INTRODUCTION TO PRAGMATICS.

THE SCIENCE OF/FOR LANGUAGE USERS

CONTENTS

Foreword…………………………………………………………………………4

Course description……………………………………………………………….5

Thematic areas…………………………………………………………………...5

Unit One – The cooperative principle and conversational implicature. Speech act theory…………………………………………………………………………6 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………6 Timing…………………………………………………………………………….6

A. The hybrid nature of pragmatics…………………………………..……….….7 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………11 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………12 B. Speech act theory…………………………………………………………14 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………18 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………19

C. Co-operation and conversational implicature…………………………….22 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………29 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………30

Unit Two -Presupposition triggers and characteristics. Presupposition vs implicature………………………………………………...…………………….35 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..35

Timing……………………………………………………………………………35 Bibliography………….......………………………………………………41 Evaluation……………………………………………………………......42

Unit Three -Strategies of politeness. The face management view........................................................................................................................45 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..45 Timing……………………………………………………………………………45 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………52 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………53

Deixis – person.. empathetic. time.……………………………………………………………………………..69 .55 Timing……………………………………………………………………………55 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………64 Evaluation……………………………………………………………………65 General bibliography…………………………………………………………. space.Unit Four .55 Objectives………………………………………………………………………. social deixis. discourse.

.

Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate circumscrierea domeniului pragmaticii. analiza a actelor de limbaj. • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intra i interculturala. SPEECH ACTS THEORY. • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale întelegerii si aplicarii noiunilor pragmatice fundamentale de implicatura. strategii de polite. Timp alocat: 6 ore . presupozi.UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE I THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE.e i deixis.ie.

the CONSTRAINTS he encounters in using language in social interaction. (Carnap. to put it in more general terms. to the user of a language. In LINGUISTICS. 1985:278-9) *…+ if our starting point is to be situated at Morris’s level of generality. INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF PRAGMATICS Any attempt to investigate the nature and scope of pragmatics – an allinclusive term for all kinds of research focused on language and its use in context . or. and the effects his use of language has on the other participants in an act of communication. [1956]. If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker. the term has come to be applied to the study of LANGUAGE from the point of view of the user. pragmatics cannot be viewed as another layer on top of the phonologymorphologysyntax-semantics hierarchy.should start from the following programmatic statements: We distinguish three fields of investigation of languages. semantics merges with what one would nowadays call “pragmatics”: word-meaning is now seen as an epiphenomenon of sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning. then we assign it to the field of pragmatics. especially of the choices he makes. another COMPONENT of a theory of language with its own well-defined object…Nor does it fit into the contrast set . (Crystal and Davy.A. (Nerlich.1992: 3) One of the three major divisions of semiotics (along with SEMANTICS and SYNTACTICS). 1942:9) In the third stage (of its evolution).

their . at any level of structure…One could say that. Rather. at every level of linguistic structure. in general. the PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE centers around the ADAPTABILITY OF LANGUAGE. pragmatics. anthropological linguistics.containing sociolinguistics. the fundamental property of language which enables us to engage in the activity of talking which consists in the constant making of choices. in harmony with the requirements of people. neurolinguistics. psycholinguistics. etc. is a PERSPECTIVE on any aspect of language.

1987:5) the study of meaning of linguistic utterances for their users and interpreters a minimal way of distinguishing semantics from pragmatics is to say that semantics has to do with meaning as a dyadic relation between a form and its meaning: “x means y” (e. the speaker’s meaning *…+ cannot exclude reference to the context of knowledge. as some have postulated. the school. once the speaker is introduced into the formula. The speaker. meaning and form/utterance: “s means y by x” (e. (Verschueren. (Leech and Thomas. This implies that it is not sufficient to consider the language user as being in possession of certain facilities (either innate.g. it is difficult to exclude the addressee. whereas pragmatics has to do with meaning as a triadic relation between speaker. and the real-world circumstances in which they interact. both in . However. or a combination of both) which have to be developed through a process of individual growth and evolution. but that there are specific societal factors (such the institution of the family. is requesting something to eat). as others believe them to be. desires and intentions. shared by the interactants. in uttering the words “I’m hungry”. or acquired. “I’m feeling somewhat ensurient” means “I’m hungry”. both general and specific. the peer group and so on) which influence the development and use of language.beliefs. 185) *…+ pragmatics places its focus on the language users and their conditions of language use.g. *…+ Moreover. 1990:173. since the utterance has meaning by virtue of the speaker’s intention to produce some effect in the addressee.

1999:14) As seen from these definitions. for structuring meaning potential. pragmatics takes into consideration the need for training language awareness. (Jaworski & Coupland.the acquisition stage and in usage itself. 1995:22) Closely related to semantics. which is primarily concerned with the study of word and sentence meaning. pragmatics concerns itself with the meaning of utterances in specific contexts of use. 1996:287) *…+ the study of meaning in interaction (Thomas. It is an . (Mey.

about areas of life” or interpersonal knowledge. for individually. According to Cutting (2002: 5).and collectively-regulated language behaviour.outward-looking discipline. the context in which the interaction takes place is dynamic. the informative function is coupled with the phatic (relational) and with the aesthetic functions. Besides. made up of “specific and possibly private” . but also cross-fertilization of ideas and speakers and hearers establish a common ground (social togetherness) which guarantees that failure in communication is unlikely to occur.oriented to linguistic and social understanding. investigating the relevance of language to ordinary people in various situations. pragmatics deals with the subtleties of implied meaning and with inference mechanisms. participants in the communicative event construct and derive meaning based on their background knowledge (what they know and believe that the others know). Pragmatics is committedly quality. searching for motivation (a sort of forensic activity). Furthermore. Metaphorically. we can speak of arenas of language use where users display a wide range of strategies which are in fact the rules of the game. Language and society interrelate in the conscious use of language which ceases to be a neutral medium for the transmission and receiving of information. comprising either cultural general knowledge “that most people carry with them in their minds. constructed. deconstructed and reconstructed inter-subjectively when the speaker and the hearer take turns in the process of communication. Language in use performs several functions simultaneously . There is not only exchange of information.for example. proactive and meaning is continually coordinated due to the particular cluster of the contextual factors. Meaning is negotiated.

is to be defined as an abstract theoretical entity to which truth conditions are assigned. deixis etc. being limited to “abstractions based on certain kinds of experiences which apparently typify some kind of general behaviour” (p. In other words.109). Hence. whereas the utterance is a sentence analogue in context. illocutionary force. In fact she equates such knowledge to folk taxonomy. since it is “either scientifically unwarranted or very superficial” (p. pragmatics deals with implicature. 109). The author further considers such knowledge culture-bound and varying intraculturally from group to group (p. 109) as “measures of agreement” The distinction sentence – utterance is of paramount importance at this point. presupposition. the minimal unit of analysis in semantics. . The sentence.information about their interlocutors.

cultural and social affair. a linguistic.pragmatics actualizes both linguistic and extra-linguistic (encyclopaedic) knowledge. This holistic view is an indicator of the fact that we dissociate from any approach to pragmatics as a science that can be divided into several distinct branches. an integrated approach. an interdisciplinary project. We shall therefore postulate that pragmatics is a hybrid science. .

A Resource Book for Students. S. 1983. 2005. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness.Bibliografie minimala: Butler. G. P. Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. 1996. C. London: Arnold Kecskes.C. Meaning in Language. Linguistics. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. Doing Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. Pragmatics.. Pragmatics. Horn. 2005. Oxford: OUP Cutting. L. T. 2000. Pragmatics and Discourse. 2000.S. Pragmatics. 2002. J.). I. Oxford: OUP .. The Dynamics of language Use. et al. 2007. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Levinson. A. (eds. Explorations in Pragmatics.

but is used to mean. indeed. As an artist knows. we find out that those around us have strong ideas about what can be drawn. in what combinations. Just like art-works. The language token is not a thing with a form and a function. is inseparable from the practical mastery of situations in which this usage of language is socially acceptable. This means that competence.EVALUARE Enlarge upon pragmatic competence components starting from the following statements: a) The (linguistic) habitus is. our linguistic . It is a form which functions in context. in which proportions. 1979: 186) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… b) Having a language is like having access to a very large canvas and to hundreds and even thousands of colors. They are hand-me-downs. (Monaghan. But the canvas and the colors come from the past. linked to its conditions of acquisition sand its conditions of use. As we learn to use them. It has no meaning. there is an ethics of drawing and colouring as well as a market that will react sometimes capriciously. and for what purposes. but many times quite predictably to any individual attempts to place a mark in the history or representation or simply readjust the proportions of certain spaces at the margins. which is acquired in a social context and through practice.

(Duranti.products are constantly evaluated. It is not surprising that language . has created new media for language use. internet-mediated sales and services. such as satellite and digital television and radio. videoconferencing). information provision and entertainment. e-mail. 1997:334) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… c) Rapid growth in communications media. telecommunications (mobile phone networks. desktop publishing. recycled or discarded .

language itself becomes marketable and a sort f commodity and its purveyors can market themselves through their skills of linguistic and textual manipulation.g. while simultaneously being shaped and honed (e. journalists and broadcasters) in a drive to generate ever-more attention and persuasive impact. 1999:5) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… . within school curricula and by self-styled experts and guardians of so-called “linguistic standards”). by advertisers.is being more and more closely scrutinized (e.(Jaworski & Coupland.g. Under these circumstances.

and the uttering of the sentence is. or part of it. when drawing a will). It is Austin (1962) who distinguishes between constative and performative utterances. the doing of an action”. it is a communicative activity (locutionary act) connected to the intention of the speakers (illocutionary force) and to the effect(s) they achieve on the hearers . A speech act is not an act of speech in the sense of parole (in Saussure’s terminology) or performance (if we adopt Chomsky’s distinction between language competence or knowledge about the language and performance or the actual use of language). “It is pouring”). We are dealing in fact with the uttering of the words of the performative or speech act under particular circumstances (in the course of a marriage ceremony. 1. whereas the latter category utterances “do not describe or report or constate anything at all. I name this ship Queen Elizabeth. are not true and false.g. when smashing a bottle against the stem. I give and bequeath my watch to my brother. I do (take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife). E. 2. Speech act theory analyses the role of utterances in relation to the behaviour of speaker and hearer in interpersonal communication.B. He defines the former as statements that “record or impart straightforward information about the facts” (“The earth is flat”. 3. Speech Act Theory is worth investigating in depth as speech acts are identifiable in many of the utterances of routine verbal exchanges (besides formulaic language). SPEECH ACT THEORY Even if almost 50 years older.

the two persons involved become husband and wife.(perlocutionary effect). Speech acts bring about a change in the current state of affairs (in the first example. . they have a different marital status now).

as often. that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances and further.2. The infelicities related to A-B are called misfires and those related to C are termed abuses.e. There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect. The author postulates “the doctrine of the things that can be and go wrong. The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and B. whether physical or mental. If rules A-B are violated. and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves. the act is not achieved while in the C case.1. When dealing with a misfire. completely.Austin further discusses the question of appropriate circumstances since the speaker and other participants should also perform some other actions. the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts and feelings. then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts and feelings.1. it is an abuse of the procedure. the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.1. i. C. but it is insincere. A. must actually so conduct themselves subsequently. and further C.2. or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant. we say that the act is purported (or perhaps an attempt). Where.2. B. the act is performed. the doctrine of the infelicities” and proposes the following scheme of the felicity conditions to be met for the “smooth or happy functioning of a performative”: A. .

.

we normally utter “Go!” instead of “I order you to go!” to achieve the same effect.g. I hereby declare this bridge to be opened. The explicit performative utterances are assigned a particular formula: -they have a first-person subject. -they embed a clause expressing the propositional content of the utterance. in face-to-face interactions we do not utter “I hereby declare to . I (hereby) promise you to be there in time. As far as the abuse is concerned. which is not consummated. -the have a performative (illocutionary) verb in the present simple tense. -they contain a second person pronoun which may be preceded by a preposition.void or without effect and the procedure is misinvoked. the affirmative form. “I bet”) and implicit ones. it implies a professed or hollow act. Yet. E. Moreover. Performatives fall into two categories: explicit (which include some unambiguous expression also used in naming the act – such as “I bequeath”.

love you” as a performative indicating device. You are fired. illocutionary and perlocutionary . Thank you for your support. Instead. we are dealing with a performativity continuum ranging from the conventional speech acts to the non-conventional ones. E.g. There is a further distinction made by Austin with respect to the kind of action associated to an utterance: locutionary. but this does not mean that performativity is denied.

Illocutionary act: Will you open the window. the extra-meaning which is conventionally associated to the sentence). speech act has force (the intended meaning which is to be inferred by the hearer. Perlocutionary action or effect is what you produce on the hearer by saying what you say (at this point language plays a persuasive role and the hearer is manipulated to act in the way intended by the speaker).action. (Although it is hard to believe that the speaker imparts information to the hearer or that the utterance simply counts as a constative). Perlocutionary act: The hearer complies with the request and opens the window. Consider the following utterance: It’s so hot in here. .e. Locutionary act: It is so hot in here. Locutionary action is equated to the mere act of uttering a sentence and meaning what you say (the literal meaning of a sentence). The illocutionary action. please? (the utterance really counts as a request). i.

Morgan. L. P.P. 1983. Pragmatics. “Logic and conversation” in Cole P.. 1996. Principles of Pragmatics. 2000. Explorations in Pragmatics.S. 2002. Speech Acts. MA: MIT Press Searle. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. 2007. New York Grundy. S.. J. C. (eds. G. Cambridge. J. A Resource Book for Students. 2005.L. I. London: Longman Levinson. Pragmatics and Discourse. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness.. T. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Pragmatics. 1983.).). J. H. Doing Pragmatics. Pragmatics. 2000. Oxford: OUP Cutting.Bibliografie minimala: Butler. S. Meaning in Language. Presumptive Meanings. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Horn. 1975. J. 2000. Oxford: OUP .C. Linguistics. 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. 1969. Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. London and New York: Routledge Grice. The Dynamics of language Use. A. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. et al.C. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. London: Arnold Kecskes. (eds. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech.

. thank you... Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….. Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………. the illocutionary act (force) and the perlocutionary effect of the following utterances: a) In an art gallery. It’s not heavy.EVALUARE 1. ... Comment on the following performatives and their felicity conditions: a) I withdraw my complaint. what do big boys when they enter into a room? Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………. Official: Would the lady like to leave the bag here? Woman: No. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… b) Billy. Locutionary act:……………………………………………………………………………. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… c) Would users please refrain from spitting. Identify the locutionary act.. Illocutionary force:………………………………………………………………………… Perlocutionary effect:……………………………………………………………………… 2.

Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2. ..………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….

.. Condition C2. Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Thank you for your attention.I plead not guilty.. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….... Condition B2……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………... Condition C2.. Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. . Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. I absolve you from your sins.………………………………………………………………………………..

b) Will you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife? Absolutely.………………………………………………………………………………... Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….. Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2……………………………………………………………………………….. .Condition C2.

Condition B1……………………………………………………………………………….Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….. Condition C2. Performative type:……………………………………………………………………….... Condition C2.……………………………………………………………………………….. c) I challenge you to pistols at dawn...………………………………………………………………………………. . Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Performative type:………………………………………………………………………. Condition C2. d) The court finds the accused not guilty.………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A1………………………………………………………………………………. e) Your employment is hereby terminated with immediate effect.. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………....... Condition C1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2……………………………………………………………………………….. I decline to take up the challenge.

Condition C2. Condition A2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B1………………………………………………………………………………. Condition B2………………………………………………………………………………. Condition C1……………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….. .Condition A1……………………………………………………………………………….

Instead. between what is actually said /expressed meaning and the additional implied/intended meaning.C. p: you scratch my back q: I’ll scratch yours p . worked with Austin at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s and delivered the William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1957. who developed the pragmatic theory of implicature. non-p does not imply non-q. CO-OPERATION AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE Literature distinguishes between sense (literal meaning/ logical form) and force (intended meaning). Grice. E. to imply means “to fold something into something else”. the same implicature arises regardless of the context of utterance. while the hearer infers or deduces something from evidence. in the former case. q: If you scratch my back.P. then q. The logical implication relation is: if p. Logically. implicature is based on the content of what has been said and on the assumptions about the cooperative nature of verbal exchanges. H. The speaker implies or conveys some meaning indirectly. whereas in the latter case. Etymologically. The term implicature is used in order to contrast it with logical implication which refers to inferences derived from logical or semantic content. Grice identifies two types of implicature: conventional implicature and conversational implicature. I’ll scratch yours.g. the implicature is generated by the context of utterance. .

. but still attractive.g.E. The woman was in her forties.

Generalized implicature underpins “the use of a certain form of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature” (Grice 1975: 37).g. conversational implicature falls into generalized and particularized implicature. Generalized implicature: his finger. Furthermore. E. I’m driving. On the other hand. calculated or processed due to the context of utterance. He burnt a finger. . Would you like a drink? No. this implicature is encoded linguistically. particularized implicature is that ‘in which an implicature is carried by saying that p on a particular occasion in virtue of special features of the context. cases in which there is no room for the idea that an implicature of this sort is normally carried by saying that p’ (Grice 1975: 37).g. E.The link word “but” directs us to something that runs counter to the previous statement. there is the implicature is that a woman in her forties is no longer attractive. The implicature is that a person who is driving should not drink and such implicature is workable out by both the speaker and the hearer. Furthermore. thanks.

and this distinguishes it from linguistic meaning. as we do of many other language aspects . We have only tacit. “He goes there on business”. sub-doxastic (unconscious) knowledge of linguistic meaning. In different specific contexts this could implicate ‘He goes there to visit somebody who is ill’. ‘His girl friend is there”. In other words. Recanati (1993: 245 ff) emphasizes the psychological layer of ‘what is said’.g. which we cannot have access to via such conscious act.E. etc. In this climate of opinion. we develop awareness of this level. He goes there every week.

The author postulates the Availability Principle. Let us remember at this stage that the context is a dynamic entity and does not consist of a pre-determined set of assumptions. of course. . assumptions that are part of the speaker’s and hearer’s background knowledge and these assumptions establish the common ground (shared assumptions) which secures the success of the ongoing exchange(s). which reads: In deciding whether a pragmatically determined aspect of utterance meaning is part of what is said. In other words. that is. because the verbal exchange is governed by the willingness to take part in the process and because speaker and hearer alike try to optimally fit the information they provide to the context. and are consciously accessible as distinct’ (Recanati 1993: 245). There are. Admittedly. to the direction in which the exchange takes place. in making a decision concerning what is said. the whole interaction is based on the Principle of Relevance as highlighted by Grice (1975) and further developed by Sperber and Wilson (1986). ‘we have distinct conscious representations for “what is said” and for “what is implicated” by a given utterance: both are consciously accessible. we should always try to preserve our pre-theoretic intuitions on the matter. syntactic). morphological.(phonological. (Recanati 1993: 248) The ongoing discussion allows us to state that communication is a successful process because the participants try to make a fair contribution.

Grice puts forward The Cooperative Principle (CP) to explain the mechanisms by which people unfold conversational implicature. The CP runs as follows: .In his famous book “Logic and Conversation” (1975). Grice’s theory explains how there can arise interesting discrepancies between speaker meaning and sentence meaning. between explicit and implicit meaning. and to account for the relation between sense and force.

Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

The four conversational maxims are:

1. The maxim of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. The maxim of Quality1: Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 3. The maxim of Relation: Be relevant. 4. The maxim of Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly. Grice identifies a number of characteristic traits of implicatures (contextual effects) which arise from non-observance (whether deliberate or not) of one or several maxims:

1. they are cancellable or defeasible, i.e. by adding some further information it is possible to cancel them, i.e. explicitely denied). 1 Harnish (1976:362) favours the combination of the first two maxims, arguing that the amount of information that the speaker gives depends on the speaker’s wish to avoid telling something that is not true. He proposes the Maxim of Quantity-Quality: “Make the strongest relevant claim justifiable by your evidence”

E.g. A: Would you like some wine? B: No, thanks. I’ve been on whisky all day. A: All right. (The hearer infers that the speaker doesn’t feel like a drink). B: I mean, I’ll stick to whisky. (Thus, the implicature is cancelled or proved to be false by this further specification). 2. they are standardly non-detachable (apart from those derived from the Maxim of Manner that are related to the form of the utterance), i.e. they are attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form. The replacement of a word or phrase by its synonym will trigger a different implicature. E.g. John is a genius. John is a mental prodigy. John is an exceptionally clever human being. John has an enormous intellect. John has a big brain. (Levinson, 1983:116-7)

There will be ironic reading of the utterances that re-state the first one.

3. they are calculable, i.e. it can be shown that the hearer can derive the inference in question starting from the literal meaning of the utterance and from the co-operative principle and the maxims of conversation.

e. they are not part of the conventional meaning of the linguistic expressions that are used (they are not to be found in dictionaries). they are non-conventional. Mother implies that Billy has taken the car.4. the same linguistic expression can give rise to different implicatures on .g. Father: Where are the car keys? Mother: Billy is dating Sue tonight. 5. i. E.

g. If a speaker violates a maxim he/she “will be liable to mislead” (1975:49). • Non-observance of the maxims There are five distinct cases of failing to observe a maxim: -flouting a maxim -violating a maxim -infringing a maxim -opting out of a maxim -suspending a maxim - 1. “she likes currying favour with people” etc. utterances seem to be of a protean nature. Therefore. The non-observance stems from imperfect . we can speak of a certain degree of indeterminacy. “very nervous or anxious”. fails to observe a maxim. not with the intention of deceiving/misleading. 2. Infringing a maxim – it occurs when a speaker who. a conversational implicature deliberately achieved. She is a cat. There is an additional meaning i. Violating a maxim – Grice defines it as the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim. 3. According to context.different occasions (in different contexts of utterance). multifaceted: E. with no intention of deceiving. Flouting a maxim – the speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim. the utterance can be interpreted as “a mean unpleasant woman”.e.

4. drunkenness. Opting out of a maxim – by indicating unwillingness to co-operate in the way the maxim requires. for legal or ethical reasons. It is very frequent in public life when the speaker cannot. reply in the way normally expected. 5. excitement) rather than from a deliberate choice. Suspending a maxim – sometimes there are certain events in which there is . nervousness.linguistic performance (imperfect command of language.

Suspension of the maxims can’t be culture-specific or specific to particular events.no expectation on the part of any participants. .

The Dynamics of language Use.. Morgan. J. 1983. 2005. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. L. Presumptive Meanings. I. “Logic and conversation” in Cole P. London: Longman Levinson. Meaning in Language. A.C. 2002. Doing Pragmatics. Horn. 1983. London: Arnold Kecskes.Bibliografie minimala Butler.. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. 2007. 2000. S. et al.P. J.C. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.L. London and New York: Routledge Grice. P. 1975. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse.). Pragmatics and Discourse. (eds. H. 2000. New York Grundy. Cambridge. (eds. A Resource Book for Students. 2000. Cambridge: CUP Levinson.S.). Oxford: OUP Cutting. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. MA: MIT Press . Linguistics. C. Principles of Pragmatics. Explorations in Pragmatics. Pragmatics. J. S.

Cambridge: CUP Vilceanu. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. Pragmatics. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. 1993. 1969. J. F. G. Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Searle. 1996.. T. Oxford: OUP .Recanati. Speech Acts. 2005. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness.

……………………………………………………………………………………… Would you like tea or coffee? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Have you seen your daughter’s haircut? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Are you with me? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Do you sell apples by the pound? ……………………………………………………………………………………… . ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. Show the steps to be followed in calculating the implicature of the utterance below: I saw Mary carrying a piece of heavy luggage at the station.EVALUARE 1. Work out implicature in the following cases: A: Would you like a cup of coffee? B: It would keep me awake.

……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Come here! We’ve got work to do.I am hungry. B: I’ve got a terrible headache. ……………………………………………………………………………………… .

……………………………………………………………………………………… The bell is ringing. State whether the following examples are cases of observance of the conversational maxims or not. ……………………………………………………………………………………… I am a man. 2000: 59) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 3. ……………………………………………………………………………………… Now. ……………………………………………………………………………………… He told me about your intentions. They have finished.The last bus leaves in 10 minutes. can I ask you a serious question? ……………………………………………………………………………………… Also available at weekends. Identify each type. 2000: 7) ……………………………………………………………………………………… Who cares? (Grundy. (Grundy. ……………………………………………………………………………………… .

……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… How old are you.……………………………………………………………………………………… She is too short. by the way? ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… .

2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Money doesn’t grow on trees but it blossoms at our branches (Lloyd Bank’s advertisement) (Grundy. 2000: 76) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… .Sit down with care Legs can come off (Grundy. 2000: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… BA better connected person (British Airways advertisement) (Grundy. 2000: 14) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… New York murder – local man arrested (Grundy.

2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… It was dead funny – if you see what I mean (Grundy. 2000: 79) . 2000: 77) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… You just can’t help yourself (McCain pizzas advertisement) (Grundy.First and fourmost (Land Rover Advertisement) (Grundy.

said Gates would not routinely attend . (Cutting. dinner’s nearly ready. 2002: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Husband: How much did that new dress cost. (Cutting. 2002: 40) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Bush.……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Where are you off to? B: I was thinking of going out to get some funny white stuff for everybody. (Cutting. darling? Wife: Less than the last one. himself a former director of the CIA. A (Bends down to stroke the dog and it gets bitten) Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite! B: That isn’t my dog. A: OK. 2002: 39) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Does your dog bite? B: No. But don’t be long.

Cabinet meetings but would take part in sessions where intelligence was necessary for making decisions. 2002: 41) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… A: Well. (Cutting. When do you want to go? B: At the weekend. How does that work? You just turn up for the shuttle service? . A: What weekend? B: Next weekend. there’s a shuttle service sixty pounds one way.

A: That might be cheaper. 2000 in Cutting. 2002: 43) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… . (Grundy. Than that’s fifty.

• Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii presupoziiei i a mecanismelor lingvistice ce o genereaza.UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE II PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS AND CHARACTERISTICS. Timp alocat: 6 ore . • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. PRESUPPOSITION VS IMPLICATURE Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de presupoziia logica i presupoziia pragmatica.

Originally. Let us now focus on more complex sentences: Sue denies that she saw Mary yesterday. presupposition is dependent. The former is attached any kind of background assumption against which the utterance makes sense or is rational. As seen from the definition. Presupposition is another type of implicature. Survival of the negation test distinguishes presupposition from entailment. unlike conversational implicature which is situated. Levinson is cautious in identifying the nature of pragmatic presupposition.PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS AND CHARACTERISTICS. whereas the latter is restricted to “certain pragmatic inferences or assumptions that seem at least to be built into linguistic expressions and which can be isolated using specific linguistic tests (constancy under negation)”. the term was restricted to reference. to a higher degree. Levinson (1983: 167-8) draws our attention to the two distinct uses of the term presupposition: as an ordinary term and as a technical one. PRESUPPOSITION VS IMPLICATURE Presupposition may be rightly considered as one of the most controversial concepts in pragmatics. on the linguistic form of the utterance. Its negation reads: . Presuppositions refer and remain constant if the sentences are negated (they survive the negation test). but it soon expanded its scope.

The presuppositions that hold true under negation are: -There are two identifiable persons Sue and Mary (proper names). respectively. .Sue does not deny that she saw Mary yesterday.

there exists a man with two heads. 1954. presupposition which is not characterised by behaviour under negation alone. to be proud that. the question arises: What are the linguistic expressions that engender presupposition? Levinson (1983:181-4) discusses Karttunen’s (1973) collection of 31 presupposition triggers and claims that they pertain to “the core of phenomena that are generally considered presuppositional”. Factive verbs (Kiparsky and Kiparsky. ought to 4.e. In fact. Implicative verbs (Karttunen. to be glad that. 1973): 5. regret 3. and they are triggered by the verb to deny. Definite descriptions (Strawson. forget. 1952): John saw / didn’t see the man with two heads . to know.-Sue saw Mary yesterday. 1950. i. . 1971): to be aware that. to be sad that. 1971b): to be expected to. to be sorry that. 2. to happen to. manage. In what follows. Levinson pleads for a loose definition of presupposition. Karttunen. we shall cater this useful checklist (although in a simplified version): 1. Change of state verbs (Sellars. to realize. it is odd. Therefore.

stop. continue. arrive . carry on. begin. enter. finish. go. start.cease. come. take. leave.

Cleft sentences (Atlas and Levinson. Temporal clauses (Frege. 11. before. as 8. anymore. to return. Mark is nicer than Tom . since. is 22. 12. to repeat. Verbs of judging (Fillmore. Counterfactual conditions (Type 3) . whenever.6. to come back. after. 1892) introduced by: before. while. another time. 1979): Linguistics was/wasn’t invented by Chomsky! 9.To call him a liar is to insult him. Sperber and Wilson. criticize 8. Implicit clefts with stressed constituents (Chomsky. to restore. Tom is nice. 1971): She called him a liar and insulted him . Comparisons and contrasts (Lakoff. 1981): 9. during. who studies law. 1971a): accuse. for the nth time 7. after. Iteratives: to come again. 1972. Non-restrictive clauses The president’s daughter.

Questions (Lyons. 1977): alternative questions and WH-questions: Are there students interested in pragmatics? Who is interested in pragmatics? In all the above mentioned cases. they disappear in contexts where they are expected to survive.If he had been there. But there also the projection problem (presupposition behaviour in complex sentences) and the question of defeasibility (presupposition cancellation in certain contexts). presuppositions survive in contexts where entailments do not. he would have helped her. If we negate the sentence. Presuppositions are determined compositionally (as a function of their sub-expressions) by virtue of the principle that the global meaning is the sum of the meanings of the component parts. constancy or survival under negation is the acid test of presupposition. The boy kicked the ball There is a boy The boy kicked the ball. The projection problem is doublefold: on the one hand. 13. On the other hand. we have: The boy did not kick the ball and The .

Pragmatic presupposition becomes a question of appropriate usage. This common ground account (Stalnaker. They are functions that map an input context (common ground . pragmatic presuppositions are context-embedded). 1973) or context selection account (Heim. We should rather speak of common ground dynamics as it can be modified in the course of interaction – utterances are interpreted as context change potentials. of some background assumption and common ground against which the utterance makes sense (set of propositions constituting the current context. therefore. 1983) of presupposition envisages presupposition as pre-conditions of situations in which a sentence can be uttered.boy kicked the ball does not survive whereas There is a boy survives.

the speaker will try to eliminate discrepancies among the presuppositions (for communicative efficiency). It is part of the concept of presupposition that a speaker assumes or pretends that the hearers presuppose everything that s/he presupposes (ideally). If context perceived to be defective. 1990:344) . The principle of accommodation is best summed up in Thomason’s words: Adjust the conversational record to eliminate obstacles to the detected plans of your interlocutor. clues are dropped about what is presupposed. during the communicative exchange.before the utterance is accepted by the hearer) to an output context (common ground after the utterance is accepted by the hearer).(Thomason. Lewis (1979) labels this process accommodation since it rescues an utterance from inappropriateness by providing a required presupposition. Presuppositions define for an utterance whether or not an input context is admissible. namely the dispositional definition of pragmatic presupposition. In fact. This is the second view endorsed by Stalnaker.

Linguistics. The Dynamics of language Use. S. MA: MIT Press Vilceanu. 1996.. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. 2005. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. Pragmatics. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. 2002. L. 2005. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. G.C.Bibliografie minimala Butler.S. S.). et al. C.. Pragmatics and Discourse. Principles of Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP Cutting. Cambridge. A. 1983. 2000. Pragmatics. Doing Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP . Craiova: Universitaria Yule. A Resource Book for Students. 1983. (eds. 2000. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. T. London: Arnold Kecskes. Presumptive Meanings. J. 2000. Meaning in Language. J. 2007. Pragmatics. Horn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cruse. London: Longman Levinson. I.C. P. Explorations in Pragmatics.

darling? Wife: Less than you expect.EVALUARE 1. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… c. Discuss presupposition-related aspects in the following examples: a. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… b. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… d. If music be the food of love. It was Mary who called the ambulance. Twelfth Night) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… . Husband: How much is the dress. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… f. play on (Shakespeare. At least we won’t have to give up studying. Were you married to Mike when you left the country?. Thank you for your support. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… e.

Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… .

/ He went to a college. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… l. I am enjoying life in the countryside more than ever. He went to college. Sorry for the delay. Even Presidents have private lives (Bill Clinton’s TV address. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… j.g. 18 August 1998) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… m. . It’s him again. / He went to the college. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… h. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… k. I enjoy English lessons when we have no home assignment. Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… i. Marion praised them for storing old wine bottles.

Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:…………………………………………………………………… .

n. I began jogging after a visit to the doctor. (Grundy, 2000: 123) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:……………………………………………………………………

o. My friend didn’t bother to open a bank account until she stated earning money. (Grundy, 2000: 123) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:……………………………………………………………………

p. Do you have any dogs going cheap? (Grundy, 2000: 126) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:……………………………………………………………………

r. It was the Scots who invented whisky. (Grundy, 2000: 136) Presupposition trigger:…………………………………………………………… Presupposition:……………………………………………………………………

UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE III

STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS. THE FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW

Obiective

• Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de strategiile de politee pozitiva i negativa; • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii noiunilor de face i face threatining act în cadrul teoriei face management view; • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. Timp alocat: 6 ore

STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS. THE FACE MANAGEMENT

VIEW

The Basics of the Theory of Politeness

Politeness as well as co-operation is fundamental to interpersonal communication. As a linguistic phenomenon, politeness has drawn considerable attention from linguists, sociologists and language philosophers over the last 40 years: Lakoff (1973, 1977), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), Hill et al. (1986), Ide(1989), Fraser (1990) and Gu (1990). Despite the efforts of these practitioners, however, there was little consensus on the nature of politeness and cross-cultural implications. Politeness refers, separately but also jointly, to the following aspects: promotion of harmonious relations, deference, register, politeness as a surface level phenomenon - locutionary act, and politeness as a deep level phenomenon - illocutionary act.

Pragmatic approaches to politeness fall into four categories:

• The face management view (Brown and Levinson); • The conversational maxim view (Leech); •

• The pragmatic scales view (Spencer-Oatey). Brown and Levinson suggest that speakers. even if it is not . Communication is negotiation of meaning. they use the language to do things.The conversational contract view (Fraser). The face management view Of the various models of politeness which have been advanced. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) claims its pancultural validity. At the very foundation of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory lies the assumption that speakers in any given language do not just convey information through their language. The present unit attempts an elaboration of the concept of positive and negative politeness considering these universal phenomena. actually build relationships. in face-to-face interactions.

(Brown and Levinson.negative face: the basic claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition -positive face: positive consistent self-image or ”personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. Hence we may infer that the term politeness is not used in its conventional sense of having and showing good manners. In fact Brown and Levinson propose that an abstract underlying social principle guides and constrains our choice of language in everyday discourse. 1987:61) Brown and Levinson’s notion of face follows on from Goffman (1967 [1955]) in using it to denote the desire which everybody has that their self- . maintained or enhanced. 1978:66) the public self-image that everyone lays claim to.necessarily a conscious act. and that can be lost. maintain or modify interpersonal relationships. Face is defined as: Something that is emotionally invested. and must be constantly attended to in interaction. but rather it is intended to cover all aspects of language usage which serve to establish. (Brown and Levinson. displaying courtesy and correct social behaviour. Brown and Levinson theory rests on the assumption that all competent language users have the capacity of reasoning and have what is commonly known as face. consisting of two related aspects: .

i. …everyone has face and everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s face being maintained. it is in general in every participants’ best interest to maintain each other’s face. distancing as two basic sides of politeness. co-operation vs. 1978: 66) . and if defending their own to threaten other’s faces. Brown and Levinson then develop this concept by relating it to Durkeim’s “positive and negative rites” . (Brown and Levinson.e.image will be taken into account in interaction with others (face is linked to the notions of being embarrassed. humiliated or losing face). and since people can be expected to defend their face if threatened.

beliefs. somewhat conflicting face-wants (1987:60). it is in the MP’s best interest to develop linguistic strategies that acknowledge and recognize the face wants of the other participants. There are acts that we. The authors go further and say that these two kinds of face-want give rise to two corresponding types of interactive behaviour. Since the satisfaction of MP’s wants is. possesses two basic. Conflict can be understood as a potential ingredient of any interaction simply because social interaction by its very nature presupposes an intrusion into another person’s domain. interests. as . attitudes. one who. These are positive politeness strategies and negative politeness strategies. to a large extent. from the outset.And. The first is to have one’s individual rights. in addition to demonstrating a command of the language and a rational capability for determining the means needed to accomplish end goals. The concept of positive and negative face as universal human attributes and the consequent concept of positive and negative politeness as characteristic of human interaction are also referred to as face dualism. or values of the speaker. a person who does not often share the same goals. 1987:13). Brown and Levinson construct their interactional model around a model person (MP). and territories uninfringed upon (negative face-wants) and the second is the want to be respected and liked by other people (positive face-wants). since “aspects of face *are+ basic wants (ibid: 62) these definitions may be glossed as “the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions (negative face) and the desire to be approved of (positive face)” (Brown and Levinson. possessions. dependent on the actions of the others’.

g. must do and that threaten the wants of another individual.g. and threatens threaten the hearer’s negative face acts of criticism. the expression of thanks or the acceptance of an offer are acts that impinge on the speaker’s negative face as they impel future obligation . orders. requests. E. disapproval.speakers. and disagreement threaten the hearer’s positive face Speakers can also perform self-threatening acts E.

These acts which are inherently threatening to the speaker or hearer become face-threatening acts-FTAs. one that reveals to H that S is attempting to minimize the threat of the act. S may choose the following strategic options demonstrating the highest risk (face loss) or the least risk (face saving). Strategic options in order of increasing face-threat: . confessions. reduce the positive self-image of the speaker. admissions of guilt. S considers strategic balancing options and may choose a redressive one.Apologies. They are “acts that by their very nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (1987:65). among other selfhumiliating acts. Figure 1 depicts the types of FTA: FTA Speaker Face Hearer Face Negative Positive Negative Positive excuse apology request complaint thanking crying compliment boasting When the speaker intends to perform an act that threatens the positive or negative wants of H.

The soup is a bit bland. but off record. use ellipsis etc. Brown and Levinson draw up a list of strategies for performing offrecord politeness: give hints. Do carry the FTA. failing to congratulate somebody or to express condolences. association clues.Do not carry out the FTA at all. be ambiguous. understate. etc. presuppose. be ironic. be vague.e.g. E. allowing for a certain ambiguity of intention. . i. overstate. E.g.

g. nominalize. e. . by hedging. Do the FTA on record with redressive action – positive politeness. Excuse me. I’d be eternally grateful if you did that for me. The letter must be typed immediately. but it is not your turn. We look forward to dining with you. You must be very busy. question / hedge. but I need your help. E. This will involve reassuring the H he/she is being respected by expressions of deference and formality.g. be pessimistic. This will involve paying attention to the H’s positive face by. sympathy or approval. apologize. Do the FTA on record with redressive action . etc. minimize the size of imposition.negative politeness. etc.. impersonalize the speaker and the hearer.I’ve got that terrible headache again. expressing agreement. Boys will be boys.g. Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train. I wonder if you know the truth. maintaining distance. give deference. Husbands sometimes help to wash up. E. Brown and Levinson identify several strategies: be conventionally indirect.

. 5. without redressive action.g. We are favourably impressed by your performance. baldly. the FTA is in the hearer’s best interest. taskoriented situations (instructions). E. you may use the dictionary. Do the FTA on –record. power differential is great. the speaker decides to be maximally offensive etc. This strategic choice is likely to appear in the following situations: emergency cases.I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him before. Give me your pen. I must tell you that I like your dress very much. Mind the step! Yes.

E. avoid disagreement Negative strategies conversely are addressed to H’s negative face and are characterized as expressions of restraint.g. some gradable (e. nominalization). Politeness strategies have not only verbal realization. exaggerate interest in H. give deference) are mixed with linguistic strategies (e. some can transform a negative into a positive . formality and distancing. Some are countable (e. intensifiers). sympathize with H. etc Harris (1984) suggests that the disfunction between the institutional statusbased requirements of face and the more individual side of face involved in the notion of kindness correlates with on-record vs. give deference. be conventionally indirect. but also non-verbal e.g. informality and familiarity. Positive politeness strategies are addressed to H’s positive face wants and are described as expressions of solidarity. apologize We are thus confronted with politeness strategies and markers of different status: behaviour strategies (e. and the rank of imposition. stumbling.g.g.g. 1989). off-record strategies of politeness. nominalize) (see Ide.Take care! Have a cake. Three factors are involved /calculated to determine the weight of the FTA: the social distance between H and S. H’s power over S.g. E. giving a gift.g.

strategy (e. contraction and ellipsis). not communicated by “markers” or “mitigators” in a simple signaling fashion which may be quantified” (1987:22). Brown and Levinson interestingly state. that ”politeness is implicated by the semantic structure of the whole utterance. however.g. .

et al.. C. Coupland. 2000. Pragmatics and Discourse. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. N.C. Universals in Language Usage. Text and Culture. D. 1983. A. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. Explorations in Pragmatics. MA: MIT Press . A Resource Book for Students. Levinson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Brown.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Cutting. Cambridge: CUP Cottom.C. P. The Discourse Reader. The politics of Interpretation. 1978. I.. Presumptive Meanings. Politeness Phenomena. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Jaworski.S. London: Arnold Kecskes. Pragmatics. L. 2007. S. The Dynamics of language Use. 2002. 1999. (eds.Bibliografie minimala: Butler. J. 2000. S.). P.C. 2005. London & New York: Routledge Levinson. Doing Pragmatics.. 1998. Linguistics. S. Cambridge. Horn.

(eds).Vilceanu. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. S. Politeness in Language... Pragmatics.J. R. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter . Ehlich. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness. Pragmatics.. G. T. 1992. K. Theory. 1996. Studies in Its History. Oxford: OUP Watts. Ide. 2005.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… c) .I wouldn’t mind a cup of coffee. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… b) P: Someone’s eating the icing off the cake. C: It wasn’t me.EVALUARE Comment on the following sentences in terms of face wants and FTAs: a) A: We’ll all miss George and Caroline. won’t we? B: Well. we’ll all miss George. -Could you spare me a cup of coffee? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… d) A: Her performance was outstanding! .

B: Yes. wasn’t it? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… e) A: Do you like these apricots? B: I’ve tasted better. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… . wasn’t it? A: Your performance was outstanding! B: Yes.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… i) Basil’s wife is in hospital: You just lie there with your feet up and I’ll go and carry you up another hundredweight of lime creams… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… j) In a very expensive gourmet restaurant. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… h) This is a draft of chapter 4. a notice reads: If you want to .f) Please accept this large gift as a token of our esteem. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… g) I’m terribly sorry to hear that your cat died. Please read it and comment on.

not smoke during this meal. However. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… . naturally.enjoy the full flavour of your food and drink you will. if you did smoke you would also be impairing the enjoyment of other guests.

SOCIAL DEIXIS Obiective • Constientizarea aspectelor complexe legate de deixis.UNITATEA DE ÎNVATARE IV DEIXIS – PERSON. spaial. EMPATHETIC. TIME. DISCOURSE. discursiv i social. • Familiarizarea studentilor cu aspectele descriptive si normative ale identificarii si utilizarii noiunilor referitoare la deixis personal. empatic. temporal. SPACE. • Dobândirea de strategii rezolutive în gestionarea factorilor pragmatici implicai în comunicarea intraculturala i interculturala. Timp alocat: 6 ore .

indexicality has a broader scope. from the Greek word deiknyai – to display. i. In fact. • Person deixis It is about deictic reference to the participant role of a referent: speaker. SOCIAL DEIXIS Deixis. is one of the most obvious ways of indicating how the contribution of the context of utterance is actually managed by the speaker. Therefore. As a pragmatic phenomenon. empathetic deixis. all deictic expressions are indexical . addressee2. place deixis. Person deixis is instantiated in the system of personal pronouns (first. but not all indices are deictic.they pick out referents in the real world / extra-linguistic context. Deixis is often equated to indexicality. second and third person).DEIXIS – PERSON. we – represents the . dealing with the linguistically relevant aspects of indexicality. The first person pronouns – I. SPACE. EMPATHETIC. to show. TIME. time deixis. bystanders – ratified participants which are neither the speaker nor the addressee. Deixis can be further divided into six types: person deixis. it is concerned with the linguistic encoding of the context of utterance (speech event). discourse deixis and social deixis.e. it covers all phenomena of context sensitivity whereas deixis has a narrower scope. DISCOURSE.

grammatical encoding of the reference to the speaker(s). they – are the grammatical encoding of reference to bystanders. 2 A. the second person pronoun – you. she. Bell (1984) coined the phrase audience design which he defines as the extent to which the speakers accommodate to their addressees. so accommodation does not apply to this case) . He makes a useful distinction between addressees (ratified participants directly addressed) – auditors (ratified participants. not directly addressed) – overhearers (neither ratified participants nor directly addressed) – eavesdroppers (the speaker is not aware of their presence.represents grammaticalization of reference to the addressee(s) and the third person pronouns – he.

inclusive we) We shall leave in two hours’ time. we can draw a cline of deficiency on which indefinite and personal pronouns are ranked as deficient to the highest degree: E.Furthermore.e. there is the unique form you.g. turntaking in conversations. (optionally gestural) Customarily. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. – and the deictic centre (or origo if we feel indebted to Bühler) shifts with them.g. we distinguish between the inclusive-of-addressee and the exclusive-of-addressee use of the first person plural pronoun we: E. The deictic centre is organized around the speaker at the place and time of speaking (Coding . (President George Bush’s speech on the 11 September events.g. she – the woman – the beautiful woman – Anne In the course of the interaction. In this respect. which is unmarked for the second person singular and marked for the second person plural. their descriptive content does not suffice to identify a referent. taking the floor at conferences etc. (symbolical) You have to go there at once. participant roles undergo shifts – e. United we stand. (exclusive we) As far as the second person pronoun is concerned.g. i. You optionally allows for gestural use: E. the third person referring expressions are regarded as semantically deficient or residual. someone.

Time in Fillmore’s terms). present simple tense. Reference to the person involved in the speech event also becomes manifest in the use of possessive pronouns and adjectives.g. many deictic expressions can be transposed or relativized to some other deictic centre. Yet. and verb conjugation (e. In Romance . English verbs add –s in the 3rd person singular. the verb “to be” displays different forms for different persons.

(empathy) That man! (distance) • Place deixis It can be defined as deictic reference to a location relative to the location of a participant in the speech event. demonstrative pronouns.e. voi lucrati.g.g. But also I like that. Romanian present tense: eu lucrez. Broadly speaking. The grammatical realizations of place deixis are adverbs of place. However. noi lucram. This is what I like. • Empathetic deixis It refers to the metaphorical use of deictic forms to indicate attitude. typically the speaker. el/ea lucreaza. Denny (1978) proposes the term boundedness to refer to the presence / absence of meaning indicative of a border at the location.languages there are different endings attached to verbs when conjugated – e. expressions such as in . the demonstrative pronoun this is invested with empathy or solidarity while that indicates emotional distance. emotional or psychological distance between the speaker and the referent. spatial prepositions and motion verbs. there are numerous instances when the distinction is neutralized: E. i. ei-ele lucreaza etc). tu lucrezi.

there. 3 Goffmann (1967) sees frame as individual conceptualization of the structure within which participants are interacting . non-proximity). Authors (notably Levinson) identify several frames3 of spatial reference: -intrinsic or pure place-deictic words: the adverbs here and there. out there belong to bounded deixis while here and there pertain to unbounded deixis (lack of a defined border). the demonstrative pronouns this and there (proximity vs. in here.

Billy is behind the tree. in front of. They are deictic when there is reference to the speaker location: E. that includes the point of location gesturally indicated”. (symbolical) Bring it here. Spatial prepositions have deictic and non-deictic values. I’m in Madrid and I love it here. across river etc. away from.) distinguishes between gestural (as a way of securing the addressee’s attitude to a feature of the extra-linguistic world. upstream. south.g.-absolute: east. behind.g. (gestural) Sometimes. west. here indicates “the pragmatically given unit of space that includes the location of the speaker at CT (coding time. proximal to the speaker’s location at CT.g. north. next to etc Levinson (1983: 79 ff.g. (non-deictic) . there. on the phone) or RT (receiving time. when receiving a letter). -relative: to the right/left of. downstream. e. can serve to indicate proximity to the speaker’s location at CT (e. E. which is typically distal from the speaker’s location at CT. Used symbolically. pointing at something constitutes an ostensive definition) and symbolical usages of place deictic words. see the ongoing discussion)” and gesturally it refers to “the pragmatically given space.

(deictic) Verbs of motion or come-and-go verbs indicate direction relative to the location of participants. The verbs belonging to the go class serve to show movement away from the speaker’s location at CT whereas the verbs of the come type gloss as movement towards the speaker’s location at CT. typically the speaker. Levinson draws our attention towards the fact that some other time can be involved when performing the movement and he cautiously suggests to use the broader term reference time. hiding from me. .Billy is behind the tree.

Typically this is the moment of utterance – what Fillmore (1975. I came at 10 o’clock. take etc. The basic distinction concerns the use of now – “the time at which the speaker is producing the utterance” or broadly “the . Time deixis is encoded in adverbs of time. • Time deixis It refers to time relative to a temporal reference point. 1997) calls Coding Time (CT) or temporal ground zero as different from the Receiving Time (RT) when there is no temporal deictic simultaneity or there is deviation from the canonical situation of utterance. but you were not at home. tenses and other deictic expressions (greetings). Special mention needs to be made of the fact that place deixis always incorporates a time-deictic element (CT) while the converse does not hold true. Come to me! (reference time coincides with CT) Go there! (reference time coincides with CT) You can come to see me when I return from England.g.g. fetch. The verb come can also indicate not the speaker’s current location but his/her home-base: E.E. (reference time does not coincide with CT) Some other verbs of the above mentioned type are: bring.

E. 1983: 73-74) – and then as marking departure from the moment when the utterance is produced (anteriority or posteriority). Do it now! I’m now reading an interesting article on traditions. .pragmatically given span including CT “ (Levinson.g.

yesterday. – the utterance allows for both a calendrical and non-calendrical interpretation. this year. I’ll be back in an hour. i. this afternoon. seasons. I’ll go there this week. I wrote this yesterday and wanted you to receive it today.g. Starting from this example we can state that today systematically varies reference (the reference of today will be different tomorrow etc). – CT and RT are distinct. it guarantees achievement within the calendar unit beginning on Sunday and including utterance time (CT) or within 7 days from the utterance time.I was very young then. you’ll have to repeat the procedure. months. Some other examples include: E. tomorrow. (notice on the office door) – the exact time when the person comes back is hard to be guessed as there is no indication . Before discussing the deictic use of the adverbs of time (today.e. the deictic use of the time adverb today serves to indicate the diurnal span in which the speech event takes place. May. next month etc). being non-calendrical in use or they are used calendrically to locate events in absolute time (non-relationally). while calendrically the adverb refers to the span of time running from midnight to midnight. Then. For instance. it is useful to remember that time is measured in days. years – these temporal divisions are measured against a fixed point of reference (including the deictic centre). Sunday.

the present tense represents the time span including CT. . Tenses are a mixture of deictic temporal distinctions and aspect. Tenses are classified into absolute and relative (perfect tenses indicate anteriority to a specified moment of time). the past tense is the relevant time span before CT and the future tense is the time span following CT. Seen in this light.of CT and RT are not identical.

Anaphoric elements refer outside the discourse to other entities by connecting to prior referring expressions: E.g. Tony Blair / He pointed to the importance of the event.The British Prime . the next chapter. this chapter. This refers to the forthcoming portion of the discourse and that: E. Good afternoon is used in the afternoon etc. It is worth mentioning that Good morning.g. The British Prime Minister delivered a speech yesterday. as mentioned before). Levinson claims that the phenomenon of anaphora should be kept distinct from discourse deixis. That was the only word she could say in Chinese. This is what I’ll tell you. This and that are discourse deixis elements (we can speak of a re-categorization of these placedeictic elements which become multifunctional). greetings function as time-deictic elements since they are time-restricted: Good morning is used in the morning. • Discourse deixis It concerns deictic references to a portion of the unfolding discourse relative to the speaker’s current location in the discourse (e. .Last but not least.g. Good afternoon and Good evening are uttered only when meeting the addressee whereas Good night is used only as a parting formula. although the two are not mutually exclusive. the previous chapter.

For the sake of distinction.Minister . let us mention that cataphora connects to referring expressions that are present later in the discourse: . Pronouns are prototypical exemplars as far as anaphora is concerned. Tony Blair / He are co-referential expressions (they pick out the same referent in the external world.

g. editorial we for authorized speakers and Your Honour. Billy).g. darling.g. In front of her. moreover. mum) terms of endearment (My dear. • Social deixis It is concerned with direct or oblique reference to the social status and role of the participants in the speech event. Mr.E. The Honourable Member for authorized recipients – see Fillmore. 1975) and relational social deixis (reference to the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee). but. Jane noticed a girl playing with a doll. royal we. nevertheless. Social deixis falls into two categories: absolute (reference to some social characteristics of a referent apart from any relative ranking of referents e. She acknowledged his presence but pretended not to. President. therefore. Discourse markers (anyway. – contrast is thus established between the two portions of the utterance. . insults etc. kinship terms (mother. actually etc) relate a current contribution to the prior portions of discourse (we have already discussed these terms as giving rise to conventional implicature). Linguistic encodings of social deixis include honorifics. Your Majesty. E.

Cambridge: CUP Levinson. The Dynamics of language Use.. London and New York: Routledge Grundy. London: Arnold Kecskes. Linguistics. Pragmatics. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. 2007. 2000. Cambridge. A Resource Book for Students. Coupland.Bibliografie minimala Butler. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishung Company Cutting. Pragmatics. Presumptive Meanings. A. Pragmatics. Horn. L. 2005. Explorations in Pragmatics.).C. P. Pragmatics and Discourse. MA: MIT Press Vilceanu. Oxford: OUP . G. 1996. T. et al. The Discourse Reader.. Craiova: Universitaria Yule. S. 2000. 1999.C. (eds. Doing Pragmatics.. London & New York: Routledge Levinson. C. 1983. N. S.S. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Jaworski. 2002. J. I. 2005. The Raising and Training of Language Awareness.

.................................. Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… ...........................Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........................ This is a non parking area .......................... Monday morning feeling Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:.... 2............................................................................ I’m visiting my parents next week and tell them the news.......................EVALUARE Identify deictic elements in the following utterances and discuss their nature: 1..... 3.......

......................Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..................................... ....................................................

....... 7..... Just along the corridor on the right........................................................................................ Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:...... mummy.................. I love you............................................ Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..................... 5........................... ......................................... How do you like it?..................................4............ 6.......... You are not supposed to say that to an old lady......

Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… .

................ 8....................................................................................................................................... 2000: 4) Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… ........... This book was published two years ago...... 10.... I am coming to your office.................................. Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:.......... Are we all here? (Grundy.........................................................................Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:.......................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:.............. 9........

..Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:..................................... ........................................................................

.................................... You’ll be fine tomorrow..................................................... Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:....................................... ............11.......................... 12.................................................. Lay your hands off her! Person deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Empathetic deixis:………………………………………………………………… Space deixis:……………………………………………………………………… Time deixis:………………………………………………………………………… Discourse deixis:…………………………………………………………………… Social deixis:........

.. J. Politeness Phenomena.C.. 2005. Universals in Language Usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Byram.. M. P. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Brown. A. London: Routledge Carston. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Cottom. The Dynamics of language Use. M. 1996. D. C.S. Cambridge: CUP Aronoff. Text and Culture. 2008. The Handbook of Linguistics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota . The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Levinson. 2002. (eds..Bibliografie generala Ariel. Cambridge: CUP Bussmann. H. Pragmatics and Grammar. 1978. 1998. 2002.). London: Routledge Butler. The Politics of Interpretation.. S. Thoughts and Utterances. M. Rees-Miller. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. et al. R. 2000.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. C. L. 2005. Language as Social Action. Meaning in Language. Fitch.). The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. K. A. A. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. H. 2005. London and New York: Routledge Cutting. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Pragmatics and Discourse. J.E. A. London: Arnold Holtgraves.. R.. A Resource Book for Students. Sanders. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Grundy. (ed. London and New York: Routledge Davies.). Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Doing Pragmatics. A.L. P. Davies. A Glossary of Applied Linguistics. 2000. 2000. The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. T. Elder. 2004. 2002.) 2010. (eds).Cruse. Oxford: OUP Cummings. 2007 (2nd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Davies. (eds. 2002.

Encyclopedia of Language and Education. N. Springer Science .). 2008 (2nd ed.Hornberger. H.

Pragmatics. Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Coupland. J... Linguistics. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. A. Oxford: OUP. Presumptive Meanings. A. London & New York: Routledge Johnson. 2001.). Pennycook. S.. I. 2002. 1999. P. N. Cambridge: CUP Levinson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing . The Discourse Reader.C. Principles of Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP Kecskes. 1983.Jaworski. Cambridge. Explorations in Pragmatics. F. H. Horn.H. Johnson. London: Longman Levinson.C. B. Berlin/New York: Mouton Gruyter Leech. 1993. 2007 (2nd ed. 2000. MA: MIT Press Matthews. S. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied linguistics: a handbook for language teaching. New Jersey: Lawrel Erlbaum Associates Recanati. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 1983. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Kaplan. Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. L. K. R. (ed). 1999.

H. Ide. (eds). Creativity and Convention. R. 1969.. S. Theory.). J.. Speech Acts. G. 2001. Schmidt. Oxford: OUP . Politeness in Language. E. J.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. London: Multilingual Matters Ltd. C. R. Kasper. 1996.K. G. 2002 (3rd ed.L. 1992. Cambridge: CUP Trappes-Lomax. K. Pragmatics. R. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter Yule.. Trask.J. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Watts. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics and Teaching. R. Change and Continuity in Applied Linguistics. (eds). 2007. 1999. Cambridge: CUP Searle. The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. (eds. Ehlich.Richards. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Studies in Its History.. London and New York: Routledge Vega Moreno.. London: Pearson Education Limited Rose. 2000. R.