they are caught. The next time, prisoner B, who has not realised that both guards are distracted, hears pris­oner A whistle: this time, fortunately, B docs not have to infer what the whistle is intended to make manifest: he knows. The whistle has become a signal associ­ated by an underlying code to the message ‘Let us overpower our guards now!’

Inferential theorists might be tempted to see language as a whole as having developed in this way: to see conventional meanings as growing out of natural inferences. This is reminiscent of the story of how Rockefeller became a million-

J

aire. One day, when he was young and very poor, Rockefeller found a one-cent coin in the street. He bought an apple, polished it, sold it for two cents, bought two apples, polished them, sold them for four cents . . . After one month he bought a cart, after two years he was about to buy a grocery store, when he inherited the fortune of his millionaire uncle. We will never know how far hominid efforts at conventionalising inference might have gone towards establishing a full-fledged human language. The fact is that the development of human languages was made possible by a specialised biological endowment.

Whatever the origin of the language or code employed, a piece of coded behaviour may be used ostensively — that is, to provide two layers of information: a basic layer of information, which may be about anything at all, and a second layer con­sisting of the information that the first layer of information has been intentionally made manifest. When a coded signal, or any other arbitrary piece of behaviour, is used ostensively, the evidence displayed bears directly on the individual’s intention, and only indirectly on the basic layer of information that she intends to make manifest. We are now, of course, dealing with standard cases of Gricean communication.

Is there a dividing line between instances of ostension which one would be more inclined to describe as ‘showing something’, and clear cases of communica­tion where the communicator unquestionably ‘means something’? One of Grice’s main concerns was to draw such a line: to distinguish what he called ‘natural meaning’ — smoke meaning fire, clouds meaning rain, and so on — from ‘non­natural meaning’: the word ‘fire’ meaning fire, Peter’s utterance meaning that it will rain, and so on. Essential to this distinction was the third type of communi­cator’s intention Grice mentioned in his analysis: a true communicator intends the recognition of his informative intention to function as at least part of the audi­ence’s reason for fulfilling that intention. In other words, the first, basic, layer of information must not be entirely recoverable without reference to the second.

What we have tried to show so far in this section is that there are not two distinct and well-defined classes, but a continuum of cases of ostension ranging from ‘showing’, where strong direct evidence for the basic layer of information is provided, to ‘saying that’, where all the evidence is indirect. Even in our very

Page 160: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

147.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=15

9

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 147

first case of Peter leaning back ostensively to let Mary see William approaching, it is arguable that some of the basic information is made manifest indirectly, through Peter’s intention being made manifest. Someone who engages in any kind of osten- sive behaviour intentionally draws some attention to himsell and intentionally makes

J J

manifest a few assumptions about himself: for instance, that he is aware of the basic information involved, and that he is trying to be relevant. Peter’s ostension might make it manifest not just that William is approaching, but also that Peter expects Mary to be concerned, and that he is concerned too.

Would we want to say, though, that Peter ‘meant something’ byr his behav­iour? Like most English speakers, we would be reluctant to do so; but this is irrelevant to our pursuit, which is not to analyse ordinary language usage, but to describe and explain forms of human communication. Our argument at this stage is this: either inferential communication consists in providing evidence for what the communicator means, in the sense of ‘meaning’ which Grice calls ‘non­natural meaning’, and in that case inferential communication is not a well-defined class of phenomena at all; or else showing something should be considered a form of inferential communication, on a par with meaning something by a certain behaviour, and inferential communication and ostension should be equated.

There are two questions involved here. One is substantive: which domains of facts are to be described and explained together? Our answer is that ostension is such a domain, and that inferential communication narrowly understood (i.e. under­stood as excluding cases of ostension where talk of ‘meaning’ would be awkward) is not. The second question is terminological (and hence not worth much argu­ment): can the term ‘communication’ be legitimately applied to all cases of osten­sion? Our answer is y'es, and from now on we will treat ostensive communication, inferential communication, and ostensive—inferential communication as the same thing. Inferential communication and ostension are one and the same process, but seen from two different points of view: that of the communicator who is involved in ostension and that of the audience who is involved in inference.

Ostensive—inferential communication consists in making manifest to an audi­ence one’s intention to make manifest a basic layer of information. It can there­fore be described in terms of an informative and a communicative intention. In the next two sections, we want to reanalyse the notions of informative and com­municative intention in terms of manifestness and mutual manifestness, and to sketch in some of the empirical implications of this reformulation.

The inform ative intentionWe began this section by pointing out that any account of communication must answer two questions: first, what is communicated; and second, how is communi­cation achieved? Up to now, we have considered only the second question. In this section, we return to the first. The generally accepted answer is that what is communicated is a meaning. The question then becomes, what is a meaning? And there is no generally accepted answer any more.

However much thev differ, all answers to the what-is-a-meaning question share the view that the paradigm example of meaning is what is explicitly expressed by a

Page 161: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

148.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

0

linguistic utterance. The verbal communication of an explicit meaning is then taken as the model of communication in general. This is true of semiotic approaches, which arc not only generalisations of a linguistic model, but arc also based on the assumption that to communicate is always, in Saussure’s terms, to transmit a ‘signified’ by use of a ‘signifier’ . It is true of inferential approaches, which regard all com­municative acts as ‘utterances in an extended sense, used to convey an ‘utterer s meaning’.

We believe that the kind of explicit communication that can be achieved by the use of language is not a typical but a limiting case. Treating linguistic com­munication as the model of communication in general has led to theoretical distortions and misperceptions of the data. The effects of most forms of human communication, including some of the effects of verbal communication, arc far too vague to be properly analysed along these lines. Moreover, there is not a dichotomy but a continuum oi cases, Irom vaguer to more precise effects.

Let us first illustrate this point with two examples of non-verbal communica­tion. Mary comes home; Peter opens the door. Mary stops at the door and sniffs ostensively; Peter follows suit and notices that there is a smell of gas. This fact is highly relevant, and in the absence of contextual counterevidence or any obvi­ous alternative candidate, Peter will assume that Mary intended to make it man­ifest to him that there was a smell of gas. Here, at least part of what is communicated could be reasonably well paraphrased by saying that there is a smell of gas; and it could be argued that this is what Mary means. She could indeed have achieved essentially the same result by speaking rather than sniffing ostensively.

Contrast this with the following case. Mary and Peter arc newly arrived at the seaside. She opens die window overlooking the sea and sniffs appreciatively and ostensively. When Peter follows suit, there is no one particular good thing that comes to his attention: the air smells fresh, fresher than it did in town, it reminds him of their previous holidays, he can smell the sea, seaweed, ozone, fish; all sorts ol pleasant things come to mind, and while, because her snift was appreciative, he is reasonably safe in assuming that she must have intended him to notice at least some of them, he is unlikely to be able to pin her intentions down anv further. Is there anv reason to assume that her intentions were more

J J

specific? Is there a plausible answer, in the form ol an explicit linguistic para­phrase, to the question, what does she mean? Could she have achieved the same communicative effect by speaking? Clearly not.

Examples like the one of Mary smelling gas, where it is reasonable to impute a meaning to the communicator, are the only ones normally considered in dis­cussions of communication; examples like the one of Mary at the seaside — clearly communicating, but what? — arc generally ignored. Yet these examples do not belong to distinct classes of phenomena, and it is easy enough to imagine inter­mediate cases: say, a guest sniffing appreciatively and ostensively when the stew is brought to the table, and so on.

The distortions and misperceptions introduced by the explicit communication model are also found in the study of verbal communication itself. Some essential aspects ol implicit verbal communication are overlooked. Pragmatists assume that

Page 162: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

149.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

1

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 149

what is communicated by an utterance is a speaker’s meaning, which in the case of an assertion is a set of assumptions. One of these assumptions is explicitly expressed; the others (if any) arc implicitly conveyed, or implicated. The only dif­ference between the explicit content of an utterance and its implicatures is sup­posed to be that the explicit content is decoded, while the implicatures are inferred. Now we all know, as speakers and hearers, that what is implicitly conveyed by an utterance is generally much vaguer than what is explicitly expressed, and that when the implicit import of an utterance is explicitly spelled out, it tends to be distorted by the elimination of this often intentional vagueness. The distortion is even greater in the case of metaphor and other figures of speech, whose poetic effects are generally destroyed by being explicitly spelled out.

In an effort to minimise the distortion, pragmatists have tended to focus on examples such as (32), where the implicit import is fairly precise, and to ignore equally ordinary cases of implicit vagueness such as (51):

(32) Peter: Do you want some coffee?Mary: Coffee would keep me awake.

(51) Peter: What do you intend to do today?Mary: I have a terrible headache.

In (32), Mary implicates that she doesn’t want coffee (or, in some circumstances, that she does) and that her reason for not wanting it is that it would keep her awake. Here the implicatures can be spelled out without distortion. In (51), what docs Mary implicate? That she will not do anything? That she will do as little as possible? That she will do as much as she can? That she does not yet know what she will do? There is no precise assumption, apart from the one explicitly expressed, which she can be said to intend Peter to share. Yet there is more to her utter­ance than its explicit content: she manifestly intends Peter to draw some conclu­sions from what she said, and not just any conclusions. Quite ordinary cases such as (51) are never discussed in the pragmatic literature.

Pragmatists tend to take for granted that a meaning is a proposition combined with a propositional attitude, though they may diverge considerably in the way they' present and develop this view. In other words, they treat the communica­tor’s informative intention as an intention to induce in an audience certain atti­tudes to certain propositions. With assertions, often taken to be the most basic case, the informative intention is treated as an intention to induce in an audience the belief that a certain proposition is true.

There is a very good reason for anyone concerned with the role of inference in communication to assume that what is communicated is propositional: it is rel­atively easy to say what propositions arc, and how inference might operate over propositions. No one has any clear idea how inference might operate over non- propositional objects: say, over images, impressions or emotions. Propositional con­tents and attitudes thus seem to provide the only relatively solid ground on which to base a partly or wholly inferential approach to communication. Too bad if much of what is communicated does not fit the propositional mould.

Page 163: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

150.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

2

At first sight, it might look as if semioticians had a more comprehensive view. They have an a priori account of how any kind of representation, propositional or not, might be conveyed: namely, by means of a code. However, studies by semioticians of what they call ‘connotation , i.e. the vaguer aspect ot what is com­municated, are highly programmatic and do not offer the beginnings of a psycho­logically adequate account of the type of mental representation involved. The semiotic approach is more comprehensive only by being more superficial.

The only people who have been quite consistently concerned with the vaguer aspects of communication arc the Romantics, from the Schlegel brothers and Coleridge to I. A. Richards, and their many acknowledged or unacknowledged followers, including many semioticians such as Roman Jakobson in some of his writings, Victor Turner, or Roland Barthes. However, they have all dealt with vagueness in vague terms, widi metaphors in metaphorical terms, and used the term ‘meaning’ so broadly that it becomes quite meaningless.

We see it as a major challenge for any account of human communication to give a precise description and explanation of its vaguer effects. Distinguishing mean­ing from communication, accepting that something can be communicated without being strictly speaking meant by the communicator or the communicator’s behaviour, is a first essential step — a step away from the traditional approach to communication and most modern approaches. Once this step is taken, we believe that the framework we propose, unlike the others we have discussed, can rise to this challenge.

Accounts of communication either are not psychological at all, and avoid all talk of thoughts, intentions, etc., or else they assume that a communicator’s inten­tion is to induce certain specific thoughts in an audience. We want to suggest that the communicator’s informative intention is better described as an intention to modify directly not the thoughts but the cognitive environment of the audience. The actual cognitive effects of a modification of the cognitive environment arc only partly predictable. Communicators — like human agents in general — form intentions over whose fulfilment they have some control: they can have some con­trollable effect on their audience’s cognitive environment, much less on their audi­ence’s actual thoughts, and they form their intentions accordingly.

We therefore propose to reformulate the notion of an informative intention along the following lines. A communicator produces a stimulus intending thereby

(52) Informative intention: to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions I.

We take an intention to be a psychological state, and we assume that the content of the intention must be mentally represented. In particular, the communicator must have in mind a representation of the set of assumptions I which she intends to make manifest or more manifest to the audience. However, to have a repre­sentation of a set of assumptions it is not necessary to have a representation of each assumption in the set. Any individuating description may do.

When die communicator’s intention is to make manifest some specific assump­tions, then, of course, her representation of I may be in the form of a list of assumptions which are members of I. Consider dialogue (53), for instance:

Page 164: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

151.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

3

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 151

(53) Passenger: When does the train arrive at Oxford?Ticket-collector: At 5:25.

Here the ticket-collector’s informative intention is to make manifest to the pas­senger the single assumption that the train arrives at 5:25. Examples of this type, where the communicator wants to communicate one or more specific assumptions which she actually has in mind, are the only ones usually considered. Our char­acterisation (52) of informative intentions fits these cases quite straightforwardly, hut unlike other approaches, is not limited to them.

Consider, at the other extreme, the vaguest forms of communication. Here the communicator may have a representation of I in which none of the assump­tions in I is directly listed. For instance, Mary’s informative intention when sniffing the seaside air might be that all the assumptions which became manifest to her when she opened the window and took a deep breath should, as a result of her ostensive behaviour, become manifest or more manifest to Peter. She need not intend to communicate any particular one of these assumptions.

If asked what she wranted to convey, one of the best answers Mary could give is that she wanted to share an impression with Peter. What is an impression? Is it a type of mental representation? Can it be reduced to propositions and prepo­sitional attitudes? What we arc suggesting is that an impression might be better described as a noticeable change in one’s cognitive environment, a change result­ing from relatively small alterations in the manifestness of many assumptions, rather than from the fact that a single assumption or a few new assumptions have all of a sudden become very manifest. It is quite in line with common sense to think of an impression as the sort of thing that can be communicated, and yet this intu­ition is unexplainable within current theories of communication. In the model of ostensive—inferential communication we are trying to develop, impressions fall squarely within the domain of things that can be communicated, and their very' vagueness can be precisely described.

In many — perhaps most — cases of human communication, what the com­municator intends to make manifest is partly precise and partly vague. She may have in mind a characterisation of I based on a representation of some but not all of the assumptions in 1. For instance, in (51), Mary’s informative intention in saying that she has a headache might be described as follows: she intends to make manifest to Peter the assumption that she has a headache and all the further assump­tions manifestly' required to make this a relevant answer to Peter’s question. Similarly, Mary’s informative intention when sniffing the smell of gas mi «lit be to make man­ifest to Peter not only the assumption that there is a smell of gas, but also all the further assumptions that this initial assumption makes mutually manifest.

Instead of treating an assumption as cither communicated or not communicated, we have a set of assumptions which, as a result of communication, become man­ifest or more manifest to varying degrees. We might think of communication itself, then, as a matter of degree. When the communicator makes strongly manifest her informative intention to make some particular assumption strongly manifest, then that assumption is strongly communicated. An example would be answering a clear ‘Yes’ when asked ‘Did you pay the rent?’ When the communicator’s intention is

Page 165: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

152.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

4

to increase simultaneously the manifestness of a wide range of assumptions, so that her intention conccrning cach of these assumptions is weakly manifest, then each of them is weakly communicated. An example would be sniffing ecstatically and osten- sively at the Iresh seaside air. There is, of course, a continuum of cases in between. In the case of strong communication, the communicator can have fairly precise expectations about some of the thoughts that the audience will actually entertain. With weaker forms of communication, the communicator can merely expect to steer the thoughts of the audience in a certain direction. Often, in human interaction, weak communication is found sufficient or even preferable to the stronger forms.

Non-verbal communication tends to be relatively weak. One of the advantages of verbal communication is that it gives rise to the strongest possible form of com­munication; it enables the hearer to pin down the speaker’s intentions about the explicit content of her utterance to a single, strongly manifest candidate, with no alternative worth considering at all. On the other hand, what is implicit in ver­bal communication is generally weakly communicated: the hearer can often fulfil part of the speaker’s informative intention by forming any of several roughly similar but not identical assumptions. Because all communication has been seen as strong communication, descriptions of non-verbal communication have been marred by spurious attributions of ‘meaning’; in the case of verbal communication, the difference between explicit content and implicit import has been seen as a differ­ence not in what gets communicated but merely in the means by which it is com­municated, and the vagueness of implicatures and non-literal forms of expression has been idealised away. Our account of informative intentions in terms of man- ifestncss of assumptions corrects these distortions without introducing cither ad hoc

machinery or vagueness of description.

The communicative intentionWhen we introduced the notion of a communicative intention in an earlier sec­tion, we drew attention to a problem first discussed by Strawson (1964a). Strawson pointed out that a communicator’s intentions must be ‘overt’ in a sense which is easy enough to illustrate and grasp intuitively, but hard to spell out precisely. One type of solution, proposed by Strawson himself, is to regard an intention as overt when it is backed by a series of further intentions, each to the effect that the pre­ceding intention in the series should be recognised. Schiffer (1972) proposed another solution: he analysed ‘overt’ as meaning mutually known. We argued that both types of solution are psychologically implausible.

Our solution, which is closer to Schiffer’s than Strawson’s, though without suffering from the defects of cither, is to replace the vague ‘overt’ by the more precise ‘mutually manifest’. We therefore redefine a communicative intention as follows. To communicate intentionally by ostension is to produce a certain stim­ulus with the aim of fulfilling an informative intention, and intending moreover thereby

(54) Communicative intention: to make it mutually manifest to audience and communicator that the communicator has this informative intention.

Page 166: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

153.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

5

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D R E L E V A N C E 153

This takes care of the types of example which Strawson and Schiller used to show that, in order to communicate, it is not quite enough to inform an audience of one’s informative intention. For instance, in the example in an earlier section, Mary leaves the pieces of her broken hair-drier lying around, intending thereby to inform Peter that she would like him to mend it. She wants this informative intention to be manifest to Peter, but at the same time, she does not want it to be ‘overt’. In our terms, she does not want her informative intention to be mutu­ally manifest. Intuitively, what she does is not quite communicate. Our redefinition of a communicative intention accounts for this intuition.

What difference does it make whether an inlormative intention is merelyJ

manifest to the audience or mutually manifest to audience and communicator? Should this really be a criterion for distinguishing communication from other forms of information transmission? Is it more than a technicality designed to take care of implausible borderline cases dreamed up by philosophers? Our answer is that there is indeed an essential difference.

Consider first a more general question: why should someone who has an in­formative intention bother to make it known to her audience that she has this intention? In other words, what are the reasons for engaging in ostensive com­munication? Grice discussed only one of these reasons: sometimes, making one’s informative intention known is the best way, or the only way, of fulfilling it. We have shown that people sometimes engage in ostensive communication even though the informative intention could be fulfilled without being made manifest: for exam­ple, by providing direct evidence for the information to be conveyed. However, even in these cases, ostension helps focus the attention of the audience on the rel­evant information, and thus contributes to the fulfilment of the informative inten­tion. This is still the Gricean reason for engaging in communication, just slightly extended in scope.

However, we want to argue that there is another major reason for engaging in ostensive communication, apart from helping to fulfil an informative intention. Mere informing alters the cognitive environment of the audience. Communication alters the mutual cognitive environment of the audience and communicator. Mutual manifestncss may be of little cognitive importance, but it is of crucial social impor­tance. A change in the mutual cognitive environment of two people is a change in their possibilities of interaction (and, in particular, in their possibilities of fur­ther communication).

Recall, for instance, the case of Peter leaning back to let Mary sec William coming their way. If, as a result of his behaviour, it becomes mutually manifest to them that William is coming, that they are in danger of being bored by his conversation, and so on, then they are in a position to act efficiently: i.e. promptly. All Maryr may have to do is say, ‘Let’s go!’; she can feel confident that Peter will understand her reasons, and, if he shares them, will be ready to act without ques­tion or delay.

In the case of the broken hair-drier, if Mary had made mutually manifest her wish that Peter would mend it, one of two tilings would have happened. Either he would have mended it, thus granting her wish and possibly putting her in his

Page 167: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

154.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

6

debt; or he would have failed to mend it, which would have amounted to a refusal or rejection. Mary avoids putting herself in his debt or meeting with a refusal by avoiding any modification of their mutual cognitive environment. If Peter mends the hair-drier, he is being kind on his own initiative, and she does not owe him anything. If Peter decides not to mend the hair-drier, he might reason as follows: she doesn t know I know she intended to inlorm me of her wish, so if I ignore it, she will attribute this to her failure to inform me; she may find me stupid, but not unkind. As for Mary, she may have intentionally left this line of reason­ing open to Peter. If he does not mend her hair-drier, she will find him unkind, but not hostile. His failure to grant her wish will not be in the nature of a rebufl. They will stand in exactly the same social relationship to each other as before. This shows how ostensive communication may have social implications that other forms of information transmission do not.

By making her informative intention mutually manifest, the communicatorcreates the following situation: it becomes mutually manifest that the fulfilmentof her informative intention is, so to speak, in the hands of the audience. If the assumptions that she intends to make manifest to the audience become manifest, then she is successful; if the audience refuses to accept these assumptions as true or probably true, then she has failed in her informative intention. Suppose — we will soon see how this may happen — that the audience’s behaviour makes it mutu­ally manifest that the informative intention is fulfilled. Then the set of assump­tions 1 that the communicator intended to make manifest to the audience becomes, at least apparently, mutually manifest. We say ‘at least apparently’ because, if the communicator is not sincere and some of the assumptions in I arc not manifest to her, then by our definition of mutual manifestness, these assumptions cannotbe mutually manifest to her and others.

A communicator is normally interested in knowing whether or not she has succeeded in fulfilling her informative intention, and this interest is mutually manifest to her and her audience. In face-to-face communication, the audience is generally expected to respond to this interest in fairly conventional ways. Often, for instance, the audience is expected to communicate its refusal to accept the information communicated, or else it becomes mutually manifest that the com­municator’s informative intention is fulfilled.

Where communication is non-reciprocal, there are various possible situationsto be taken into account. The communicator may be in a position of such author­ity over her audience that the success of her informative intention is mutually

J J

manifest in advance. Journalists, professors, religious or political leaders assume, alas often on good grounds, that what they communicate automatically becomes mutually manifest. When the communicator lacks that kind of authority, but still wants to establish a mutual cognitive environment with her audience, all she has to do is adapt her informative intentions to her credibility. For instance, in writ­ing this book we merely intend to make mutually manifest that we have devel­oped certain hypotheses and have done so on certain grounds. That is, we take it as mutually manifest that you will accept our authority on what we actually think. The mutual cognitive environment thus created is enough for us to go on

Page 168: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

155.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

7

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 155

to communicate further thoughts which we would otherwise have been unable to communicate. (O f course we would also like to convince you, but we hope to do this by the force of our arguments, and not by making y'ou recognise our infor­mative intentions.)

We began this section by asking how human beings communicate with one another. Our answer is that they use two quite different modes of communica­tion: coded communication and ostensive—inferential communication. However, the two modes of communication arc used in fundamentally different ways. Whereas ostensive—inferential communication can be used on its own, and sometimes is, coded communication is only used as a means of strengthening ostensive—inferential communication. This is how language is used in verbal communication, as we will argue later.

Ostensive—inferential communication can be defined as follows:

(55) Ostensive—inferential communication: the communicator produces a stimulus which makes it mutually manifest to communicator and audience that the communicator intends, by means of this stimulus, to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions I.

As this definition stands, it does not exclude the possibility of unintentional com­munication: that is, a stimulus merely intended to inform might make mutually manifest the intention to inform, and this, by our definition, would count as com­munication. For instance, suppose Mary yawns, intending to inform Peter that she is tired, and hoping that her yawn will look natural. She does not do it too well: it is all too obvious that her yawn is artificial — and her informative intention becomes mutually manifest. We see no reason for refusing to call this a case of unintended ostensive communication. It would be easy enough, though, to mod­ify definition (55) and make intentionality a defining feature of communication.

In any case, most human communication is intentional, and it is intentional for two good reasons. The first reason is the one suggested by Grice: by producing direct evidence of one’s informative intention, one can convey a much wider range of information than can be conveyed by producing direct evidence for the basic information itself. The second reason humans have for communicating is to modify and extend the mutual cognitive environment they share with one another.

What we have offered so far is a good enough description of ostensive— inferential communication. However, we have not explained how it works. We have suggested that the explanation is to be sought in a principle of relevance. To make this principle truly explanatory, we must first make the notion of relevance much more explicit, and to do this we must consider how information is men­tally' represented and inferentially processed.

Activities oSperber and W ilson say ‘T here m ay be a w hole variety o f in terp re tations th a t w ould m eet w hatever stan d ard s o f tru th fu lness , in form ativeness, relevance a n d clarity have been p roposed o r envisaged so far.’ W h a t do they m ean?

Page 169: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

156.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

8

□ 156 E X T E N S I O N

□ Explain in y o u r ow n w ords, w ith exam ples, w hat they m ean by each o f the following:- cognitive en v iro n m en ts a n d m u tua l m anifestness- ostension- ostensive-in feren tial co m m u n ica tio n- the in form ative in ten tio n- the com m un icative in ten tio n

□ Look at th e exam ples th a t S perber and W ilson discuss, and say w hat concep ts they are being used to illustrate- (32) D o you w an t som e co ffee? . . .- (42) T he p h o n e is r in g in g . . .- (49) I’ve been inside th a t ch u rch . . .- M ary an d P eter on th e p a rk bench , an d he leans back . . .- T he girl in light clo thes, an d th e o ld m an looks u p at th e sky . . .- M ary com es hom e, stops at th e d o o r an d s n if fs . . .- M ary a n d Peter at the seaside, M ary opens th e w indow a n d sn if fs . . .- (53) W hen does th e tra in arrive a t O x fo rd ? . . .- M ary yaw ns . . .

□ M ake a 10 -m inu te reco rd ing o f a casual conversation betw een people w ho know each o th e r well, an d tran scribe it. D escribe it, as far as you can, in term s o f Sperber a n d W ilson ’s- cognitive en v iro n m en ts an d m u tu a l m anifestness- ostension- ostensive-in feren tial co m m u n ica tio n- th e in fo rm ative in ten tio n- the com m un ica tive in ten tio n

□ W hat is y o u r o p in io n as regards the cooperative p rincip le and relevance theory? D o you th in k th a t S perber an d W ilson ’s theo ry o f co m m u n ica tio n cancels th a t o f Grice? W hich do you th in k best describes how exchanges ho ld together? C an you th in k o f an a lternative p rincip le o r set o f m ax im s to show h o w people u n d e r­stand each o th e r an d how conversa tions ru n sm oothly?

R E A D IN G S IN P O L IT E N E S S

These tw o readings take o u r analysis o f po liteness fu r th e r in to the social an d cu ltu ra l d im ension . T an n en suggests th a t w om en use polite ind irectness for rap p o r t and so lid ­arity , an d for getting th e ir d em an d s m et an d saving face a t the sam e tim e. H er view is th a t indirectness can be a p rerogative o f the pow erful o r even a n o rm , b u t th a t in d ir­ectness is n o t associated w ith w om en o r w ith pow er the w orld over.

1Women and indirectness

D. Tannen (1994) Gender and Discourse, pp. 32-4, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

0 6 . 1 Reading and researching

Page 170: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

157.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=16

9

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 157

IndirectnessLakolT (1975) identifies two benefits of indirectness: defensiveness and rapport. Defensiveness refers to a speaker’s preference not to go on record with an idea in order to be able to disclaim, rescind, or modify it if it does not meet with a

J

positive response. The rapport benefit of indirectness results from the pleasant experience of getting one’s way not because one demanded it (power) but because the other person wanted the same thing (solidarity). Many researchers have focused on the defensive or power benefit of indirectness and ignored the payoff in rap­port or solidarity.

The claim by Conley, O ’Barr, and Lind (1979) that women s language is really powerless language has been particularly influential. In this view, women’s ten­dency to be indirect is taken as evidence that women don’t feel entitled to make demands. Surely there arc cases in which this is true. Yet it can also be demon­strated that those who feel entitled to make demands may prefer not to, seeking the payoff in rapport. Furthermore, the ability to get one’s demands met with­out expressing them directly can be a sign of power rather than of the lack of it. An example I have used elsewhere (Tannen 1986) is the Greek father who answers, ‘If you want, you can go,’ to his daughter’s inquiry about going to a party. Because of the lack of enthusiasm of his response, the Greek daughter understands that her father would prefer she not go and ‘chooses’ not to go. (A ‘real’ approval would have been ‘Yes, of course, you should go.’) I argue that this father did not feel powerless to give his daughter orders. Rather, a communicative system was con­ventionalized by which he and she could both preserve the appearance, and pos­sibly the belief, that she chose not to go rather than simply obeying his command.

Far from being powerless, this father felt so powerful that he did not need to give his daughter orders; he simply needed to let her know his preference, and she would accommodate to it. By this reasoning, indirectness is a prerogative of the powerful. By the same reasoning a master who says, ‘It ’s cold in here,’ may expect a servant to make a move to close a window, but a servant who says the same thing is not likely to see his employer rise to correct the situation and make him more comfortable. Indeed, a Frenchman who was raised in Brittany tells me that his family never gave bald commands to their servants but always communi­cated orders in indirect and highly polite form. This pattern renders less surpris­ing the finding of Bellinger and Gleason (1982, reported in Gleason 1987) that fathers’ speech to their young children had a higher incidence than mothers’ of both direct imperatives (such as ‘Turn the bolt with the wrench’) and implied indirect imperatives (for example, ‘The wheel is going to fall off ’).

The use of indirectness can hardly be understood without the cross-cultural perspective. Many Americans find it self-evident that directness is logical and aligned with power whereas indirectness is akin to dishonesty as well as subservience. But for speakers raised in most of the world’s cultures, varieties of indirectness are the norm in communication. In Japanese interaction, for example, it is well known that saying ‘no’ is considered too face-threatening to risk, so negative responses arc phrased as positive ones: one never says ‘no,’ but listeners understand from the form of the ‘yes’ whether it is truly a ‘yes’ or a polite ‘no.’

Page 171: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

158.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

0

158 E X T E N S I O N

The American tendency to associate indirectness with female style is not culturally universal. The above description of typical Japanese style operates for men as well as women. My own research (Tannen 1981, 1984, 1986) suggests that Americans of some cultural and geographic backgrounds, female as well as male, are more likely than others to use relatively direct rather than indirect styles. In an early study I compared Greeks and Americans with regard to their tendency to interpret a question as an indirect means of making a request. I found that whereas American women were more likely to take an indirect interpretation of a sample conversation, Greek men were as likely as Greek women, and more likely than American men or women, to take an indirect interpretation. Greek men, of course, are not less powerful vis-à-vis women than American men.

Perhaps most striking is the finding of Keenan (1974) that in a Malagasy­speaking village on the island of Madagascar, women arc seen as direct and men as indirect. But this in no way implies that the women are more powerful than men in this society. Quite the contrary, Malagasy men are socially dominant, and their indirect style is more highly valued. Keenan found that women were widely believed to debase the language with their artless directness, whereas men’s elab­orate indirectness was widely admired.J

Indirectness, then, is not in itself a strategy of subordination. Rather, it can be used either by the powerful or the powerless. The interpretation of a given utterance, and the likely response to it, depends on the setting, on individuals’ status and their relationship to each other, and also on the linguistic conventions that are ritualized in the cultural context.

T he N elson, A l-Batal an d E chols article below , com pares Syrian A rabic speakers’ and A m erican English speakers’ responses to com p lim en ts , an d show s th a t, a lthough bo th g roups respond by accep ting an d m itiga ting ra th e r th an rejecting , th e ways th a t they accept an d m itigate are qu ite d ifferen t. T he au th o rs h o p e th a t th e ir article will co n ­tr ib u te to an aw areness o f c ro ss-cu ltu ra l m isunders tand ings from pragm atic transfer.

D6.2 C o m p lim en t responses

G. L. Nelson, M. Al-Batal and E. Echols (1996), pp. 411-33, Applied Linguistics 18/3.

This study investigated similarities and differences between Syrian and American compliment responses. Interviews with Americans yielded 87 compliment/compli­ment response sequences and interviews with Syrians resulted in 52 sequences. Americans were interviewed in English and Syrians in Arabic. Data consisted of demographic information and transcriptions of the sequences. The entire set of data was examined recursively. This examination suggested three broad categories (acceptances, mitigations, and rejections) and subcategories. Two trained raters coded each of the English and Arabic compliment responses as belonging to one of the categories. Intercoder reliability for the American data was 92 per cent and 88 per cent for the Syrian data. O f the American compliment responses, 50 per cent were coded as acceptances, 45 per cent as mitigations, and 3 per cent as rejections. O f the Syrian compliment responses, 67 per cent were coded as accep­tances, 33 per cent as mitigations, and 0 per cent as rejections. Results suggest

Page 172: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

159.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

1

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 159

that both Syrians and Americans are more likely to either accept or mitigate the force of the compliment than to reject it. Both groups employed similar response types (e.g. agreeing utterances, compliment returns, and deflecting or qualifying comments); however, they also differed in their responses. US recipients were much more likely than the Syrians to use appreciation tokens and a preferred Syrian response, acceptance 4- formula, does not appear in the US data at all.

1 INTRODUCTION

Recently, in a conversation with an American who had taught EFL in Damascus for two years, one of the researchers mentioned that she was investigating the strategies Syrians use in responding to compliments. The teacher looked surprised and asked, ‘What’s there to study? Syrians just say Shukran (“thank you”). When I ’m complimented in Arabic, that’s what I say — Shukrart.’ This teacher was apply­ing a rule from his LI speech community to an L2 speech community. The rule he was transferring is one that American parents teach their children and one that is taught in etiquette books: ‘When you are complimented, the only response nec­essary is “Thank you” ’ (Johnson 1979: 43). Compliment responses in Syrian Arabic, as shall become clear later, are much more complex than saying Shukran when praised.

In this paper, we report on a study of Syrian Arabic speakers’ and American English speakers’ verbal responses to compliments. The purpose of the study is to better understand the strategies used by Syrians and Americans in responding to compliments, to discover similarities and differences between the two groups, and to relate the findings to second language acquisition and second language teaching.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATICS

In large part due to the theoretical paradigm of communicative competence (Habermas 1970; Hymes 1971, 1972, 1974; Canale and Swain 1980; Wolfson 1981, 1983), research on L2 learning and teaching has been extended to include learners’ prag­matic knowledge. Thomas (1983: 92) defines pragmatic competence by contrast­ing it to grammatical competence. Grammatical competence consists of ‘ “abstract” or decontexualized knowledge of intonation, phonology, syntax, semantics, etc.’, whereas pragmatic competence is ‘the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context’ (ibid.: 94). She goes on to point out that if an LI speaker perceives the purpose of an L2 utterance as other than the L2 speaker intended, pragmatic failure has occurred; the utterance failed to achieve the speaker’s goal. The danger of pragmatic fail­ure is that it is likely to result in misunderstandings, embarrassment, frustration, anger, and/or cross-cultural communication breakdowns (Beebe and Takahashi 1989).

Thomas identifies two kinds of pragmatic failure: pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure occurs when ‘the pragmatic force mapped by S onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech act strategies arc inappropriately transferred from the LI to L2’ (Thomas 1983: 99). Sociopragmatic failure refers to ‘the social conditions placed on language in use’ (ibid.) and includes variables such as gender, social distance, and intimacy of relationship.

Page 173: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

160.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

2

In the context of language learning, one cause of pragmalinguistic failure is pragmalinguistic transfer, the use of LI speech act strategies or formulas when interacting with members of an L2 speech community (Leech 1983). This trans­fer has been addressed in a number of speech act/event studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1982, 1983; Olshtain 1983; Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Edmonson, House, Kasper, and Stemmer 1984; Thomas 1984; Eisenstein and Bodman 1986; Garcia 1989; Wolfson 1989a; Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz 1990; Takahashi and Beebe 1993). In the anecdote at the beginning of this paper, the American, in respond­ing to Arabic compliments by transferring an appropriate response from his LI to an L2, believes that he is politely accepting the compliment. However, if the native Arabic speaker interprets the illocutionary force of the utterance differently (e.g. interprets the response as impolite and inappropriate) pragmatic failure has occurred.

It is, however, difficult, at times, to determine whether the pragmatic failure results from LI transfer or from other factors. Hurley (1992), for example, notes that pragmatic failure may also result from developmental and proficiency factors or from L2 learners overgeneralizing the use of an L2 form to inappropriate set­tings. Stated differently, it is sometimes difficult to know why language learners experience certain kinds of pragmatic failure. In order to understand the reasons behind pragmatic failure, it is helpful, and perhaps even necessary, to conduct cross-cultural research to investigate students’ LI strategics (Wolfson 1989a).

Speech act and speech event studies have been criticized as being ethnocentric in that most have investigated variations of English (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989). Rose (1994) further points out that, in particular, little work has been done in non-Western contexts. The present study is valuable, in part, because it was conducted in Arabic as well as English.

3. COMPLIMENT RESPONSES

Compliment responses were selected for cross-cultural study for two reasons. First, although a body of knowledge exists on the speech act of complimenting (Wolfson 1981, 1983; Manes 1983; Knapp, Hopper, and Bell 1984; Barnlund and Araki 1985; Holmes and Brown 1987; Nelson, El Bakarv, and Al-Batal 1993), less research has been conducted on responses to compliments. For non-native English speak­ing (NNES) students, knowing how to compliment is important, but it is equally important to know how to respond to a compliment. In fact, it could be argued that for NNES students in the United States, appropriately responding to compli­ments is more important than complimenting because of the frequency with which Americans compliment (Wolfson 1983; Holmes and Brown 1987; Herbert 1988). In other words, ESL students may receive more compliments than they initiate. A second reason is that, although a few studies have been conducted on compli­ment responses in English-speaking countries (Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989), few, if any, cross-cultural studies have investigated compli­ment responses in an Arabic-speaking country.

For the purpose of this study, a compliment response is defined as a verbal acknowledgement that the recipient of the compliment heard and reacted to the compliment. Compliment/compliment response interactions have been referred to

Page 174: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

161.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

3

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 161

as adjacency pairs (Scheglolf and Sacks 1973), action chain events (Pomerantz 1978), interchanges (Herbert 1988), and sequences (Wolfson 1989b). For ease of refer­ence, Speaker, will refer to the person issuing the compliment and Speaker 2 to the recipient of the compliment.

4. PREVIOUS WORK ON COMPLIMENT RESPONSES

Pomerantz (1978) wrote the earliest and perhaps most detailed account of com­pliment responses among native speakers of English in the United States. She pointed out that, in the United States, compliment responses pose a dilemma for the recip­ient in that they involve two conversational principles that stand in potential conflict:

Principle 1: Agree with and/or accept compliment.Principle II: Avoid self-praise.

If recipients agree with the compliment, they are, in fact, praising themselves and therefore violating Principle II: Avoid sell-praise. If they reject the compliment, they violate Principle I: Agree with and/or accept compliment. Neither of these alternatives, praising oneself or disagreeing with someone, contribute to the social solidarity of the relationship. Pomerantz submitted that compliment responses could be seen as solution types to this dilemma.

Pomerantz classified compliment responses as belonging to one of four cate­gories: Acceptances, Agreements, Rejections, and Disagreements. Her analysis indi­cated that Acceptances were relatively infrequent when compared to Rejections and Disagreements (e.g. ‘It ’s just a rag my sister gave me ). She suggested that self-praise avoidance accounts for the frequency of Rejections and Disagreements in compliment responses.

In their studies of complimenting behavior in the United States, Wolfson (1989a) and Manes (1983) included examples of compliment responses. They contended that one function of American compliments is to negotiate solidarity between the interlocutors. For recipients, however, negotiating solidarity is complicated by Pomerantz’s (1978) dilemma. Wolfson (1989a) noted that one solution to the dilemma is to downgrade the compliment by referring to another characteristic of the object. In this way, the recipient mitigates the force of the compliment without disagreeing with the speaker and also without praising him/herself. Wolfson (1989a: 116) explained

In response to a compliment on the beauty of a house, therefore, an American might say, ‘Well, we would have liked to have a bigger one’ or ‘We wish the neighborhood were quieter,’ but Americans would be very unlikely to suggest that the speaker was wrong and that the house was not beautiful at all.

The work of Pomerantz (1978), Manes (1983), Wolfson (1989a), and Wolfson and Manes (1980) was helpful in understanding how and why Americans compli­ment, but it did not provide a quantitative analysis of compliment response types and their frequency.

Page 175: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

162.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

4

Herbert (1988) provided such an analysis in a study comparing the compli­ment/ compliment response interchanges from American university students to South African university students. In analyzing his data, he grouped the responses as (a) Agreeing, (b) Nonagreeing, or (c) Requesting interpretation. Overall, nearly 66 per cent of the American compliment responses were broadly classified as Agree­ments, 31 per cent as Nonagreements, and 3 per cent as Request Interpretations. O f those Agreements (66 per cent), 7 per cent were categorized as Comment Acceptances and 29 per cent as Appreciation Tokens.1 In contrast, 88 per cent of the South African compliment responses were categorized as Agreements and 43 per cent ol those Agreements were categorized as Comment Acceptances. Holmes (1988) studied compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand, another native English speaking (NES) country. She categorized 61 per cent of the responses as acceptances, 29 per cent as deflections/evasions, and 10 per cent as rejections. Her distribution of New Zealand responses closely paralleled Herbert’s (1988) study of American responses. The studies by Herbert (1988) and Holmes (1988) were helpful in providing information on the frequency of particular NES compliment response ty'pes. They did not, however, compare NES to NNES populations (such comparisons were not the purpose of their studies) and, therefore, did not con­tribute to an understanding of why a population of L2 learners might respond inap­propriately to compliments based on transfer from their L I.

In a study comparing the compliment responses of American and Chinese speakers, Chen (1993) provided this type of explanation. His analysis presented information that helped explain the reasons Chinese speakers might experience prag­matic failure when responding to a compliment given by an American and the reasons Americans might experience pragmatic failure when responding to a Chinese compliment. His findings suggested that the strategies used by the American English speakers were largely motivated by Leech’s (1983) Agreement Maxim: maximize agreements between self and others and minimize disagreement between self and others. In Chen’s sample, 39 per cent of the US compliment responses were categorized as Acceptances, 19 per cent as Compliment Returns, 29 per cent as Deflections, and 1 3 per cent as Rejections. The Chinese speaker strategies, on the other hand, were governed byr Leech’s Modesty Maxim: minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise of self. Of the Chinese compliment responses, 96 per cent were categorized as Rejections: the most common types of rejections were dis­agreeing and denigrating (51 per cent).

5. THE PRESENT STUDY

The present study also contributes to an understanding of why a population of L2 learners may respond inappropriately to compliments. It builds on the work of Nelson el at. (1993) and their analysis of Egyptian Arabic and American English compliments. In the Egyptian/American study, 20 Egyptians and 20 American uni­versity students described in detail the most recent compliment they had given, received, and observed, providing a corpus of 60 Egyptian and 60 American compliments. Interview data were analyzed to determine compliment form and attributes praised. The analysis revealed that both Egyptian and American compli­

Page 176: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

163.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

5

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 163

ments tended to be adjectival (e.g. ‘You look great’). A major difference between Egyptian and American compliments was that Egyptian compliments tended to be longer and contained more comparatives and metaphors than the US compliments (e.g. shaklak 'ariis innaharda [‘You look like a bridegroom today’)).

Both Egyptians and Americans complimented the attributes of physical appear­ance, personality traits, and skills/work. Because these are attributes complimented in both Arabic-speaking and English-speaking countries (see Holmes and Brown 1987; Holmes 1988 for studies on New Zealand compliments) these were the qualities complimented in this study.

5.7 M e th o d o f d a ta co llec tio nIt is commonly argued that speech acts and events should be studied in their natural contexts using ethnomethodology (Wolfson 1983); however, ethnomethodology is difficult for cross-cultural studies due to problems of comparability (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989) and a lack of ethnographers from non-English-speaking speech communities. Although this study did not use ethnomethodology, its method of data collection resulted in naturalistic, yet comparable, data.

In the United States, data were collected during audiotaped interviews. All of the interviewers were graduate students in Applied Linguistics at a large urban university in the southeastern part of the United States. Two were female, one was 26 years old and single and the other 46 and married. The third was male, 32, and single. All were Caucasian and middle class. Before the interviews, inter­viewers asked interviewees if they were willing to be interviewed on audiotape for a sociolinguistic study. If they agreed, the interviewer began the interview by asking demographic questions (e.g. What part of the United States are you from?). After a few questions, the interviewer complimented the interviewee on an aspect of his or her appearance, on a personality trait, or on a skill or well done job. For instance, one interviewer casually mentioned, ‘By the way, you reallv gave a good presentation to the class last night’. In this way, the compliments were given as an aside, as an utterance not connected to the formal interview, and thus, resulted in naturalistic responses. Eighty-nine Americans were interviewed; two interviews were lost due to a malfunctioning tape recorder. O f the remaining 87 interviewees, 47 were female and 40 were male. At the completion of the inter­views, interviewees were asked if their responses could be used in this study. All signed a consent form giving their permission. A total of 87 American compli­ment/compliment response interactions were analyzed.

The audiotapes were transcribed in English. The transcriptions included the gender, age, and relationship of the speakers. It is important to point out that the American male interviewer felt uncomfortable complimenting females on appear­ance, believing that the female recipients might interpret the illocutionary force ol the compliment differently than he intended. Specifically, he was concerned that Speaker, might perceive the intent of the compliment as an expression of flirta­tion and a possible first move in the development of an intimate relationship.

The Syrian data were collected by four interviewers from Damascus (i.e. they were Damascenes and spoke Damascene Arabic). Two of the interviewers were

Page 177: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

164.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

6

female. One was attending college part-time and was 29 years of age, single, and a dental technician. The other was 25, single, a translator and secretary, and an English literature graduate from Damascus University. The other two interview­ers were male. One studied English literature at the University, managed his fam­ily farm property, was 27 and was single. The fourth also studied English literature at the University and was 22. All lour were middle class.

The Syrian compliment/compliment responses were not audiotaped. The Syrian interviewers reported that tape recorders were likely to make the interviewees feel uncomfortable; that, in general, Syrians arc not familiar with the practice of conducting sociological or sociolinguistic studies about themselves; and that the tape recording would be culturally inappropriate. The Syrian interviewers praised 32 recipients, 20 males and 12 females, on physical appearance, on personality traits, or on a skill or job; listened to the responses; responded in turn; and after the interaction was completed, wrote down what was said. In some cases, the interviewers felt uncomfortable complimenting a person of a different gender or a person that was older. In these cases, they observed others giving and respond­ing to compliments and wrote down what was said. These observations resulted in an additional 20 compliment/compliment response sequences. In 7 cases, males were complimented, and in 13 cases, females were complimented. These proce­dures resulted in naturalistic data and yielded 52 Syrian compliment/compliment responses from 52 recipients, 27 males and 25 females.

To insure the accuracy of the transcriptions, the Syrian interviewers were trained by one of the researchers. The trainer instructed them (1) to write down the exact words used in the complement/compliment response interaction, and (2) to do so as soon as possible after the interaction took place. In addition, the trainer gave each interviewer note cards and instructed them to write each interaction on a separate card. The trainer met with the interviewers at least once a week. At these meetings, the interviewers reported on their progress and the trainer again emphasized the importance of recording the interactions verbatim.

To native speakers of English, recalling compliment responses word-for-word may seem difficult, but the task is less difficult for native speakers of Arabic. Many of the Syrian utterances consist of set formulas. The Syrian interviewers would remember the responses because they exist as formulaic chunks of discourse. The potential for varying the formulas is minimal. For the non-formulaic responses, it is possible that an interviewer might have made a minor change in the wording. However, if such a change occurred, the wording of the compliment response would still be an appropriate Syrian response to the situation.

The Arabic compliments/compliment responses were translated into Eng­lish, but the primary analysis was based on the Arabic transcripts, not the English translations.

5.2 Ana lysisThe US data consisted of demographic information and the transcripts of the audio­tapes, and the Syrian data consisted of demographic information, the Arabic tran­scriptions, and the English translations. The entire set ol data was examined recursively.

Page 178: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

165.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

7

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 165

This examination suggested classification schemes similar to existing schemes (e.g. Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989). In the end, the classification scheme that most appropriately fitted the data was similar to, but still different from, earlier classifications. It consisted of three broad categories (i.e. acceptances, mitigations, and rejections) and subcategories. The specific subcate­gories are provided in the Results and Discussion section of this article in Tables DS.l and DS.2. Following guide-lines set forth by Krippendorf (1980) and Holsti (1969), the categories were exhaustive (i.e. all data were represented in one of the categories) and mutually exclusive (i.e. a response could belong to only one category).

After the classification scheme was developed, one of the researchers and a graduate research assistant coded each of the English compliment responses as belong­ing to one of the categories. The Arabic compliment responses were coded by two of the researchers; one of whom is a native Arabic speaker. The coders worked independently and coded all of the compliment responses. Intercoder reliability was determined by comparing both coders’ scores. Intercoder reliability was 92 per cent for the American data and 88 per cent for the Arabic. Next, the coders reviewed the coding guide-lines and the items on which there was disagreement. They recoded until they came to a consensus; thus, in the end, agreement on all compliment responses was achieved.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the analysis of the American and Syrian compliment response types.

6.1 C om plim en t response types: US English dataTable D5.1 provides the frequency and representative examples of the English com­pliment response types.

6.1.1 AcceptancesThe Acceptance category accounted for SO per cent of the US compliment responses.

a. Appreciation Token. The most common response type in the Acceptance cate­gory of the American corpus was Appreciation Tokens. They were ‘responses that recognize[d] the status of a previous utterance as a compliment’ (Herbert 1988: I I ) , but were not ‘semantically fitted to the specifics of that compliment’ (Pomerantz 1978: 83). Examples included ‘Thanks’ and ‘Thank you’.

(1) M,: It’s a really cool shirt M,: Thanks (A l)2

For a response to be coded as an Appreciation Token, it included only the state­ment of appreciation. If additional information was given, the response was coded according to the additional information. Appreciation Tokens accounted for 29 per cent of the compliment responses in this corpus, a frequency identical to the 29 per cent reported by Herbert (1988) and Chen (1993), but one much higher than Pomerantz (1978) reported.

Page 179: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

166.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

8

Table D5. 7 Frequency d is tr ibu tion o f Am erican English com p lim e n t response types

N um ber Percentage

A. Accept

1. A pprecia tion token 25 29

(e.g. Thanks)2. Agreeing Utterance 12 14

(e.g. W ell, I th ink so too .)3. C om plim ent Return 6 07

(e.g. Yours are nice, too .)

4. Acceptance + Form ula 0 00Subtota l 43 5

B. M itigate1. Deflecting o r Q ua lify ing Com m ent 28 32

(e.g. I bough t it at REI.)

2. Reassurance o r Repetition Request 11 13(e.g. Do you rea lly like them?)

Subtota l 39 45

C. Reject1. D isagreeing Utterance 3 03

(e.g. F,: You look good and healthy.

F2: I feel fat.)Subtota l 3 03

D. No response 2 02Total 87 100

n = 87

b. Agreeing Utterance. As illustrated below, Agreeing Utterances were responsesin which Spcaker2 accepted ‘the complimentary force of Speaker, ’s utterance bya response semantically fitted to the compliment’ (Herbert 1988: 12). Agreeing Utterances occurred in twelve (14 per cent) of the American responses.

(2) F ,: That’s really a great shirt.F,: See, it matches my shorts. (A7)

(3) M ,: Sounds like you’re pretty organized.M ,: Well, I think so. I try to be. Yeah. (A 14)

This response type occurred more frequently in this sample than in the work ofother researchers (Herbert 1988; Chen 1993). Pomerantz (1978: 84) found agree­ing responses ‘very prevalent’ in her data; however, her examples suggested that these agreements occurred when two individuals were talking about a third party.

Page 180: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

167.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=17

9

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 167

In none of her examples did a person agree with a compliment about him or herself.

c. Compliment Return. A Compliment Return consisted of two parts — (a) a stated or implied acceptance of the force of the compliment, and (b) praise for the orig­inal sender.

(4) M,: Those are nice glasses.M,: Yours are nice, too. (A9)

(5) F: You look great.M: So do you. (A52)

By returning the compliment, the recipient contributed to the equality of the rela­tionship and maintained rapport. Compliment returns accounted for 7 per cent of the compliment responses in this sample, the same frequency found by Herbert (1988).

d. Acceptance + Formula. This type of response did not occur at all in the English sample, but occurred frequently in the Arabic data.

6.1.2 Mitigating ResponsesThe general category of Mitijjatinsj Responses included two distinct compliment response types that shared two features. The first feature was their non-acceptanceof the compliment and the second was their non-rejection. These response typesin various ways deflected, questioned, or ignored the compliments. In using one of these types, the recipient maneuvered through the straits of Pomerantz’s Scylla and Charybdis, avoiding both self-praise and other-disagreement. Mitigating responses accounted for 45 per cent of the US corpus.

a. Deflecting Informative Comment. This type was the most common of the mitigat­ing responses. In this category, Speaker2 provided additional information about the attribute praised, and by doing so, impersonalized ‘the complimentary force by giving . . . impersonal details’ (Herbert 1988: 13).

(6) F: I like your jacket.M: I bought it at REI. (A47)

(7) F,: You look great. I mean it. You look wonderful.F>: I can hardly believe I ’m going to be 54. It sounds very old. I can actually

remember when I was going to be 30. (A85)

Herbert (1988: 14) noted that occasionally, in the informative comments that fol­lowed the compliment, the recipient ignored ‘the praise aspect of the compliment and instead treat[ed] the previous utterances as a mechanism for introducing atopic’. This phenomenon occurred in the example below.

Page 181: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

168.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

0

(8) F,: That’s really a good quality.F,: Well, I read about it in developmental psychology. I can tell what people

are up to and then I usually give them my motivation speech. I mean, like most teachers, I don’t like people who don’t do work, who, at least, don’t read the material. (A4)

At times, these qualifying comments functioned in a manner that downgrades the compliment, a strategy, as noted by Wolfson (1989a), that further avoids self­praise.

(9) F: Nice sweater.M: It’s one of my oldest. (ASO)

(10) F,: It was very sweet of you.F,: It seemed kinda silly. I don’t know. Yeah. Well, but anyway. (A18)

This category' accounted lor 32 per cent ol the American compliment responses in this study, a frequency similar to Chen’s (1993). Chen’s category, Deflection, comprised 29 per cent of his corpus.

b. Reassurance or Repetition Request. At times, Speaker2 requested additional reas­surance that the compliment was genuine. Such responses were ambiguous. It was difficult to discern the recipients’ intentions in asking the questions. Did they want an expansion or repetition of the original compliment or were they questioning the sincerity of the sender?

(11) F,: I like your dress.F2: Y o u don’t think it’s too bright? (A62)

(12) F,: Nice shoes.F,: Do you really like them? (A54)

Reassurance or Repetition Requests accounted for 13 per cent of the compliment responses.

6.1.3 Rejectionsa. Disagreeing Utterance. Disagreeing Utterances occurred when Speaker, disagreed with Speaker,’s assertion. This compliment response type occurred infrequently within the present corpus, in 3 interchanges or approximately 3 per cent of the sample.

(13) M ,: How did you get to be so organized?M,: I' m not organized.M,: I mean neat. You are very neat.M ,: I am not. (A ll)

(14) F,: You look so good and healthy.F,: I feel fat. (A 12)

Page 182: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

169.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

1

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 169

The infrequency of this response type in the United States is consistent with the work of other researchers (Herbert 1988; Chen 1993). By using this response type, Speaker2 clearly and directly disagrees with the judgment of Speaker,, thus violating both Pomerantz’ (1978) Principle I: Agree with and/or accept compli­ment and Leech’s (1983) Agreement Principle. Americans’ preference for not using this response type suggests that, out of all the response types, it may be the most damaging to the solidarity of the relationship between Speaker, and Speaker ,̂ more damaging, for example, than agreeing with Speaker, and thus praising oneself, a response type that made up 14 per cent of this sample.

6.2 C om plim ent responses: gender o f US recipientsAmerican males (n = 40) and females (n = 47) employed each of the compliment types, and no compliment response type was used predominantly by one gender. Eleven females and 14 males used Appreciation Tokens, 6 females and 6 males used Agreeing Utterances, and 4 females and 2 males used Compliment Returns. Sixteen females and 12 males employed Deflecting Comments and 7 females and 4 males employed Reassurance or Repetition Requests. Two females and one male disagreed with the compliment. Two recipients did not respond verbally to the compliment they received.

6.3 C om plim ent response types: Syrian A rabic dataUsing the categories described above, this section presents the classification of the Arabic data. The Arabic compliment responses fell into two of the three cate­gories. Recipients either accepted or mitigated the compliments they received. There were no rejections. However, within these categories, the Arabic compliment responses differed from the English responses in several ways. The Arabic compliment responses are summarized in Table D5.2.

6.3.1 AcceptancesSixty-seven per cent of the Syrian compliment responses were coded as Acceptances.

a. Appreciation Token. Only 1 of the Arabic compliment responses was coded as an Appreciation Token, a common American response type.

(IS) F, : y ik h /i I-een ala ha-sh-sha r! yaaceni, m ill Sundrclla.

(May the [evil] eye be thwarted for this hair! My eye, [you look] like Cinderella!)

F,: shukran!(Thank vou.) (S47)

In this interaction, Speaker, used the expression yikhy.i l - ‘een ("may the evil eye be thwarted’) to protect the recipient from the evil eye. In many parts of the world, it is believed that the evil eye can bring harm to people by drawing the attention of evil to them (Maloney 1976).* By merely praising a person, Speaker, might cause harm to come to that person. To counteract this effect, the expression y ik h / i

Page 183: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

170.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

2

Table D5.2 Frequency d is tr ibu tion o f Syrian Arab ic com p lim en t response types

N um ber Percentage

A. Accept

1. A pprecia tion Token 1 02

(e.g. shukran [thank you])2. Agreeing Utterance 6 12

(e.g. k ill taS aam iim i naajHa[A ll m y designs are successful])

3. C om plim ent Return 7 13(e.g. w -in ti heek yaa Sawsan[And you are the same, Susan])

4. Acceptance + Form ula 21 40

(e.g. m 'addam e[it is presented to you])Subtota l 35 67

B. M itigate

1. Deflecting o r Q ua lify ing C om m ent 13 25

(e.g. M ,: Y ou r body has filled out.

M 2: I used to w ork ou t a long tim e ago.2. Reassurance o r Repetition Request 4 08

(e.g. Is tha t rea lly me?)Subtota l 17 33

C. Reject 0 0Total 52 100

n = 52

l-'een ( ‘may the evil eye be thwarted’) is used in many countries in the eastern part of the Arab world (e.g. Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon).

b. Agreeing Utterance. In the Syrian data, this response type was slightly less fre­quent than in the US data. Six (12 per cent) of the Syrian interactions were classified as Agreeing Utterances. All six are between males.

(16) JM,: J i'Ian taSmiimak bi-dill*ala khibirtak w-'ala zaw 'ak ir -ra fii.(Truly, your design points to your experience and to your exquisite taste.)

M>: kill taSaamiimi naajHa.

(All my designs are successful.) (S43)

(17) M ,: jismak halla'Saar mniH \\r-khaaSSatan‘aDalaat ktaafak.(Your body now has become fit, especially your shoulder muscles.)

Page 184: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

171.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

3

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 171

M,: ana halla’aHsan waaHid bi-n-naadii.(I’m now the best one in the club.) (S31)

This response strategy violates Pomerantz’ (1978) principle of avoiding self-praise and the social solidarity principle (Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989; Wolfson 1989a), It may be that in Syria agreeing with Speaker, (and thus praising oneself) is not the kind of egregious error that results in ‘a gossip item, an unfavorable character assessment’, the kinds of negative behaviors that Pomerantz predicts may result from agreement responses (Pomerantz 1978: 89).

c. Compliment Return. The frequency of Compliment Returns in the Syrian corpus was 13 per cent, slightly higher than the frequency of Compliment Returns inthe American data (7 per cent). Examples of Compliment Returns included thefollowing:

(18) F,: inti mhandse naajHa, daayman b i-t’addmi shii jdiid w-bi-tkhalli n-naastiHtirmik, »-khaluu’qa w-shakhSiyytik ‘awiyye, ya 'n i mitl y.-zibdiyye S-Siini, mneen ma rannaytiiha bi-trinn.(You arc a successful engineer; you always present something new and you make people respect you, and [you are] w'ell-mannered and have a strong personality; in other words you are like a china howl; from whichever side you hit it, it resonates.)

F,: w-inti beck yaa Sawsan bass muu Haase b-Haalik.(And you are the same, Susan, but you do not know’ it.) (S2)

(19) F: inta nashiiT w-shugblak nDiiJ w-mustaqiim bi-'amalak, maa fii daa'i la-Hadayraaji shughlak waraak, y.aki w-SariiH w-Habbaab.(You are dynamic and your w'ork is well-done and you are straightforward in your work; there is no need for anyone to go overwhat you do, [you are] smart and honest and amiable.)

M : shukran, w-inti nafs sh-sbii.(Thank you, and you are the same.) (S9)

In contrast to Agreeing Utterances, Compliment Returns affirmed the interper­sonal connections betw'een the interlocutors; they served to bond the relationship together.

Although the focus of this study is on responses to compliments, the compli­ments in exchanges 18 and 19 arc of interest in that they closely resemble the Egyptian compliments in Nelson el al. (1993); they contain more w'ords than US compliments and exchange 18 contains a metaphor. The length of these compli­ments is related to features of Arabic discourse: (1) repetition of almost the same idea with only a minor change in words, and (2) the use of several adjectives in a series (Shouby 1951). In exchange 18, the person giving the compliment com­pares the recipient to ‘a china bowl; from whichever side you hit it, it resonates’.

d. Agreement + Formula. The most common response type in the Syrian sample was Agreement + Formula; it was employed in 40 per cent of the corpus. Responses

Page 185: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

172.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

4

172 E X T E N S I O N

were coded as Agreement + Formula if they included a particular utterance or saying that is commonly used in Arabic when responding to a particular kind of compliment. These expressions are automatic and often ritualistic. They fulfill a particular social function and should not be interpreted primarily at the semantic level. As far as we know, this response type does not appear in any other lan­guage group studied.

One common ritualistic compliment response was m'addam ( ‘[It is] presented [to you]’). With this response, Speaker2 offered the object of the compliment to Speaker,. Syrian speakers, in uttering m ’addam seldom intend for Speaker, to accept the object. The expression is formulaic, an expected polite response to particular compliments. In the interactions below, the recipients used m ’addam when com­plimented on a necklace and a blouse.

(20) F,: 'a ’dik ktiir Hilu, Ha-yaakul min ra'btik sha’fe.(Your necklace is very beautiful; it will eat a piece of your neck.)

F ,: shukran ruuHii! m'addam, maa b-yighla aleeki shii.(Thank you my dear! [It is] presented [to you], nothing can be too precious for you.)

F | : shukran! 'ala SaaHibtu aHlaa.(Thank you! It looks much nicer on its owner.) (S20)

(2 1 ) F ,: Mabruuk! shu shaarye bluu/c jdiide?(Congratulations! Have you bought a new blouse’?)

F>: ee waLLa, Marrecl bi-S-SaalHiyye w-shiftaala l-waajha Ja-ajabitni ktiir, shtareeta, m ’addame!(Yes, by God. I was passing through SaalHiyye (district of Damascus] and I saw it in the display window and I liked it very much, so I decided to buy it. [It is) presented (to you].)

F,: Tithanni Jiiha. InshaaLLaah tihriiha bi-l-hana.(May you enjoy it. May you, God willing, wear it out in happiness.)

F,: Al.l.aah yiH fa/ik!(May God keep you safe.)4 (S24)

In both of these interactions, the recipients uttered the formulaic expression m ’ad­dame ( ‘(It is] presented [to you]’), but in neither case did Speaker, accept the object offered. In exchange 20, Speaker, countered with shukran! ‘ala SaaHibtu aHlaa ( ‘Thank you! It looks much nicer on its owner.’) With this utterance, Speaker, not only politely rejected the ofler of the necklace, but also praised Speaker, again ( ‘It looks much nicer on its owner’). In exchange 21, Speaker ̂ rejected the offer with the utterance: Tithanni Jiiha. InshaaLLaah tihriiha bi-l-hanaa ( ‘May you enjoy it. May you, God willing, wear it out in happiness.’)

Three formulaic expressions are illustrated in the interaction below. When complimented on his success, Speaker2 used the following expressions: t-tawfii ’ min a lia ( ‘success is from God’), min riDa L-Laah w-riDa L-waaldeen ( ‘this success] [comesl from God’s satisfaction and my parents’ satisfaction with me’), li-kuli mujtahidin naSiib ( ‘He who works hard will have a share |of success]’).

Page 186: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

173.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

5

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 173

(22) M : waLLa inta dayman m uaffa ’ b-tijaartak ya a abu mHammad.

(By God Abu Muhammad [father of Mohammad), you arc always successful in your trade.)

,\l,: waLLaabi t-tawfiî ' min aLLa, haada min riDa L-I.aah w-riDa l-waaldeen yaa

abu SubHii, ni-ba' deen yaa siidi li-kuli mujtahidin naSiib.

([I swear) by God, success comes from God, this (success) [comes) from God’s satisfaction and my parents’ satisfaction [with me], and after all my friend He who works hard will have a share [of success].)

M : wal.Laahi haada H a \ al.I.a y 'a llii maraatbak kamaan w-kamaan.([I swear] by God this is true, May God raise your stature more andmore.) (S4)

In exchanges 20, 21, and 22, the compliment/compliment response sequence continued after Speaker 2 had responded to Speaker,. The response of Speaker2 did not signal the end of the compliment/compliment response interaction; it was but part of the repartee, the dialogue, that continued betw'een the tw'o speakers.

In the interaction below, Speaker, praised Speakcr2 on her beauty. Speaker2 responded with the formulaic expression, inshaal.l.a b-tiH Ia iyyaamik ( ‘May your days be more beautiful’).

(23) F, : wishshik Daawi w-mnaivivar yaa imm ayman, yim kin la 'innik mirtaaHa l-yuumJa-Hilyaane.

(Your face is shining today, Um Ayman (mother of Ayman); [this is) perhaps because you are relaxed today, so you look beautiful.)

F-,: inshaal.La b-tiHIa iyyaamik, haada nuur l-'iimaan yim kin .(May your days be beautiful, this is perhaps the light of faith.) (S14)

As illustrated below, the expression haada b -'yuunik bass ( ‘this is only in your eyes’) wras also used in response to a compliment on personal beauty.

(24) F: shuu Halyaan lak Ghayyaath, shuu aamil b-Haalak?

(How handsome you have become, Ghayyath, what have you done to yourself?)

M: waLLaahi? haada b-yuun ik bass.

(Really? This is only in your eyes.) (SI 3)

6.3.2 Mitigating ResponsesThe general category of Mitigating Responses accounted for 33 per cent of the Syrian data.

a. Deflecting or Q ualifying Comment: Thirteen speakers or 25 per cent ol the sam­ple employed this response type; it was used by 32 per cent of the Americans.

(25) F: inta insaan naajiH la-innu shughlak mniiH w-shakhSiyytak 'awiyye maa bi-

tkhalli Hada y iH ki aleek w-bi-lwa’t nafsuu maHbuub w-waasiq min nafsak.(You are a successful person because you do your job well and (because) your personality is strong, you do not allow anyone to say anything

Page 187: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

174.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

6

negative about you and at the same time [you are] amiable and self­confident.)

,\1: Yaa sitti shukran, hiyye ashy a ‘andiyye laa/.im kull insaan ykuun heek biduun takabbur.

(Thank you madam, these are simple things; no one should be conceited.) (S6)

(26) P,: Bass inti Hilyaane ktiir l-yuum.(But you look very beautiful todav.)

F,: laa, muu kill hal'add, ma inni ta'baane l-yuum.(No, not to this extent, [this is) despite the fact I am tired today). (SI 5)

These Deflecting or Qualifying Comments provide cross-cultural support for Pomerantz s (1978) notion that compliment responses are solution types to the dilemma of avoiding self-praise without disagreeing with Speaker,.

b. Reassurance or Repetition Request. This response type accounted for 4 (8 per cent)of the compliment responses, a frequency slightly lower than in the US corpus(13 per cent).

(27) M: ana Habeetik la-innik unsaa bi-kill ma'na l-kalime w-'indik shakhSiyye m u’assira.

(I have come to like you because you are a woman in the full sense of the word and because you have an impressive personality.)

F: haada kullu ana?(Is that all me?) (S3)

(28) F: shuu! shu h a -T a’m l-H ilu haad, taariik m izw i’y a Saamir!

(Wow! What a beautiful suit. You have good taste Saamir.)M: leesh? Aaiabik ?

(Whv? Do you like it?) (S22)

6.3.3 Rejection: Disagreeing UtteranceNone of the Syrian data was coded as rejections. If, as has been assumed, com­pliments function as ‘social lubricants’ and ‘increase or consolidate the solidarity between the speaker and the addressee’ (Holmes 1988: 486), it may be that, among Syrians, rejecting compliments decreases that solidarity to such a degree that it is seldom used.

6.4 C om plim ent responses: gender o f Syrian recipients

Both Syrian males (n = 27) and females (n = 25) employed most of the compli­ment types; one compliment response type, Agreeing Utterances, was used pre­dominantly by one gender. Six males and no females used Agreeing Utterances, one female used an Appreciation Token, 4 females and 3 males used Compliment Returns, and 1 2 females and 9 males used Acceptance + Formula. Six females and 7 males employed Deflecting Comments, and 2 females and 2 males employed Reassurance or Repetition Requests.

Page 188: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

175.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

7

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 175

7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Data for this study was obtained from one strata of the larger population of Syria and the US. The Syrian compliment responses were uttered by middle class people from an urban area (i.e. Damascus) and most of the American compliment responses were given by Caucasian university graduate students. One cannot assume that these findings generalize to other groups within Syria or the US or to other Arabic-speaking or English-speaking countries. Further research is needed to know how generalizable these findings arc.

8. FOCUS ON SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS

In order for students to become communicatively competent in a second language, they need both grammatical and pragmatic competence (Thomas 1983). However, achieving pragmatic competence may, at times, be complicated due to pragmatic transfer — using the rules governing speech events from one’s LI speech com­munity when interacting with members of an L2 speech community. Pragmatic transfer can lead to pragmatic failure, to not understanding the illocutionary force of an utterance, to not understanding what is meant by what is said (Thomas 1983). Such situations can result in cross-cultural misunderstandings and communi­cation breakdowns. Cross-cultural studies such as this one contribute to our know­ledge of appropriate compliment/compliment response competence in Syrian Arabic and American English and also to our understanding of pragmatic transfer as a possible cause for pragmatic failure.

The results of this study suggest similarities and differences in Syrian Arabic and American English compliment responses. Similarities include the overall manner of responding — both Syrians and Americans arc much more likely to either accept or mitigate the force of the compliment than to reject it outright. In addition, members of both groups use some similar response types (e.g. Agreeing Utterances, Compliment Returns, Deflecting or Qualifying Comments, and Reas­surance or Repetition Requests). Finally, males and females in both groups employ most of the response types. An exception is Agreeing Utterances; Syrian females did not use this response. Students of English and Arabic can use these similari­ties between Arabic and English compliment responses to their advantage by learn­ing the responses that are similar in both languages. As Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) point out, behaviors that are consistent across LI and L2 usually result in communicative success. However, Hurley (1992) warns that the similarity of an L2 form to a form in the learner’s LI can also be a pragmalinguistic problem. The danger is that the L2 learner may overgeneralize the form to inappropriate settings.

Although the two groups share similarities in compliment responses, they also differ in important ways. In responding to compliments, US recipients arc much more likely than Syrians to use Appreciation Tokens (e.g. thanks). The infrequency of this response in the Arabic data suggests that the utterance Shukran ( ‘thank you’) by itself is not usually a sufficient response to an Arabic compliment and needs to be supplemented by additional words. By itself, it may sound flat and awkward because it appears to signal the end of the conversation. As illustrated

Page 189: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

176.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

8

at the beginning of this article, American students of Arabic may respond to a compliment given by a native-speaker of Arabic by saying Shukran. If the intent of the American, drawing from his or her LI strategies, is to respond in an appro­priately polite manner and il the native Arabic speaker interprets the lorce of the utterance differently (e.g. that Speaker2 wants to end the conversation), pragma- linguistic failure has occurred. To avoid this type of misunderstanding, it is impor­tant that Arabic as a second language students learn the more extended kinds of Arabic responses illustrated in this study.

ESL students are often taught that an appropriate response to most compli­ments in American English is ‘thank you’ (see Levine, Baxter, and McNulty 1987). Wolfson (1989b) points out, however, that the use of ‘thank you’ in English depends on the status and social distance of the interlocutors. Even though these social variables influence the use of ‘thank you’ in English, Wolfson (1989a) believes that ‘thank you’ remains an appropriate response for manv compliment situations. ESL teachers of Arabic-speaking students can teach ‘thank you’ as an appropriate compliment response, hut they should be aware that although ‘thank you’ appears to be a simple and easy response strategy to learn, such plain utterances may be difficult for Arabic speakers because they seem inadequate; they may not appro­priately express what the speaker wants to convey.

Another major difference in compliment response strategies is the Syrians’ fre­quent use of formulaic expressions in accepting a compliment; Americans do not use this type of response. One formulaic expression that is particularly trouble­some to non-native Arabic speakers is m ’addam ( ‘[it is] presented [to you]’). For non-native Arabic speakers, the illocutionary force of the utterance is ambiguous; (does Speaker2 want Speaker, to take the object or not?). However, for native Arabic speakers in most contexts, m ’addam is a polite ritualistic expression, not a genuine offer of the object. In response to m ’addam Speaker, needs to respond with an appropriate expression (e.g. 'ala SaaHibtu aHlaa [‘It looks much nicer on its owner’]). To achieve pragmatic competence in Arabic, American students of Arabic need to learn the specific formulas used in responding to compliments on particular attributes. Additional studies are needed to learn more of these formu­laic expressions and more about the particular contexts in which they are used.

A final diflerence between American and Syrian compliment/compliment response sequences is length. A cursory glance at the English and Arabic data reveals that the Arabic sequences arc much longer than the English; they contain more words and arc more likely to continue beyond the initial compliment and corresponding response. This interaction between speakers relates to the sincerity ol the com­pliment and the compliment response; the longer the interaction, the greater the sincerity. The length also relates to the value Arabic speakers place on eloquence. As Nydell (1987: 103) notes, ‘the ability to speak eloquently is a sign of educa­tion and refinement’ and ‘how you say something is as important as what you have to say’. If Arabic-speaking ESL/EFL students, in an attempt to make com­pliment responses sound sincere to their own cars, use more words than a native English speaker, ‘pragmatic failure might result from ovcrindulgence in words’, causing native speakers to sense a lack of appropriateness (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain

Page 190: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

177.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=18

9

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 177

1986: 175). English-speaking students of Arabic, on the other hand, may have difficulty with the number of words in Arabic compliment/compliment response sequences, particularly with the formulaic expressions expected in response to cer­tain compliments. II the length ol the sequence results in their feeling phony and insincere, they may fall back on their LI strategies. In this case, pragmatic fail­ure may result not Irom too many words, but from too few.

(Revised version received October 1995)

A c kn o w led g e m e n tsFunding was made possible by an internal grant provided by the Research Office of Georgia State University. We would like to thank Andrew Cohen and the three anonymous review­ers for their helpful comments on this manuscript.

N o tes1 The remaining 30 per cent were categorized as Comment History, Reassignment, Return, or Praise Upgrade.

The M or F in front of the utterances refers to male and female speakers. The (A) or(S) following the interchange refers to American or Syrian.1 We also have the evil eye phenomenon in the US and Great Britain when we say ‘Knock on wood’ and ‘Touch wood’ to maintain good luck.4 The Syrian interlocutors frequently used religious expressions, whereas none of the Americans did so.

R eferencesBarninnd, D. and S. Araki. 1985. ‘Intercultural encounters: The management of compli­

ments by Japanese and Americans.’ Journal o f Cross-cultural Psychology' 16: 9-26.Beebe, L. and T. Takahashi. 1989. ‘Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts’

in M. R. Eisenstein (ed.) 1989: The Dynamic Interlanguage Empirical Studies in Speech Variation. New York: Plenum Press.

Beebe, L., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz. 1990. ‘Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals’ in R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, and S. Krashen (eds.) 1990: On the Development o f Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury House.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. ‘Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language.’ Applied Linguistics 3: 29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1983. ‘Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language. A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English’ in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.) 1983: Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper. 1989. ‘Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview’ in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds.) 1989: Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain. 1986. ‘Too many words: Length of utterance and prag­matic failure.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8: 165—79.

Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.’ Applied Linguistics 1: 1—47.

Chen, R. 1993. ‘Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers.’ Journal o j Pragmatics 20: 49—75.

Edmonson, W., J. House, G. Kasper, and B. Stemmer. 1984. ‘Learning the pragmatics of discourse.’ Applied Linguistics S: 113—25.

Page 191: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cutting, Joan(Author). Pragm atics and Discourse: A resource book fo r students.Florence, KY, USA: Routledge , 2002. p 178.http://site. ebrary. com/lib/keris/Doc?id=10016807& page=190

Page 192: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

179.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

1

R E A D I N G S IN P O L I T E N E S S 179

Pomerantz, A. 1978. ‘Compliment responses: Notes in the cooperation of multiple con­straints’ in J. Schenkein (ed.) 1978: Studies in the Organization o f Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.

Rose, K. R. 1994. ‘On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western con­texts.’ Applied Linguistics 15: 1—14.

Schegloff, E. and H. Sacks. 1973. ‘Opening up closings.’ Semiotica 8: 289—327.Shouby, E. 1951. ‘The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the Arabs.’

Middle East Journal 5: 284—302.Takahashi, T. and L. M. Beebe. 1993. ‘Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of

correction’ in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.) 1993: Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. 1983. ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.* Applied Linguistics 4/2: 92—112.Thomas, J. 1984. ‘Cross-cultural discourse as “inequal encounter”: Toward a pragmatic

analysis.’ Applied Linguistics 5: 226—35.Wollson, N. 1981. ‘Compliments in cross-cultural perspective.’ TESOL Quarterly 15: 1 17 24.Wolfson, N. 1983. ‘An empirically based analysis of compliments in American English’ in

N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.) 1983: Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Wolfson, N. 1989a. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House/ Harper and Row.

Wolfson, N. 1989b. ‘The social dynamics of native anti nonnative variation in compli­menting behavior’ in M. R. Eistenstein (ed.) 1989: The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Speech Variation. New York: Plenum Press.

Wolfson, N. and J. Manes. 1980. ‘The compliment as social strategy. Papers in Linguistics.’ International Journal of Human Communications 13: 391—410.

Activities o

Sum m arise th e T an n en excerpt in o n e sh o rt p arag raph an d give y o u r o p in io n vis- à-vis h e r stance. C hoose o n e particu la r aspect from these pages th a t you w ould like to test. Design a small investigation project to test it. W hen you have th e results, co m p are th em to T a n n e n ’s o p in io n . If they a re d ifferent, say w hy th a t m ay be. D escribe th e p ro jec t th a t N elson , A l-B atal an d Echols carried o u t, saying briefly:i w hat th e ir hypo thes is/theo ry wasii w hat m e th o d they usediii w hat th e ir resu lts w ereiv how they in te rp re ted the resu ltsC arry o u t a sim ilar p ro ject to com pare th e com p lim en t responses o f tw o groups. Y ou m ay n o t necessarily w an t to look a t tw o d ifferen t nationalities o r cu ltu res. Y ou could investigate how peop le o f d ifferen t genders, classes and ages respond to com plim en ts .T his is a pro ject on ind irectness an d cu ltu ra l variables:i C hoose o n e o f th e social fac to rs involved in pow er an d ind irectness: status,

role, age, gender, ed uca tion , class, o ccu p a tio n and ethnicity .ii T h in k o f a theo ry o r hypothesis th a t you w ould like to test. E xpress it as

a co m p ariso n , fo r exam ple ‘W h en seeking help , w om en use m o re in d irec t­ness th an m en ’, ‘W hen th ere is a difference in sta tus, th e one in pow er uses ind irec tness m o re th an th e one in a less pow erfu l p o s itio n ’, ‘Ind irec tness is

Page 193: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

180.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

2

used by m iddle-class people to w orking-class people, n o t by w orking-class to m iddle-class.’

iii C heck h ow im p o rta n t th e con tex tual co n stra in ts (the size o f th e im position and th e fo rm ality o f th e situ a tio n ) are, com pared w ith th e social factor (s ta ­tus, role, age, gender, ed u ca tion , class, o ccupa tion , e thn ic ity ) th a t you chose.

iv T h in k o f a way th a t y o u r findings cou ld be o f use in society. W ho m igh t be in terested in y o u r results o r helped by them an d why?

v W rite up you r p ro ject; describe you r m e th o d o f da ta co llection an d analysis in a w ay th a t w ou ld allow som eone else to rep ro d u ce y o u r study.

□ T ake any o th e r aspect o f th e politeness strategies o r politeness m ax im s th a t in te r­ests you, an d th ink o f a social o r cu ltu ra l variable th a t m igh t in fluence how it isexpressed. F orm a theory . C arry o u t a p ro ject to test y o u r theory .

□ T h in k ab o u t every th ing th a t we have been look ing at in th is book:i D o you th in k th a t in p ragm atics, conversa tion analysis, speech acts, c o o p e r­

ative princip le and politeness princip le share a co m m o n core? Explain in detail you r answ er w ith exam ples.

ii H ow does yo u r answ er to (i) here , relate to th e con tex t o u ts id e the text, and the con tex t w ith in th e text?

Page 194: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

181.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

3

R E FE R E N C E S

A uden , W . H. (1958) A Selection by the A u thor, H arm o n d sw o rth M iddlesex: Penguin .A ustin , J. (1962) H ow To Do Things W ith Words, O xford : C la rendon Press.B arker, P. (1991) Regeneration, L ondon: P enguin .BASE, (2000) T he ‘British A cadem ic Spoken English’ co rpus , developed at th e U n i­

versities o f W arw ick an d Reading, w ith fund ing from U niversities o f W arw ick an d R eading, BALEAP, EURALEX an d th e B ritish Academ y.

Bellinger, D. and G leason, J. B. (1982) ‘Sex differences in paren ta l directives to young ch ild ren ’, Sex Roles 8: 1123-39 .

Belloc, H . (1896) The Bad C h ild ’s Book o f Beasts, L ondon: D uckw orth .B lakem ore, D . (1992) U nderstanding Utterances, O xford: Blackwell.B rodine, R. (1983) ‘Referential cohesion in learner co m p o sitio n s’, Papers on W ork in

Progress 10: 13-20.B row n, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity

Press.B row n, P. an d Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.C atterick , D (2001) ‘M app ing an d m anag ing cu ltu ra l beliefs ab o u t language lea rn ­

ing am o n g C hinese EAP L earners’, U niversity o f D undee, u n p u b lish ed paper, BALEAP 2001.

C onley, J. M ., O ’Barr, W . M . an d Lind, E. A. (1979) ‘T he pow er o f language: p resen ­ta tiona l style in th e c o u rtro o m ’, D uke L aw Journal 1978: 1375-99.

C ook, G. (1989) Discourse, O xford: O xfo rd U niversity Press.C o u lth a rd , M . (1986) A n Introduction To Discourse Analysis, L ondon: L ongm an.C o u p lan d , J. (2000) Sm all Talk, H arlow : P earson E ducation L im ited.C ruse , A. (2000) M eaning in Language: A n Introduction to Sem antics an d Pragmatics,

O xford: O xfo rd U niversity Press.C u ttin g , J. (1998) ‘O p en ing lines from th e floo r’, Language a t W ork 13: 1 2 3 -6 ,

C levedon: M ultilingual M atters. (1999) Papers fro m Sem inar o f the British Association o f A pplied Linguistics, ‘T he

g ram m ar o f spoken English an d its app lica tion to English fo r academ ic p u rp o ses’, Sunderland : S underland U niversity Press.

(2000) Analysing the Language o f Discourse C om m unities, O xford: ElsevierScience.

de B eaugrande, R. an d D ressier, W . (1981) Introduction To T ex t Linguistics, L ondon: L ongm an.

Eggins, S. an d Slade, D. (1997) A nalysing Casual Conversation, L ondon: Cassell.E lm ore, L. (1989) H om bre, L ondon: C hivers Press.

Page 195: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

182.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

4

182 R E F E R E N C E S

Fairclough, N . (1989) Language and Power, H arlow : L ongm an.F illm ore, C. (1976) ‘T he need fo r a fram e sem antics in linguistics’, in Statistical

M ethods in Linguistics, S tockholm : Skrip tor.G arfinkel, H . (1967) Studies in E thnom ethodology, E ngelw ood Cliffs, NJ: P ren tice Hall. (1967) Studies In E thnom ethodology, E nglew ood Cliffs, NJ: P ren tice Hall.G offm an, E. (1981) Forms o f Talk, Philadelphia: U niversity o f Pennsylvania Press.G olding, W . (1954) Lord o f the Flies, L ondon: Faber and Faber.G reene, G. (1978) The H u m a n Factor, L ondon: P enguin .G rice, H. P. (1957) ‘M ean ing ’, Philosophical Review 66: 3 7 7 -88 . (1975) ‘Logic and C onversation’, in P. Cole and J. M organ (eds) Pragmatics (Syntax

and Sem antics) vol. 9, N ew York: A cadem ic Press.G rundy , P. (2000) D oing Pragmatics, L ondon: E dw ard A rnold .G um perz , J. J. (1982) Discourse Strategies, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.H alliday, M . A. K. and H asan, R. (1976) Cohesion In English, L ondon: L ongm an.— (1989) Language, Context, A n d Text: Aspects O f Language In A Social-semiotic

Perspective, O xford: O xfo rd U niversity Press.H atch , E. (1992) Discourse A n d Language Education, C am bridge: C am bridge U niver­

sity Press.H eller, J. (1962) Catch 22, L ondon: C orgi.H elm , J. (1967) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, N ew York: Pergam on Press.H oey, M . (1991) Patterns o f Lexis in Text, O xford: O xford U niversity Press.H olm es, J. (1992) A n Introduction to Sociolinguistics, L ondon: L ongm an. (2000) ‘D o ing collegiality an d keeping co n tro l at w ork: sm all ta lk in g o vern ­

m en t d ep a rtm en ts ’, in J. C o u p lan d (ed .) Sm all Talk, H arlow : P earson E ducation L im ited.

ICE-G B (1998) In ternational Corpus o f English, Survey o f English Usage, L ondon: U niversity College L ondon.

K eenan, E. (1974) ‘N o rm -m ak ers , no rm -b reakers: uses o f speech by m en a n d w om en in M alagasy c o m m u n ity ’, in R. B aum an and J. Sherzer (eds) Explorations in the Ethnography o f Speaking, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.

Kelly, T., Nesi, H. and Revell, R. (2000) EASE Volum e One: Listening to Lectures, CELTE, W arw ick: U niversity o f W arw ick.

Kreckel, M . (1981) C om m unica tive Acts a n d Shared Knowledge in N a tu ra l Discourse, L ondon: A cadem ic Press.

Labov, W . an d W aletsky, J. (1967) ‘N arrative analysis: o ra l versions o f personal experience’, in J. H elm (ed .) Essays on the Verbal and V isual Arts, N ew York: P ergam on Press.

Lakoff, R. (1975) Language a n d W o m a n ’s Place, N ew York: H arp e r an d Row.Larsen, S. (1983) ‘T ext processing an d know ledge u pda ting in m em ory for rad io new s’,

Discourse Processes 6: 21—38.Law rence, D . H . (1981) Short Stories, L ondon : J. M . D en t an d Sons Ltd.L ederer, R. (1987) M ore A nguished English, L ondon : R obson Books.Leech, G. (1983) Principles o f Pragmatics, H arlow : L ongm an.Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.M acaulay, R. (1967) Crewe Train, L ondon: C ollins.

Page 196: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

183.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

5

R E F E R E N C E S 183

M cC arthy , M . and C arter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives fo r Language Teaching , L ondon: L ongm an.

M ey, J. (1994) Pragmatics: A n Introduction, O xford : Blackwell.M ilne, A. A. (1994) W innie the Pooh. The Complete Collection o f Stories, London: M ethuen

C h ild ren ’s Books.M o u n ta in , J. (1987) ‘A n investigation o f som e tex tual p ropertie s o f d iscursive co m ­

p o sitions w ritten by native speakers and L2 (Ita lian) advanced learners’, u n p u b ­lished MA pro ject, U niversity o f B irm ingham .

N elson, G. L., A l-Batal, M. an d Echols, E. (1996) ‘A rabic an d English com p lim en t responses: po ten tia l for p ragm atic fa ilu re’, A pplied Linguistics 18/3: 411 -33 .

O chs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and T h o m p so n , S. A. (1996) Interaction an d G ram m ar, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.

Paretsky, S. (1995) A Taste o f Life, L ondon: Penguin .R ankin , I (1992) Tooth a n d N ail, L ondon: O rio n Books Ltd.Rees, N . (1999) The Cassell D ictionary o f Anecdotes, L ondon: Cassell.R eynolds, M . (1963) Little Boxes, N ew York: S chroder M usic C o.R osten , L. (2000) The Education o f H ym a n Kaplan, L ondon: P rio n Books L im ited.Sacks, H . (1986) ‘Som e considera tions o f a sto ry to ld in o rd in a ry con v ersa tio n ’,

unpub lished m anuscrip t. (1992a) Lectures on Conversation, vol. 1, C am bridge , MA: Blackwell. (1992b) Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2, C am bridge, MA: Blackwell.Sacks, H ., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. ( 1974) ‘A sim plest system atics for the o rgan­

ization o f tu rn -tak in g for co n versa tions’, Language 50: 696 -7 3 5 .Sawyer, (1992) BB King, L ondon: Q u a rte t Books Ltd.Schiffrin , D. (1994) Approaches To Discourse, O xford: Blackwell Publishers.Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.S herrin , N . (1995) The O xford D ictionary o f H um orous Q uotations, O xford: O xford

U niversity Press.Sinclair, J. M cH . an d C ou lthard , R. M. ( 1975) Towards an Analysis o f Discourse, O xford:

O xford U niversity Press.Skuja, R. (1983) ‘A n analysis o f the o rgan isa tion features o f argum en ta tive c o m p o s i­

tions w ritten by teachers an d pup ils in S ingapore’, unp u b lish ed MA project, U niversity o f B irm ingham .

Sm ith , B. R. and L einonen, E. (1992) Clinical Pragmatics, L ondon: C h ap m an a n d Hall.Sperber, D. an d W ilson , D. (1982) ‘M u tua l know ledge an d relevance theories o f co m ­

p reh en s io n ’, in N. Sm ith (ed.) M u tu a l Knowledge, L ondon: A cadem ic Press. (1987) ‘Precis o f Relevance’, Behavioural Sciences and Brain Sciences 10:

697-754 . (1990) Relevance, O xford: Basil Blackwell. (1995) Relevance, O xford: Blackwell.S tens trom , A. B. (1994) A n Introduction to Spoken Interaction, L ondon: L ongm an.Stilwell Peccei, J. (1999) Pragmatics, L ondon: R outledge.Stotsky, S. (1983) ‘Types o f lexical cohesion in exposito ry w riting: im plica tions for

develop ing th e vocabulary o f academ ic d iscourse’, College C om position and C om m unica tion 34/4: 4 3 0 -4 6 .

Page 197: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

184.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

6

184 R E F E R E N C E S

Stubbs, M . (1983) Discourse Analysis, O xford: Basil Blackwell.Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.T an n en , D. (1981) ‘Ind irec tness in d iscourse: e thn ic ity as conversa tional style’,

Discourse Processes 4 (3): 221-38 . (1984) C onversational Style: A na lyzing Talk A m ong Friends, N o rw o o d , NJ: Ablex

P ublish ing C o rp o ra tio n . (1986) T h a t’s no t W hat I M eant!: Flow Conversational Style M akes or Breaks Your

Relations W ith Others, N ew York: W illiam M orrow . (1994) Gender and Discourse, O xford : O xford U niversity Press.T hom as, J. (1995) M eaning in Interaction, L ondon: L ongm an.T h u rb e r, J. (1963) Vintage Thunder, L ondon: H am ish H am ilton .T rask , R. L. (1999) Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics, L ondon: R outledge.U pdike, J. (1970) Bech: A Book, M iddlesex: P enguin Books.van D yk, T. A. (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism , L ondon: Sage.V erschueren , J. (1999) U nderstanding Pragmatics, L ondon: A rnold .W ard h au g h , R. (1985) H ow Conversation Works, O xford: Basil Blackwell.W arren , C. (1953) A B C des Reporters. E inführung in den praktischen Journalism us,

M ünchen : Fink.W illiam s, E. (1973) George: A n Early A utobiography, L ondon: H am ish H am ilton .W ilson , D. an d M urie, A. (1995) Factors A ffecting the H ousing Satisfaction o f Older

People, B irm ingham : U niversity o f B irm ingham .W odak , R. (1996) Disorders o f Discourse, L ondon: L ongm an.W odak , R. and Lutz, B. (1986) ‘Ein A m erikaner in C hina. N ach rich ten als Fortse tz­

u n g sro m an ’, M edien Journal 4: 202 -7 .W oolf, V. (1978) Between the Acts, L ondon: G rafton .Yule G. (1996) Pragmatics, O xford : O xford U niversity Press.

Page 198: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

185.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

7

G L O S S A R IA L IN D E X

accessibility 43 act 7, 9, 16, 26adjacency pairs 30-3, 45-8, 59, 69, 96,

126, 161agreement maxim 50, 63-6, 75, 87-106,

162anaphora 10, 60, 119-23, 160 approbation maxim 49-50, 54 associative endophora 10-11

backchannels 22, 25, 127 background knowledge context 3, 5-7, 32 bald on record 46, 52-3, 74 banter 38

cataphora 10, 60closing structure 32co-text 2, 8-15, 59-63, 83-7, 113-19cognitive environments 43, 134-40coherence 2cohesion 2, 83-7commissives 17communication 6, 23, 42, 43, 62, 127-56 communicative intention 77, 81, 107, 113,

116, 147, 152-6 consideration maxim 51 context 1, 2 -8 , 9, 11, 18, 20, 27, 32-3,

43-4,51-4 , 77-83, 108-13 contextual effects 43 contextualisation cues 33, 69, 123, 126 conversation 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-9, 12, 14, 16, 22,

23 -7 , 123-7, 128-33 conversation analysis 2-3 , 24, 27-33, 68,

92-7conversational implicature 36, 38, 42-3,

73, 98cooperative principle 33-44, 41-3, 48-50,

73-6, 97-101, 180

critical discourse analysis 2 cultural background knowledge context

5-6, 57, 77-83 cultural variables 87, 97, 179

declarations 16-18 deference 52, 106 deixis 7-8, 55-8, 80 direct speech act 15, 19-20, 64 directives 17, 90, 92, 181 discourse 1-2, 24-9, 33, 55, 57, 61, 66,

116-17, 119, 120-2, 124-5, 164, 171 discourse analysis 1-3,24,28,33,66,68,121 discourse communities 6, 77-83, 111 dispreferred response 30, 32, 69

ellipsis 8, 11-13, 15, 59, 61, 63 endorphoric 9-11, 13-14, 59-60 exchange 2, 4, 23, 26, 27-9, 32, 34-5, 39,

42, 56, 65, 69, 93, 95-6, 102-3, 107, 123-4, 126-7, 129, 131, 171

exchange structure 2, 24-7, 68 exophoric 5-9, 61, 69, 80, 111 explicature 44 expressives 17, 22, 65

face 4, 18, 45, 46-8, 50, 54, 121, 156-7 felicity conditions 15, 18, 65, 91 flouting the maxims 36-9, 42-3, 72 follow-up 25, 68FTA (face threatening acts) 45-6 function 2, 25, 28, 37, 48, 51-2, 64-6,

91-2, 134, 146, 161, 172, 174

general words 13, 15, 63, 113, 118 generosity maxim 49, 53-4, 75 grammatical cohesion 8, 9-13, 59, 60,

85-7, 113

Page 199: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

186.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

8

186 G L O S S A R I A L I N D E X

hyperbole 37-8, 72

illocutionary force 16, 19, 46, 64, 160, 163, 175-6

incomplete sentences 22 indirect speech acts 19-20, 46, 63, 66,

90-1, 119 indirectness 15-18, 20-1, 46, 53, 87,

121-2, 157-8 informative intention 129, 146-56 initiation 25, 27 insertion sequence 31-2, 69 interactional 15, 22-3, 28, 33, 53, 63-4,

68-70, 74,92, 96, 126 interactional sociolinguistics 3, 23, 33, 66,

68, 69, 70, 92-7 interpersonal background knowledge

context 6-7, 57-8, 77-83 interruption 30, 68-9, 127 intertextuality 1, 8, 55, 58, 83 1RF (initiation, response, follow-up) 23,

25-8, 70, 94, 96 irony 38

lesson 24-5, 26, 68, 98, 127 lexical cohesion 8, 13-15, 59, 60-1, 114,

118-19 locution 16, 91 locutionary act 16

macro-functions 22-3 maxim of manner 35-6, 39, 40-2, 46 maxim of quality 36, 37-8, 40-2, 46,

49-50, 53, 72, 130 maxim of quantity 34-5, 37, 40, 42, 45-6,

49, 71-2maxim of relation 35, 39-40, 42, 46, 71-2,

127metaphor 38, 50-1, 72, 149-50, 163, 171 modesty maxim 50, 54, 75 moves 23, 25-7, 130mutual manifestness 133-40, 148, 153-4,

156-7

negative face 45-7negative politeness 44, 45, 46-9, 51-4,

73-5, 104

observing the maxims 34-6 off record 45-6, 74 on record 45-8, 52-4, 74, 157 opening structure 32 ostension 127-8, 140-7, 152-3, 156 ostensive-inferential communication 128,

144-7, 156 overlap 5, 21, 29, 33, 42, 51, 58, 68-9, 83,

91,95, 127

patience maxim 51 pause 29-30, 82, 94-5, 100, 127 performative hypothesis 16 performative verb 16 perlocutionary effect 16, 64 person deixis 7, 58 place deixis 8, 56-7politeness 20, 36, 38, 42, 44-54, 102-7,

155-7, 161-80 politeness maxims 49-51,73-5, 104-5, 180 politeness principle 3, 36, 49, 73-5 positive face 45, 48, 54 positive politeness 44, 45, 48-51, 54,

73-5, 103positive politeness strategies 48, 50, 74-5 pragmatics 1-2, 66-70, 104, 119-20, 122,

131, 133, 159, 180 pre-sequences 31, 47, 69, 96-7 preference structure 29-30 preferred response 69 presuppositional pool 11, 60 processing effort 43

reference 7-11, 13-14, 29-30, 32, 41-2,56, 58-60, 65, 69, 77-8, 80-5, 95, 110-19, 146, 161

referent 7referring expressions 7, 9-10, 14, 60, 116 relevance 2, 29, 33, 35, 40, 42-4, 68, 70-2,

97, 117, 127-56, 140-56 relevance theory 2, 33, 39, 43-4, 72,

97-101repetition 11-15, 61-2, 75, 113-19, 146,

166, 168-70, 174-5 representatives 17, 22, 65 response 2, 22, 25-7, 30-2, 50, 68-9, 90,

97, 119, 124, 157-62, 164-80

Page 200: [Joan Cutting(2002)] Pragmatics and Discourse a Resource

Cut

ting,

Joa

n(A

utho

r).

Pra

gmat

ics

and

Dis

cour

se:

A re

sour

ce

book

for

st

uden

ts.

Flo

renc

e, K

Y,

USA

: R

outle

dge,

200

2. p

187.

ht

tp:/

/site

.ebr

ary.

com

/lib/

keri

s/D

oc?i

d=10

0168

07&

page

=19

9


Recommended