Published in thisseries: H.G.Widdowson: Linguistics George Yule: Pragmatics Series Editor H.G.Widdowson Pragmatics George Yule OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS(Oxford aires ress | ‘WaoaSuet Oxford oxs coe ford New York ‘hes Asclid Bango Hopes Bombay for Maryann Boens Aes Caleta, Cope Tow Date Sse Det Pence HongKong lanl Karc Kes Lumpur Madras Made Meboure Mex iy Navobt Pars Singapore “Tape Tokyo Torom sn cited comp in i Todas coxronp andoxrono excite ‘rade a of Oxford Universi ose © Oxiord Use Pree s996 est pblihed 996 Seta inten 1996 Nownautared photocopying Alleigha reserved. No par of is pbliton ‘Bey breeedcn edna esa yten of ‘Tawney form or by anymeati eon, | ‘mec phocecopying coding octerwi, | thou the rir ween ermson of Ona Urivesty res This bookisoldsbjec tothe conden att | Shallne byway of rade or teri, belo, } ‘esol: hie ator cere ceased whut ‘Be pba pr cana any os of ein rcoreroserthantatowhchtipubiahelaad srchoat ainda onion clei codon Tag ponedon he eeqcm pce Seely Wyvern Typing Ld ito Prive in Hong KongContents Preface Survey Definitions and background ‘Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics Regulacty ‘The pragmatics wastebasket Delis and datance Person deixis| Spatial deixis| “Temporal deinis Deixisand grammar Reference and inference Referential and atibutive uses, Names and referents The role ofcotext ‘Anaphorie reference Presuppostion and ontalment Presupposition ‘Types of presupposition ‘The projection problem Ordered entailments Cooperation and impicature ‘The cooperative principle HedgesConversational implicature Generalized conversational implicatares Scalar implicatuces Paricularized conversational implicatures Properties of conversational implicatures Conventional implicatures ‘Speech acts and events Speech acts ibs Felicity conditions “The performative hypothesis Speech act classification Direct and indirect speech acts Speech events Potteness and interaction Politeness Face wants [Negative and positive face Selfand other say nothing Say something: off and on record Positive and negative politeness Serategies Pre-sequences ‘Conversation and preference structure (Conversation analysis uses, ovedaps, and backehannels ‘Conversational style Adjacency pairs Preference ercture Discourse and culture Discourse analysis Coherence Background knowledge Cultural schemata Cross-cultural pragmatics Readings seeri0N 3 References Glossary Pa ny nyPreface Purpose ‘What justification might there be fr a series of introductions to language stady? After ally linguistic ie already well served with ineroductory text: expositions and explanations which are com prehensive and authoritative and excellent in thei way. Generally speaking, however, their way isthe essentially academic one of providing a detailed initiation ino the discipline of linguistics, land they tend tobe lengthy and technical: appropriately so, given their purpose. Bu they can be quite daunting tothe novice. There is also a need for a more general and gradual introduction to language: transitional texts which will ease people into an under~ standing of complexideas. This series of introductionsis designed to serve this need. ‘Theis purpose, therefore is not to supplant but to support the more academically oriented introductions to linguistics: £0 prepare the conceptual ground. They ae based on the belie that itis an advantage to have a broad map of che terrain sketched out before one considers its more specific features ona smaller scala ‘general context in reference to which the detail makes sense. eis sometimes the case that students are introduced to deal without iebeing made clear what itis deal of. Clearly, a general under- standing of ideas not sufficient: there neds tobe closer seating. But equally close scrutiny can be myopic and meaningless unless itis related tothe large view. Indeed, it can be said that the precondition of more particular enquiry isan awareness of what, in general, the particulars are about. Tis series is designed to provide this large-scale view of diferent areas of language study. ‘Assuchitcan serve as a preliminary to (and precondition forthemore specific and specialized enquiry which students of linguist: ‘esate requited toundereake, ‘But the series is not only intended ro be helpful to such st dents. There are many people who take an interest in language without being academically engaged in linguistics per se. Such people may recognize the importance of understanding language for their own lines of enquiry, or for their own practical purposes, ‘or quite simply for making them aware of something which figures so centrally in theic everyday lives. Iflinguisic has ceveal- ing and relevant things to say about language, then this should presumably not be a privileged revelation, but one accesible to people other than linguists. These books have been so designed a5 toaccommodate these broader interests roo: they are meant tobe introductions to language more generally as well ast linguistics asa discipline. Design ‘The books inthe series arealleuto the same basi pattern, There ace four parts: Survey, Readings, References, and Glossary. sorvey “This is summary overview ofthe ain feature ofthe area of langage study conceneds ts cope snd principle of eguiy ts baste concerns and key concep. These are exprsed and cipleined in ways which are intended to make sem aaceble {Sponbleropeoplewho have ao pat nowldg or epee in the abject The Survey wren te readable and nce bye Cocoma hy rn nti spe tics ot simpli, Lack of pec expertise des ot | = inccot knowledge, not ack of incigence The Survey thereto, it meant be challenging. le draws a map of the sabjc ran tach way sto simulate hong od nite a crea part Sipation inthe exploration of seat. This kindof conceal ‘atrography hast dangers of cour the sletion of what Sigua snd the mance of presentation wll not betothe king of everybody, paral, perp. some of have inde the dpi. Bat thee ervey ace ween inte belie that there must bean alternative toa technical account onthe one hand and an idiots guide on the other if linguistics is robe made relevant to people in the wider world, Readings Some peopl will be content to re9d, and perhaps se-reads the summary Survey. Others will wantto purse the subject and so villus the Survey as the preliminary for more detailed study. The Readinge provide the necessary transition. For here the reader is presented with texts extracted fom the specials literature. The purpose ofthese readings is quite different from the Survey. Iristo ft readers to focus on the spcifis of whats said and how i is Said in these cource texts. Questions are provided to further this purpose: they are designed to diret attention to points in each Text, how they compare across texts, and how they deal with the issues diseused in the survey. The ida isto give readers an initial familiarity withthe more specialist idiom ofthe linguistics liter- ature, where the issues might not beso readily accessible, and to encourage them ino close critical reading References ‘One way of moving into more detailed study is through the Readings. Another is through the annocated References in the third section of each book. Here there isa selection of works {books and articles) for further reading. Accompanying com tents indicate how these dealin more detail withthe issues dis- Cussdin the diferent chapters ofthe survey Glossary Certain term in the Survey appear in bold. These are terms used ina special or technical sense in the discipline. Their meanings are made clear in the discussion, bu che are also explained in the Glossary at the end of each book. The Glossary is cross- renced tothe Survey, and therefore serves atthe same time as tn index. This enables readers to locate the term and what it signifies in the more general discussion, thereby, in effect, using the Survey asa summary work of reference.Use “Theseries as been designed soa tobe flexible in use. Fach tite is separate and self-contained, with only the basic format in ] a. Picasso'son the far wall b. Thenew Mozartis beter value than the Bach, MyRolling Stones is missing. “There appears tobe a pragmatic coanection between proper names and objects chat will be conventionally associated, within a socio- culturally defined community, with those names. Using proper name refecentaly to identify any such object invite the listener to make the expected inference (for example, from name of writer to book by writer) and thereby show himself or herself to be a member of the same community as the speaker. In such ‘ass itis rather obvious that more is being communicated than issn, ‘The nature of reference interpretation just described i also what allows readers to make sense of newspaper headlines using ames of counties, as exemplified in (8a where the referent isto beunderstod asa soccet team, notasa government, and in [8b.) where itis 0 be understood as a government, not as a soccer [8] a. Brazil wins World Cup, ‘Japan wins irs round of trade cas. ‘The role of co-text In many of the preceding examples, our ability co identify intended referents has actually depended on more than out understanding ofthe referring expression. thas been aided bythe linguistic material, or o-tx, accompanying the referring expres- sion, When [St.] appeared as a headline, ‘Brazil! was a refering ‘expression and “wins World Cup" was par ofthe co-text the rest, ofthe newspaper was more co-ext). The co-text clearly limits the Tange of posible interpretations we might have fora word ike "Beavis consequently misleading to think of eeference being understood solely in terms of our ability to identify referents via the referring expression, The referring expression actually pro- vides a rango of reference, hati, a numberof possible referents Returning to previous example, we can show hat, while the phrase ‘the cheete sandwich’ stays the same, the diferent co-rexts in [ga] and [gb | lead oa different type of interpretation in each cate (i. food” i [92] and person’ in 9b.) Ig] a, Thecheese sandwich s made with white bread. 'b. The cheese sandwich lef without paying. Ff course, co-text is usta linguistic part of the environment in which a referring expression is used. The physical environment, or Cantet, is perhaps more easily recognized as having a powerful Impact on how referring expressions re tobe interpreted. The phys Seal context ofa restaurant, and perhaps even the speech conven tions of those who work there, may be crucial tothe interpretation‘of gh), Similarly, tis useful to know that a hospital isthe context forlon 9 dent fee fr [cb and hal exspton for [10] a. The hearv-ateack mustn't be moved, Yous tenthtey just cancelled «. Acouple of rooms have complained about the heat. “The examples in [x] provide some suppor for an analysis of| reference hat depends on local context a the local knowledge othe partkipanesfemaycrcially depend on fama wth he locl Socotra conventions ss the basis for inference (or example ifs pemon ins hospital witha les then he o She an be identi by nurses vi the ame of the lines). These con ‘entions may difer substantially from one sox! group to Ssnother and may be matked diferent from one language to arose: Referer, then, eno simply a relatonshp been the tmeaing of word ox phrase and an bjt or person inthe worl Teisa social ayn which he speaker assumes that the word of phrase chosen identify an objec or person wil be inerpetd as the speaker intended. m es ‘Anaphoric reference The preceding dicusion hasbeen concemed with single ats of reference In most of our talk and writing, however, we ave 0 Keep ack of who or what we ae taking about for more than one sentence ata time. After the inal introduction of some en, ‘Speakers wll use various expressions to mairan reference, aor fr (01) Tathe fm, man anda woman were trying to wash act. ‘The man ws holding the ca while the woman poured eater on i He sud something to her and they Started iatehing In English, initial eference, or introductory mention, i often indefinite (a man’, 'a woman,'a cat) In [11] the deite noun shat mi’ tare woman and he pon he, they) ate examples of subsequent reference to alead ineoducedelerens, generally known as anaphoric felrence, of naphora,Intechsicl tem, the second or subsequent expes- Soni the apo and th inal expression isthe necedet. Tes tempring to think of anaphoric reference asa proces of conning to deny exacly the same entity a8 denoted by che fntecedent- Io many cass, that assumprion makes ile diference tothe sterprettion, bu in those cases where some change oF Affe is deverbed, the anaphoric reference mast be interpreted {ferent In example (ra, fom a recipe, the ial refering ‘expression ‘ix potatoes identifies something diferent fom the Snaphorc pronoun ‘then’ which must be interpreted asthe six peck and shied porate {13} Pel and sie six patos. Put them in cold salted water, “There is also reversal ofthe antecedent-anaphor pattern some- times found a he begining of stores, asim example (13) [15] Ttumed the corer and almost stepped ont There wasa laegesnake inthe middle of the path. Nore hat he pronoun ‘if used fs and is diful vo imerpet. tn the fll aoun phrase is presented in the net line. Tis pat ter technically known 88 eataphere, and is much ess common than anaphora “There a range of expressions which are we for anaphoric reference ia English. The most typical forms are pronouns, sach ts tein qa but definite noun phrases are also wed, forex ample, these in [41 24] a. Peelan onion and slice by Drop theslices into hot ol . Cook for three minutes, When the interpretation requires us to identify an entity as in “Cook (2) fr three minutes in [14ep and no linguistic expees- sion s present, itis called zor anaphora or elisis. The use of ero inaphora as & means of maintaining reference clearly creates an ‘expectation that the listener wil beable o infer who or what the Speaker intends to identify Iesalso another obvious ease of more being communicated than is said “The listener is also expected to make more specific types of, inference when the anaphoric expressions don't seem ro be lin- tuitcally connected totheir antecedents. This point was notedin %Ba intro ample and is turther illustrated in[r]. L05) a Lios ened a hose, Tekitshen seal big 5. We had Chardonnay with dinner The Wine was the besepace «The came on sme, bute dda stop Making sense of [1521] requires an inference (eis a howe, then achas a itchen) make she anaphoric conection. Such | inferences depend on assumed knowledge which, as in [15b.],. | mujh mtespi echo w | tion, the inference canbe consieredso automate forse | speakers (oc example bos has» rivers that they cam go saight toa pronoun for anaphoric reference, singe. Ines xample, note thatthe antecdene the bus) and the aaphor | (he! are not in grammatial agreement, momaly abu would bei). As pointed ow already sucesul eerence does, ‘ot depend on some strc Iteral, or grammatically corer ‘eationshipbeween the properties of the referent ad the ele ‘ing expression chosen, The word sandwici can iden 4 pee son andthe pronoun he’ ean be an anaphor fra thing The key to making sense of reeenc is thet pragmatic roves wherey Speakers select inguin expressions withthe intention fea, Bog eran etic a wi sco that ee al collaborate and interpret those expressions os the speaker intended, . = The social dimension of reference may aio be edo he eee ofcallaboraton. The immediate recognition ofan tended ete, ny evn when a minimal relring expression for xaos Pronoun) i used represents something shared, something in Common and hence soil loses. Succes rfrece mesos ‘hac an ntemion was ecognie, va inference, ndating Lind of shared knowledge and hence social connetion, The tmp ‘ion of shared knowledge aio cal involved in the ty of Preupposition 4 Presupposition and entailment Inthe preceding dscusion of reference there was a appeal the idea that speakers ass certain information is already Known by thei Isto, Beease is rated a known, sch information wl geerly not be sated and consequent wil ouneaspatof what scommuniated but aotsid Thetecial terms prenpposton andenalmenrare used describe two di ferenc aspects of ha kind oF nformation. tis worth noting atthe ourse that presapposion and ena sent weg coir ob mish orca pga ‘he pas than they are now In more recent approaches, hee has ten less intrest inthe type of echnical dscussion associated sith the logical analysis of these phenomena. Without some inteodvcson to that type of analyse discussion, howeve, it tecomes ey difeatto understand how the caren relationship Berween semantic and pragiatcs developed, Mach of what fot lows inthis chapters designed tolsrate the proces of hink ing through a numberof problems inthe analysis of ome apes finvsle meaning Les hegin y defining our es Aprenupontons something he speaker asmesto be thecase priorto makinganaterance, Speakers, ot senrence, ave pre ppontons. An extaimert i something hat only follows irom whats asserted in the uterece Sentences, not pear, fave cnimens "We an denny some of he potently assumed information sat would be asocned with he ueranc of [x] Macys brother boughe thre horses. In producing the utterance in [x], the speaker will normally be as‘expected ro have the presuppositions that a person called Mary exists and that she has a brothet. The speaker may also hold the more specifi presuppositions that Mary as ony one brother and that he has alot of money. All of chee presuppositions are the speaker's andall of them can be wrong, infact. The sentence in [1] will be teated as having the entalments that Mary's brother bought something, bought theee animals, Bought two horses, bought one horse, and many other similar logical consequences ‘These entailments follow from the sentence, regardless of whether the speaker's beliefs are right or wrong in fact. They are ‘communicated without being said. Because ofits logical nature, however entalment is not generally discussed as much in cow ‘temporary pragmatics as the more speaker-dependent notion of presupposition. Presupposition n many discussions of the concept, presupposition is treated asa ‘lationship between two propositions, Ife say that the sentence in [22] contain the proposition p and the sentence in [2b.| eon: tains the proposition g then, using the symbol >> to mean ‘pre- supposes’, we ea represent the relationship asin 2c, [a] a. Mary'sdogiscute. (ep) b. Maryhasadog.— (=q) © pq Incest hen we prod the opps ofthe sentence in {au by negating (© NOT 9), atin) we find that thee ‘onshp of peesppontion doesnt change: That iy the same propoton epee a) continue fo be pressed by ‘NOT p, as shown in [3c]. ome Isl a. Marys dog snc ®. Manyara. © Norp oa (eNoTp) ea ‘This property of presupposition is generally described as eon- ‘taney under negation Basically, it means thatthe presupposition ‘ofa statement will remain constant (ie. stl tue) even when that statement isnegated. Asa further example, consider situation in 26 survey which you disagree (via a negative, asin [4.) with someone who has alteady made the statement it (42) Lal a. Everybody knows tha John i gay ee) b. Everybody doesn't know that Jobnisgay. (=NOT p) , Johni gay. a) dp >> q&eNOT p >>q Notice that although both speakers disagree about the validity of| p(s the statement in [4.) they both assume he truth of g (i. [gel) in making their statements. The proposition 9,28 shown in [adh is presupposed by both p and NOT p, remaining constant under negation Types of presupposition Inthe anayisot how speaker assmpionsaretypicaly expressed, presupposition as been associated with he wse of age number of trode pres, and structures. We shall consider these linguistic forms here a ndcator of ptt reuppostions, which an ony become acta presuppositions in contexts with speakers "Avaleady strated in examples 7] 0 [s]sthe possessive con- stcaction in English associated with a presupposition of ex istece. The easton presuppestion is no ony assumed to be present in posssive constructions (or example, Your ca? >> Sow have aa), but more generally in any dente noun phrase By using any ofthe expressions in (ste speaker i assumed 1 tecommied othe existence ofthe ents named [s)he King of Sweden, th ct the gel nextdoo the Counting Crows ‘We shal reconsider the basis of existential presuppositions later, bat ist we should noe tha there was a iferent eye of _prsappostion presenti a) I) the verb know” occurs ina Stacture, ‘Everybody knows tha with gas the presuppos thom, The presupposed information following a verb like know’ Can be reated a fact and ie described as fact presupposition ‘Number of other verb, sch a5 reali’ in [6a] and regret in {eb ar well ak phrases involving “be! with aware [60d [dp and" gla [6] have facie presuppositions. ”[6] a. She dida’e realize he was ill. bh. Weregret telling him, Twain’ aware that she was marred, 4. eisn'todd that he et eatly. ©. Pmglad thavitsover, ‘There are also a number of other forms which may best be tweated as the source of lxial presuppositions. Generally speak ing, in teal presuppostion, he use of one form with its asserted ‘meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another (non-asserted) meaning is understood. Each time you say that someone ‘managed’ ro do something, the asserted ‘meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. When you say that someone ‘didn’t manage’ the asserted meaning is that the person didnot succeed. In both cases, however, there ia presup- Position (non-assrted) thatthe person ‘ried to do that some- thing. So, “managed” is conventionally interpreted as asserting ‘succeeded’ and presupposing ‘ried. Other examples, involving the lexical items, ‘stop’, star’, and ‘again’, are presented, with ‘theie presuppositions in [7] In] a. Hestopped smoking. b. They stared complaining. {>> He wasill) (> Weteld him) (>> She was married) (5 Helefeeary) (> lesover) (o> Heusedro smoke} (o> They weren't complaining before) ©. You're late again (> You weee late before) Inthe case of lexical presupposition, the speaker's use ofa particu: lacexpression is rken to presuppose anther (unstated) concept, whereas inthe case ofa factve presupposition, the use ofa pa ticular expression is taken to presuppose the truth ofthe in formation thatis seated ater it In addition to presuppositions which are associated with the tse of certain words and phrases, there are also struct presup- positon. In this ease, certain sentence structures have been ana~ Iyzed as conventionally and regularly presupposing that pare of the structure is already assumed to be true. We might say that speakers can use such stracturesto teat information as presup= posed (i. assumed eo betrue) and hence to be accepted a true by the listener. For example, the wh-question construction in English, as shown in [8a.] and [8b], is conventionally interpreted 28 survey ‘with the presupposition that the information after the wh-form (ie When’ and Where’) is already known to be the case {8} a, When did he leave? (o> Helef) 1. Wheredid you buy thebike? (5> You bought the bike) The type of presupposition illustrated i [8] can lead listeners to believe thatthe information presented is necessarily true, eather than just the presupposition of the person asking the question For example, ler say that you were standing a an intersection ‘one evening. You didn’t notice whether the eraffc signal had turned to red before a car went through the intersection. The ear ‘was immediately involved in a crash. You were witness tothe crash and later you are asked the question in]. [o] How fast was the car going when iran the red light? If you answer the question ae asked (Just answer the question!) and estimate the speed ofthe ear, then you would appear to be accepting the truth of the presupposition (i. >>the ca ran the red light) Such sucruall-hased presuppositions may represent subtle ways of making information that the speaker believes appear to be what the listener should believe. So far, we have only considered contexts in which presupposi- tions are assumed tobe tru. There are, however examples of aon factive presuppositions associated with a number of verbs in English. A nonacthpresuppostio sone that is assumed not o be ‘rue, Verbs ike ‘dream’, imagine’, and ‘pretend’ as shown in (10), are used withthe presupposition that what follows snot rue. [0] a. Idreamed chat was ich B. Weimagined we were in Hawaii {> Twasnoc rich) (5 Wewere nor jin Hawaii) : He pretends tobe il (o> Heisnotil) ‘We have already noted, at the end ofthe discussion of deixis a structute that is interpreted with a non-factive presupposition (F Thad a yacht, .") Indeed, this typeof structure creates a counter: fectual presupposition, meaning that what is presupposed is not ‘only not true, but isthe opposite of wha is tru, or ‘contrary t0 fact’ A conditional seructure of the ype shown in [x2] generally called a counterfactual conditional, presupposes that the informa- tion inthe lause is not tue a the time of utterance. Fy[1] Ifyou were my frend, you would have helped me. (65 Youare noe my fiend) ‘The existence of non-fatve presuppositions spar of an inter: «sting problem for the analysis of uterances with complex strc tures, generally known as “the projection problem, to be explored inthe next section. Indicators of potential presuppositions discussed so far are summarized in Table 4.1 Tree Example Presupposiion cxseental ——theX >> Xx facie eget eating Sete rnonfastive Hepreendedtohehappy >> He wasn happy lexkal Hemanagedsocscape >> Hetredtoeseape srrusural ——Whendiae ie? >> Sheed counterfactual UT werenill Selamill ‘rante 4.1 Potential presuppositions The projection problem ‘There isa asic expectation that the presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part ofa more complex sentence. Ths is one version of the general idea thatthe meaning of the whole sentence isa com- bination of the meaning ofits parts. However, the meaning of some presuppositions (as ‘parts doesn’t survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as ‘wholes. This is known the projection problem. In example [12], we ate going to see ‘hat happens to the presupposition q (‘Kelly was i?) which is assumed fo be tev inthe simple structure of [r2c.}, but which ‘doesnot projec into the complex structure [12h]. In order to follow this type of analysis, we have to think ofa situation in which 2 person might say: imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody alized tha she wasill” [1a] a. Nobody realized thar Kelly was il b. Kelly wasil, epg 30. SURVEY (Actis point, the speaker uttecing [x23] presupposes [r2b.).) 4. imagined that Kelly wasil, Kelly was nor ill f rseNoTq (Atthis poiny, che speaker tering {r2d.] presupposes [rae], the opposite of [2b Timagined chat Kelly wasll and nobody realized that he was il h. rSep>>NOTg (Athis point, after combining r 8, the pesupposi- tion q ean no longer be assumed to be true.) In an example like (12], the technical analysis may be straight- forward, but ie may be difcul to think ofa context in which someone would talk like that. Pechaps example [13] will contex tualze better. In an episode of a TV soap opera, wo characters have the dialog in [13]. {a5} Shiney: e's s0sad. George regres getting Mary pregnant. Jean: But he dida’t get her pregnant. We know that en (eNoTg) (=r&p) If we combine two of the utterances from [13], we have the sequence, ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't {gether pregnant. dentfying the different propositions involved, 'sin [24], we ea Se thatthe presupposition qin [x4b.] does not surviveas a presupposition ofthe combined urterances in (14¢) [14] a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. (=p) b. George got Mary pregnant. a) © pq <4. He didn’ get her pregnant. fen George regrets getting Mary pregnant, bbuthe didn’t get her pregnant. (ep&r) £ p&ers>NoTg ‘One way to think about the whole sentence presented in [r4e is as an utterance by a person reporting what happened in the Soap opera that day. That person will noe assume the presupposi- tion (.. that George got Mary pregnant) is true when utering Irae. Muee eee “project isthat they are desteoyed by entalments. Remember that an entailment is somethi il fll asserted. In example [15], Jeans utterance of he didn’t got het pregnant’ actually entails George didnt get Mary pregnant as a logical consequence. Thus, when the person who watched the soap opera ells you tha ‘George regrets geting Mary pregnant, but he didn’t gether pregnant’, you havea presupposition q and an entalment NOT 4. The entailment (a necessary consequence ‘of whats said) is simply more powerful than the presupposition - (smear aesumption “The power of extent can ali be wed to ancl existential presuppositions. Nomaly we ase that when pesson wes definite description ofthe type the X’ (fo example the King of England, he orth presupposes the existence af the entity deserted asin the eras of [25 Also, in any uence of theform'X done arin sb dee oan etalinent that thereisnoX.Butdos the spake of sb alo slave the pe ‘upposiionofthcexenc of they dese? U5] a. TheKing of England visited us 1, TheKing of England doesent Instead of hinkng tha speaker who utr [b,simutan- comniy believes that hr King England prstposton Andhra King of gland (cane re nz tha the extalient sore poweifal than the pesppot tion. Weabandon he exten presupposition, ‘Asalready emphasized tay he bs think fl the eypes fpresupposion dlsoatedin Table gas porn presippow, ton which only become acta presuppostions when inne by speakers tobe recogaised such within erances Speakers can indeed inate tha th pote reupposion i ot beg presented a a song assumption. onesie constructions sch 2s his ea have a potential presupposition re he ha ext) wich can be presented tentatively ia expression such aot omething’ asin) [16] a. Whatthstguy doingin the parking for? B. Hes lokingforiscror someting 32 survey, Oe eee etait ‘has a car) as an assumed fact. tis worth remembering that itis _neverthe word or phrase that hase presupposition. cverthe word or nl sale Ordered entailments Generally speaking, entailment isnot a pragmatic concept (i. having ro do with speaker meaning), but instead is considered 2 purely logical concept, symbolized by It. Some examples of tntailment for the sentence in [17] are presented in (28) [a7] Roverchased cree squires [a8] a, Something chased thre squirrels Rover dd something to three squires «Rover chased thee of something. <. Something happened. In representing the relationship of entailment beewcen [17] and [8a] as p Il q, we have simply symbolized a logical con Sequence. Let us say that in uttering the sentence in [17], the Speaker is necessarily committed to the ruth ofa very lege num: berof background entaiments (only some of which ae presented in [18a-h]}. On any occasion of utterance [17], however, the speaker will indicate how these entailments are to be ordered ‘Thats the speaker will communicate, typically by stress, which cntailment is assumed to bein the foreground, ot moreimporeant for interpreting intended meaning than any others. For example, in uttering [198 the speaker indicates thatthe foreground ental iment, and hence her main assumption, is that Rover chased a certain aumber of squirrels 19] a, Roverchased THREE squirrels. by. ROVER chased theee squires In {igh the focus shifts t9 Roves, andthe main assumption is that something chased three squires. One function of siress in English is in this approach, clearly tied ro marking the m assumption ofthe spenker in producing an utterance. As such it allows the speaker to mark forthe listener what the focus ofthe ‘message i, and what is being asumed. 33‘A very similar function is exhibited by a structare called an ‘it- «lef construction in English, as shown in [20]. [20] a. Iewas ROVER that chased the squires '. Fewasn't ME who took your money. In both examples in (20, the speaker can communicate what he or she believes the listener may aleeady be thinking (i.e. the foregeound entailment). In [20b.] that foreground entailment {someone took your money) is being made the shared knowledge in order forthe denial of personal esponsibility to be made. The utterance in {2ob.] can be used to atrbute the foreground entail- iment othe listeners} without actually stating i (for example, as, 2 possible accusation). Iris one more example of more being com- ‘municated than isd 34 suave, 5 Cooperation and implicature In much of the preceding discussion, we have assumed that speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally ‘cooperating with ach other For example for reference to be su ‘cessful, twas proposed that collaboration was a necessary factor. Inaccepting speakers’ presuppositions listeners normally have co assume that a speaker who says ‘my cat really does have the ear that is mentioned and isn't trying to mislead the listener This sense of cooperation is simply one in which people having a com ‘vetstion are not normally assumed ro be tying to confust, trick, ‘or withhold relevant information from each other. In most cit- ‘cumstances, thiskind of cooperation is ony the starting point for ‘making sense of what isa. Tate middle oftheir lunch hous, one woman asks another how she likes the hamburger she is eating, and receives the answer inl [a] Ahamburgerisa hamburger From a putely logical perspective, the reply in [1] seems to have ro communicative value since it expresses something completly tbvious. The example in [1] and other apparently pointless expressions like “business is busines’ or ‘boys will be boys’ are «called tavtologes, If chy are used in conversation, clearly the Speaker intends to communicate more than ssid ‘When the listener hears the expression in (1, she fist has to assume that the speakers being cooperative and intends ro com ‘monicate something. That something must be more than just ‘what the words mean. Ie is an additional conveyed meaning, Called an implestre, By stating [], the speaker expects that the 3s36 ee ee ee ion thimpicai ned income Given the opprtniy to ease te humbure che speaker of i} has eponded without an evaiuatin, thus ne pice, i that she has no opinion, either pood or bad to expres Depending on other aspects of the cones, aldional rol atures fr example, the speaker hn al hamburgers ee the ‘ame might be infra, Inpaturesare primary examples of more being communicated thant ad bt inorder for them wo be erred, sone hase cooperative penile mi fist be assumed oben option The cooperative principle Consider the following scenario. There is woman siting on @ park bench and a large dog ying on the ground infront of the bench. Aman comes along and sts dawa onthe bench. [2] Man: Does your dog bite? Woman: No, (The man eaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites che man’s hand.) Man act Hey You sald youd doesnt Woman: Hedoct' Baha notny dog One ofthe problems inthis sensi aso do wit communica ‘on. pecially seems to be peblem vse 9y the mans ‘ssumcion tat more was commuted than was si broblem wth presupposition Beas the ssamption ie ose dog (ie e ‘woman has a Cooked ‘true for both speakers. The problem she man’ assumption hat hs question ‘bons yoo. Beran the womans aver Nb appyohecopir be, af he Fm he ma pp the wm ne ‘ids ess information than expected Inher words she mage be expe provide he infmaen sated inthe a fie OF outs if he had mented th information eat th soy wouldhtheas fan Forth event tbe fanny, he mosan sts Brel nlrmaio thane expected The conepof thee bring an expected amount of information provided in conversation fut oe aspect ofthe more feta idan that people involved in a conversation Wal On tT ot Shottee (Of couse, the woman na] may actually be india Seles oes nor wanttotakepartinany cooperaiveinera meAdahtheseanger) In mst ciamstanes, he ssampuon of coos sa paras tat can be ated 84 eager sete of concretion and aborted in four sub-panile, “ated mace, shown Table 5. cooperative principle: Make your conversational contrib ee cach nit request the stage st which tour, By the [Spd porpoe or drection of the eal exchange in which ou irecnesse. Themaxina Quantity + Make oarconson ifort eet purposes ofthe exchange 2 Dorota your onsibuton more informative thanis raed that ite aly Try t make your contribution on 1. Bonovey whale to ee 5 Do ota tat for whieh youack adequate even. Relation Berle Manner Be perspicuous. 1. Avot bacnty opr. 2 Avid anbigui. 3, Bet ved wnnecsary polity) 1 Reon quired (or the ‘abs 5.1 The cooperative principle (following Grice r975) as unstated asp is imponant to recopize these maxis Tome tvenconestons, We ssume i ropes oo Si guig to provide an appropriate amount of information MELEE RE roman in abe assume that they are ling the Sh eng rcramandtrngoesa cane Bee TEER are asumed in ocmal interaction, speakers nei meon them. Howes ther arecrain Kinds of exes ‘napster stomach ta they ay ben danger fot ly tensany woohoo pd a tele, ep ok Sen * COOPERATION AND IMPLICATORE pope nae 6G foe eprops —Ransp nang 78 adhering to the principles. These kinds of expressions are called hedges. Hedges ‘The imporcance ofthe maxim of avalty for cooperative intr tion in English may be best measured by the number of expres- sions we use to indicate that what we're saying may not be totally accurate, The intial phrases in (3a.-c) and the final phrase in [sd.] are nozes tothe listener regarding the accuracy ofthe main {3] a. As eas Throw they'ce married, '. Imay be mistaken, but [thought saw a wedding ring con her finger Tim not sure if tis right, but [heard it was secret ceremony in Hawaii 4. Hecouldetlive without hes, guess. “The conversational content fr the examples in [3] might be a recent rumor invavinga couple known othe speakers Cautious tots orto, ofthis type can also be wsed to show tha the Speaker sconsciousof the quanty maxim, sin che ini phrases in (each produced in the courte of speakers account of bet Ia] a. Asyou probably know, Lam tried of bugs. B Sovto cua fng story short, we grabbed our suf and «. Twon' bre you witha te dtl butt was anence- icin Markers ted tothe expectation of elevance (rom the maxim of reatn} canbe found in the middle of speakers alk when they $y thing ike"Oh, by the way" and go ono mention some poten Sal scone information dings comeraton, Speakers So seem wo ase expressions like ‘anyeay, or wel anyway indicate that they may have dried into a cusion of ome po. bly nonrlevant material and wan to sop. Some expresions which may acta hedges on the expectation of eevance ae shown asthe inal phrases [sae fom an ofiee meting, [5] 4. I don't know if cis is important, but some ofthe files ace missing. b, This may sound like a dumb question, but whose hand writing is thi Not to change the subject, bu i cis related to the budge The awareness of the expectations of manner may also lead speakers to produce hedges of the type shown in the initial ‘phrases in [62 heard during an account of crash [6] a. This may be a bie confused, but I remember being in a b. Vm nor sure if this makes sense, but the car had no Figs «& Tidon’s know if this is clear a all, but think the other car was reversing. All ofthese examples of hedges are good indications that che speakers are not only aware ofthe maxims, but that they want to show that they are trying to observe them. Perhaps such forms also communicate the speakers’ concern that their listeners judge them to be cooperative conversational partners. "There are, however, some ctcumstances where speakers may not follow the expectations ofthe cooperative principe. In cour: rooms and classrooms, witnesses and students are often called ‘upon to tell peopl things which ae already well-known to those ‘people (thereby violating the quantity maxim). Such specialized Frstiteional aks clearly diferent from conversation. However, even in conversation, a speaker may “apt ont” ofthe maxim expectations by using expressions like ‘No comment’ or "Mylipsare sealed” in esponse toa question. An interesting aspect of soch expressions i chat, although they are eypically not ‘as Informative a is required inthe contest, they are naturally nter- preted as communicating more than ssid (ue the speaker knows the answer). Ths ypical reaction (ve. there must be something “special het) ofitenes to any apparent violation of the maxims isscralythe key tothe notion of conversational implicature. 39eee ‘The basic assumption in conversation is that, unless otherwise indicated he participants ae adhering to the cooperative princi ple and the maxims. Inexample [7], Dexter may appeat to he vio. lating the requirements ofthe quantity maxim, I>] Charlene: thope you brought the bread and the cheese. Dexter: Ah; Ibroughe the bread, After hearing Dexter's response in {7], Chatlene has to assume ‘that Dexter is cooperating and not totally unaware of the quat tity maxim, But he didn’t meation the cheese I he had brought the cheese, he would say s0, because he would be adhering 0 the quantity maxim. He must intend that she infer that what is not mentioned was not brought. In this care, Denter has conveyed ‘more than he said va‘ conversational implcature. ‘We can represent the structure of what was said, with b (= bread) and (= cheese) asin [8]. Using the symbol +> foran impli- «ature, we can also represen the addtional conveyed meaning [8] Charlene: 6 & 2 Dexter, b (Note) leis importanto note that itis speakers who communicate mean= ‘ng via impicatures and ic is listeners who recognize those com- ‘municated meanings via inference. The inferences selected are "hose which wll preserve the assumption of cooperation. Generalized conversational implicatures Inthe cae of example 7, parca as represented in [20 Special tachgroun Knog of he conten of eee ‘Soured in ode to make se nec) inferences The sme proces of cleulting the implicate wil take pac Dose Ske Mary about invingher endl) and Cay 4 pay asin ga and gets the ely in [gh The oneal ‘tes om be ener pros of eninge pi tures thea asin (5 a Doobie: Did you nit Bland Cathy? (82) Mary Dinvhed Bell. (bsNore Sere arenas eer lz the adizonal conveyed meaning, asin [7] (09) kcal {runlued emerntonat imteetre. One common sample seececlves ay parse wh aide acl ofthe oe "in such spade and sch atin (ro These phrases “Srippuly repre cording othe genre comers Stl mpletuc that an Xo mtspeakerX- {ro} Twasitng ina aden on day. A chi loked over he fen. “Theimplearsin |.) thatthe geen andthe child mensions tthe pater ae eaated on he pee a he speaker me capae of ingore seni ie moreinfomate, ‘Fioming he quanty mai tea eo she wool haves ‘ypu a nyc "Amber af the generale onverainalmpicarres are communycommuncted nthe barsofasae of ales andar ‘Stuequn known ss sar mpeatrs. Scalar implicatures Cerin information's always commnicted by choosing word wich expees one ve om ek fas, Thi pari In obous in ter for expressing quanta sown ind tate eal where terms se sted rom the ighst othe low carvli {ua} dtvaye sen onetime Jen producing an werance, a speaker selects the word from Thea ahh the most informative and rofl quantity nd ual) nthe rcumatance ain [2- {rs} Tm studying igus and ve completed some ofthe tegied courses By choosing ‘som’ in [2] the speaker creates a implicate (poral Th one salar pate af utering (rl. The (ie sear mleatr is thay when any form na sae free, the neve ofa forms higher om he seale impli Med The fs sale in [21] hada, most, and "many higher2 than some’. Given the definition of scala implicture, it should follow that, in saying “some of the equited courses the speaker also creates other implicaruees for example, +> not most + not many). che speaker goes onto describe those linguistics courses as in [3] then we can identify some more scalar implicates. [3] They're sometimes really interesting By using ‘sometimes’ in [13], the speaker communicates, via mplicatue, the negative of formshigher on the scale of fequency (+> not always, +> nor often) ‘There are many scalar implicatures produced by the use of expressions that we may noc immediately consider tobe part of any sale. For example, the uterance of [x43] willbe interpreted 2s implicating “+> nor certain’ asa higher valve on the scale of “ikelihood”and(r4b,]*+> not must on a scale of obligation’ and “snot frozen’ ona scale of coldnes* x4] a. Tes possible thac they were delayed, b. This shouldbe stored in a cool place. ‘One noticeable feature of scalar implicatures is that when speakers correct themselves on some detail, asin [15] they typ ically cancel one ofthe scala implcatures, [13] L got some ofthis jewelry in Hong Kong—um actually [think got most of there, In 15h, the speaker initially implicates “> not most’ by saying ‘some’, bu then correct herself by actually asserting most. That final assertion is stil likely to be interpreted, however, with a scalar implicature (+> not al). Particularized conversational implicatures In he preceding examples, the implicarures have been calculated without special knowledge of any particular context. However ‘most ofthe time, our conversations ake place in very specificcon: texts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. Such inferences are requiced to work out the conveyed meanings which ‘sul from pariularzed conversational inplestres. Asan ilst tion, consider example [26], where Tom's response docs not appear on the surface to adhere to relevance. (A simply relevant ahewer would be"Yer or No") [16] Rick: Hey coming tthe wld party tonight? Tom: My parents ar ising In order to make Toms response relevant, Rick has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one cole stdent inthis seing expects another to have, Tom wil be spending that evening with Kis parcas and time spent with parents s quiet consequent > Tom nota pat) Because they are by fr the most common, parceled con- ‘ersatona implicates ae typical ust called impistre. A farther example, in which te speaker appears nt to adhere 1 {ico ou the maxim of mannes is presented 17) [17] Ann: Where are you going with he dog? Sam: Tothe VET. Inthe local context ofthese speakers, the dog is known te Cogne the word ve, an to hae beng taken ther, 0 Sam po dees a more elaborate, spelled out ules brie} version of his tressage,impliating that he doesn want the dog to know the Enswer tothe question jus asked. Tn}, Lela asst walled into Mary’ fe and nosced all the work on er dese Mary's response seme fou the maxim afeclevance. {18} Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? Mary: Leto go ge some cof. In oder to preserve the assumption of cooperation, Lela wil fave to infer some lea reason (Yor example, the boes may be neatby) why Mary makes an appareay aon-relevant remark ‘The iplatore bore is sentially that Mary canno anewer the ston inthat conte Yn addition to these lily prosaic examples of implicates, there ate oter more entertaining examples, cin [19] and [20 srhee te renponses intially appear to flout lvance {is} Ber Doyou ike icecream? Emie:Isthe Pope Catholic? Lass ook (eh ae Mp [os tvetin, X)p Rraeh 2}) Ny Het take, Kine fig ch BRU nan “py Ba ft! COOFERATION AND IMPLICATURE 43,‘ermie: Lo chickens have lips? In [15} Etnies response does not provide a ‘yes’ no" answer. Bere must assume that Erni x being cooperative, so fe considers Ernie Pope’ question and clearly the answer ix "Yes. So, the answer is known, but the nature of Eni’ responce also impli- cates that the answer tothe question was ‘Obviously, yes! An ‘ditional conveyed meaning in such a case i that, Because the answer was so obvious, the question did not need to be asked. Example [20] provides the same type of inferencing with an answer Of course not” as part ofthe implicature, Properties of conversational implicatures So facall the impietres we have consered have ben stated within conversation, wth the inferences being made By people who hear the urerance and stp to maintain the astmpeon Of cooperative interaction, Because these implicates ae pat of whats communicated and aot said speakers can slays deny that they intended to communicate such mean, Conversational impintres are enable, They can be expt devied or aerativel reinforce) in ferent way: Toke 4 simple trample anda npr aoc Stating a number, tha the speaker means omy tht number a shown nat [a1] Youhavewonfvedolrs! —_(4> ONLY Sve) As shown in [22] however ti quit easy for a speaker oso end the implicetre (o> onl) axing the expreeion atleast {22a orto cancel the implictre by ang fhe informs im oe following the expression ‘in ct [2ab oro enone theinplicatare with adonl information asin ase}, (22) a. You've won atleast fie dollast by You've won five dlls infact you've won et 6. You've won fedora four moe han one We have aleady noted with many ofthe previous examples that implcatares can be ealclated by the listeners via erence, In terms of thei defining properties, then, conversational 44 survey forced. None of these properties apply fo conventional implicat- Conventional implicatures eho stent Se ca a pete tc Sree nein Citueie meget Paste iar hanna bee see oe et ya fk et ere cme ghee ee b. He even helped tidy up afterwards. oT) sh Da ie aes : (+> p expected to be true later) b. NOT piserue 45Mee arena: ee hae Iemay be possible ro teat the so-called different ‘meanings’ of “and? in English (discussed in Chapter 1) a instances of eonven= tional impliature in different structures. When two statements ‘ontining static information ae joined by ‘an’ a in (26a, the implicarre is simply “in addition’ ‘plu’. When the two state ‘ments contain dynamic, action-elated information, a in (26h, ‘he implicatre of and? is ‘and then indicating sequence. [26] a. Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready 10 work, ', She pucon her clothes and eft the house. (98 q+>pplusa) (84,45 gafter) Because of the diffrent implcatures, the rwo parts of [26a,]can be reversed with tele difference in meaning, but there is a big change in meaning ifthe two parts of fash. Jare reversed. nf is one of the central concepts in pragmatics. An implicature i certainly 2 rims. example of more being communicated than is said, For those same linguists, another central concep in pragmatics isthe ‘observation that utterances perform ations, generally known as “speech ac Dre eo Dg: ftndd Oth ply Dat gn fbn. Bap ‘a jtinap Oh Lany Be peed pla Day dm in eae ee 6 Speech acts and events In attempting to express themselves, people donot only produce laverances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances. Ifyou work in a situation ‘where a boss has a great del of power, then the boss's utterance ofthe expression in [2] is more than usta statement. [i] You're red “The utterance [1 can be used ro perform the ac of ending your employment. However the actions performed by utterances do hot have to be as dramatic or as unpleasant as in [1]. The action an be quite pleasant, as in the compliment performed by [23], the acknowledgement of thanks in 3b.) the expression of sut- prise in [26 [2] 2. You're so delicious. Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech sets end, in English, are commonly given more specific labels, Such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, ot request. “These descriptive terms for different kind of speech acts aprly * to the speakers communicative intention in producing an uter- ance, The speaker normaly expect that his o her communica tive intention willbe recognized by che hearer. Both speaker and hearer are usualy helped inthis process by the circumstances surrounding che uteranee. These circumstances, including ther titerances, ar called the speech event. In many ways, it 8 the ”‘nature ofthe speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as performing a particular speech act. Ons winty day, the speaker reaches fora cup of tes, believing that it has been freshly made, rakes a sip, and produces the utterance in (3) Is likely tobe interpreted a a complaint. [3] Thisteaiseally cold (Changing the circumstances to a really hot summers day with the speaker being given a glass of iced tea by the hearer taking a sip and producing the werance in (3 itis likely tobe imerpreted as praise. IF the same utterance can be interpreted as two diferent kinds of speech act, then obviously no simple one uterance to one action correspondence willbe possible. It lso means that there is more ote interpretation of speech actthan canbe ound ‘Speech acts On any occson heaton ernmed by prodacingan uterace wel cont of tre reled ae Tri fist any ac, ‘hich hata: of wear pcnga ean hg gassieanresion. you tava wih thal forming the Sound and wordt o ese x neainghl uta engage tor example becaise foreign or your tongue hen you rig at produce locsonany ace Proto moo in Engl wl or orally coun a soca ac, whee (4) will. [a] Tvejust made some coffee. ‘mind. This isthe second dimension, or the Wecutinar se illocuionary act is performed via the communicative force of an uterance, We might ute [4] to make a sateme ion, ot for some other communicative purpose. This also generally known as the Meewtonary fore ofthe utterance. ‘We do not, ofcourse, simply ereate an utterance with a func sion without intending to have an effect. Thisisthethtd dimen= will utter [4} on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the Hfect you intended (for example, o account for a wonderful Smell, oro get the hearer to drink some coffee). Thisis also gener ally known as the procutionary effect. Of these three dimensions, the most discussed is illoctionary force. Indeed, the term ‘speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only te illocutionary force ofan utterance. “ ‘The Same locutionary act, ax shoven in sa.) can countas a prediction [sbel.a promise [e.}, ora warning [5d]. These different analyses [sbi] ofthe utterance in [58] represent differen illocutionacy forces {s) 2. Wilseeyoulater (=A) tipi that ©. [promise you that] A. 4. (lvaen you shat (One problem withthe examples in [5 is thatthe sme wterance an poentally have quite diferent locutionay forces (for ex- ample, promise versus warning). “Tat question has been addressed by considering two things! Ilocutionary Force Indicating Devices and felcty conditions IFIDs “The most obvious device for indicating the illocuionary force (the tocutonary Force Indleating Dove, or IF1) isan expression of thetype shown in 6] where there isa sot fora verb that explicitly names the illocutionary act being performed. Such a verb can be called peefomative ver (Vp). {61 1 vp} youthar.. Inthe preceding examples, [5¢.d., ‘promise’ and ‘warn’ would he the performative verbs and, if stated, would be very clear TFIDs, Speakers da not always “perform their speech acts so ‘explicitly, but they sometimes desribe the speech act being per formed, Imagine the telephone conversation in [7] between a ‘man trying to contact Mary, and Mary's frend, See "Lhe bes 48 sunveY sion, the act, Depending onthe circumstance, you oe SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 49,(] Him: Can [talk to Mary? Her: No, she's nochere Him: Tm asking you—can Italk co her? Her: And mteling you-SHE'S NOT HERE! In this scenario, each speaker has described, and drawn attention ‘0, theillocutionary force ask’ and tll’ ofceirurterances. ‘Most ofthe time, however, ther is no performative verb men- tioned. Other IFIDs which ean be identified are word order, stress, and intonation, as shown in the different versions of the same basic elements (Y-G) in [8]. [8] a. You'regoing! — [Itell you YG] 1. You'regoing? [request confirmation about Y-G} Areyougoing? —[Lask youif YG] While other devices, suchas lowered voice quality fora warn: ing ora threat, might be used to indicate ilocutionay force, the ttterance also has to be produced under certain conventional conditions to count as having the intended illocuionary fore. Felicity conditions There are certain expected or appropriate circumstances, tech ically known 25 felity conditions, for the performance of 2 speech act to be recognized as intended. For some clear cases, such as [a] the performance willbe inflcitous (inappropriate) if the speaker is aot a specific person in a special context (inthis «as, ajdgein a courtroom) {o] sentence yout six months in prison. In everyday contexts among ordinary people there are also pre ‘conditions on speech acts. There are genera eondtions on the par ticipants, for example, that they can understand the language being used and that che are not pay-actng or beng nonsensical ‘Then there ar content condtons, For example, for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance must be about 2 future event. A further conten condition for a promise equites thatthe future event wll be a ature act ofthe speaker, ‘The preparatory conditions fora promise are significantly difer- ent from those fora warning. When I promise to do something, se sunvey ther re two preparatory conditions: fist, the event will ot ha fn by ise, and second, the event wil have a beneficial ef, ‘When! uaera warning, here are the following preparatory cond sins ean cea hat the hearer Knows the event wll cut the speaker does think the event wil oe and the even willot have 2 beneficial effet. Related to these conditions the snety cond ton that, fra promise the speaker geninly intends tocarry out the future action, and, fora warning, the speaker genunaly believes that the future cren will orhavea beneficial effect, Finally hee is the essential candion, which covers the fact that by the actofueringa promise, herby intend to create an obligation o carryout the ation ax promised. In ater words the sierance changes my state from aon-obigtion to obligation. Simla, witha warning, under te esntil condition, che utr: ance changes my state from noninforming ofa bad fate event ‘to informing, This essential condition thus combines with a. ‘exiandthespcaker’ intentions inonderforaspacficspenchact the be appropriately (elicit med ‘The performative hypothesis ‘One way tothink about the speech ats being performed vi ute. ances sto assume that underlying every utterance (U) there isa clause, similar co (6] presented earlier, containing a performative ‘verb (Vp) owhich makes the illocuionary force explicit. This i known a the pertormative hypothesis and the basic forma ofthe underlying clause is shown in[r0]- {ro} I (hereby) Vp you (that) U In this clause, the subject must be frst person singulae(), followed by the adverb “hereby, indicating thatthe utterance nts 38” an action by being utered. There is also a perform _nive verb (Vp) in the presen tense and an indirect abject in see~ ‘ond person singular (‘you’) This underying clause will always make explicit, sin [12b, and [126], what, in utterances suchas [raJand {r2a.}isimpic. [21] a. Clean upthismesst B. Thereby order you that you clean up this mess. sebits thw jualniuttopnleerdeteun ste 8. theyll youtharte work mas doe by Blin and impel Examples ke [116 an [3b] normaly without “hereby ae sed by speakets 2s expe peromathe. Example like [ee] anu (1331) are kml prtormatves, sorntines called prima pertain ‘The advantage of thisype of ans ithat itmakes clause what clement ar involved in the production and nerpretton ofuteranes. nent, reflexive pronoun ike mse [2 ‘eit the ocurenc of am ntcedent i this case) win these sentence structure. The explicit performative in [12] provides the clement. Similar, when you sy to someone, Da i yourself the eeflexive in “yourself made posible he secant ‘You inthe exp version Toner you tha You doit Yourself), Another advantage isto show that some adc ach &s ‘hones or adverbial cues ach "because mayb ey 2s shown n [rss naturally atch othe expe pestonnatng ‘clause rather than the implicit version, ae {13} a. Honesty he's sound ' Whartimets it because may Be ate? 4n(r3a tis the telling part the performative verb thats being done ‘honestly’ and, in(x361 itis the at of asking (the perform again) hating usted bythe “case maybe ate There are some technical disadvancages to che performative hypothesis. For example, utering the explicit performative ver“ sion ofa command {r1b.] has a much more serous impact haa uttering the implicit version [rra.). The two versions ace con sequently not equivalent. Iris also dificult to know exactly what the performative verb (or verbs) might be for some uterances Although the speaker and hearer might recognize the utterance in [4a] as an insult would be very strange to have [rab] 25 an cexplicivesion. 24] a. You're dumber than a rock, », FIhereby insult you that you're dumber than a rock, Treaty racial probly with eny sai edo d- am eda rd Bag Sey Sh ny aa $2 sunvey ing explicit performatives is that, in principle, we simply do not how how many performative oe any lengage Inne of ying alc pore xpi prfomativs end then doringuh among all of them, some mae general ‘asians of types of speck act ate aly se ‘Speech act classification (One general classification system lists ive types of general fune- tions performed by speech acts: declarations, representatives, exprestves, directives, and commissves ns are those kinds of speech acts that chas world via their utterance, As the examples in (15) illustrate, the Speaker has t0 have a special institutional roe, ina specific con- text in order to perform a declaration appropriately. [15] a, Priest Inow pronounce you husband and wife. Bb. Refere: You're o «, Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty. ig beste ate op not Sttemets of fa 2 eT snpaon, a asad [eh ‘eallexamplsof the spake representing the world ate oshe ihcreira [v6] a. Thecathis fa &: Choma did't write abou peanuts © ewasa warmsinay doy. 7 i soak she wodld oe at sc ech acts t what seaker fers. They express psychological states and can be sate- ‘ens of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow. As illus tated in [27], they can be caused by something the speaker does forthe hearer does, bur they are about the speaker's experience. {o7] a. Uoceally sort by, Congratulations! Ob, ye, great, mmmm,ssahht eit en Nec eg Sssebet Sn eC ngts AND EVENTS. 53 yA mi le Ber a sn ue on ce tn peser oma ee‘4 In.using an expressive, the speaker makes fisting an expres the speaker makes words fithe wold mee eee ing They express what he speaker wants. They are commands, orders, requests, suggestions and, a3 itlastrated in 18] they canbe positive or negative, U8] a Gina acapofs Mal itlack, ld you Tend mea pon plese? ‘s Don’t touch that. Peon J aceth 2 -Sommmit themselves to some furure action, They express what speaker inten ha pom ese ae, ca ee een Alone orythespeakerasamemberagroups [as] a. Tilbe back, by imgoingo get right nex time. ¢ Wewilnordodhaee ive, the speaker undertakes to make the world F-7 er CT 777 Sead Tuntions of speech acs, with ther key fe tures, are summarized in Table 6.1. Direct and indirect speech acts A ferent approach ditingishng pe of psc cs can aalcothebtafsieue Atanas Eo te gna reso ech a provi Eg, thee bncsetene pps Asshown nol tat easy ‘copied eaonsip between the thecal fons deca iterative, imperative) an he te geal scvetunctons sent, question commaneace) foo] a, Youwearascitble delrtie) B. Dosouweeraset bck? Gmerogatie) € Weacaseatbehl imperat) Whenever theresa dict ltonshipberween race anda Speechactiype Direction offic Declarations wordechange theworldScauses X Representatives make wordsfitthe world Sbelieves X Exprestivesmakewordsfcthe world —SfeelsX Directives maketheworld ftwords wants X Commissives maketheworld icwords __Sintends X TABLE 6.1. The five general functions of speech acts following Searle 1979) function, we have @ rect speech act. Whenever there isan in- direct relationship betwee a structure anda function, wehave an Indirect speech act. Thus a declarative used to make a statement is Tiree speech act, but a declarative used to make a requests an indivect speech act. Asillsteatedin [21 the utterance in {233.is ‘declarative. When tis used to make a statement, as paraphrased fn anh: irs functioning a ditec speech act. When tis used to tnake a commandlreques, as paraphrased in [216 itis fonetion- ingas an indirect speech act. [en] a. I’scold outside, by hereby tell you about the weather ‘Thereby request of you that you close the door, Different structures can be used to accomplish the same basic function, asin [22}, where the speaker wants the addressee not to standin ont ofthe TV. The basic function ofall the utterances [ta] is command/reques, but ony ehe imperative structure in [haa] represents a direcr specch act. The interrogatve strvcture tn [22bl] snot being used only as @ question, hence it san i: ‘Sect speech act, The declarative stractars in [226] and (2241) Aare also indivect quests. [22] a. Move outof the way! '. Do you have to standin font of the TV? . You're standingin front of the TV. 4. You'd make a beter door than a window, ‘One of the most common types of indirect speech actin English, as shown in [23] has the form of an interrogative, bur is ssce eee Outen ataaaee eee answer, we expect action). The examples in [23} are normal understood as requests. ‘ _ [23] a, Could you paste sae b. Wouldyou open thst Indeed, there isa typical pattern in English whereby asking a question about the hearer’ assumed ability (Can you, “Could you?" of future likelihood with regard to doing something (Wil you, Would you?) normally counts as a request o actually do that something Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater liteness in English than direct speech acs, In order to under ‘stand why, we have ro look at a bigger picture than just a vngle ‘uterance performing a single speech act. ‘Speech events ‘We can treat an indirect request (for example, the utterances in (231) as beinga matter of asking whether the necessary conditions fora request ae in place. Fr example a preparatory condition ‘thatthe speaker assumes the hearer isableto, or CAN, perform the action. A content condition concerns future action, thatthe hearer ‘WILL peeform che ation. This patterns illstrated in 24) [a4] Indirect requests 4 Content Futureactof “WILL youdo X?* condition hearer (hearer WILL doX) by Preparatory Hearerisableto “CAN youdo XP" condition perform act (ehearer CAN doX) - «©: Questioning a hearer-based condition for making request results in an indirect request. There isa definite difference berween asking someone todo X and ‘asking someone ifthe preconditions for doing Xarein place ssn 56 sunvey lage.) Asking about. sthad eet an pontony he Speer on the hears ior accutane ipaker med eon a de eee cio econisanassteae as sag scsi eel abou one sen cope athe person todo something without risking efisl oF Ringoes Howeren this tp af stanton doesnot const ofa singe uterance, uaa ee a ier pra See prtiedakind fs ac aif eo -4-Ge we ation speech event _ sin hich incerta la wentional way 1assive SOME, It may include an obvious central speech act r event of compain= toch asl don't really like this’ asm a speech ing’, biel include exer werancsleading up ro and sb segue reacting that etal action, In mot cs a "equ? hoe made by means of a single speech act suddenly urer Requesting istypically a speech event, as illstratedin [25] [23] Him; Ob, Macy, 'm glad you'te here. Her: Whats up? Iean’t get my computer to work, Isibeoken? Ton think so. ‘What’ idoing? «don't know Fen useless with computes. ‘What kind sit? Isa Mac. Do you use them? Yeah. Him; Do youhavea minute? Her: Sure. Him: Ob, great Tea aee kao ee ean oo iotecr maa SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 578 ‘prevreques, she has tbe ted action, The ans ys is of speech events is clearly anott et way of studying. ummunicated than is said, 7 stag bow noe Tevet oe things we an do wh wor ad ejng ee et to pero sericea lunderstand how those actions are carried out and ted iv and interpret within speech evens, | i | 7 Politeness and interaction In much of the preceding discussion, the small-scale scenarios presented to illustrate language in use have been populated by people with virtally no socal lives. Yet, much of what we say, nda grat deal of what we communicate is determined by our Socal relationships linguistic interaction is necessarily a social ARS arf make sense of whats sain an incraction, wehave to look at various ce slosne one aaa Actors ae, and hence ar largely external factors, ee the ative status ofthe participants, based on socal values, ied ro such things as age and power For example, speakers who Soe themselves a lower status in English-speaking context end to matk social distance Between themselves and higher staros Speakers by using address forms that include a tile and st name, bat not the fst name (for example, Mrs Clinton, Mr Adams, Dr Dang). We take part in a wide range of interac bined byenermal ators dominant, such as amout move, daring is course, This may result for example, n partic pants moving from a title-pluslast name to a fist-name basis within che all coal factor are cypcally more selevant to participants whose social relationships are actualy in the proses of being worked out within the interaction, 38Both rvpes of factors, external and internal, have an influence 1 we ae interpreted. In ‘many cases, the interpretation goes beyond what we might have intended to convey and includes evaluations such as rude! and ‘inconsiderate’, or ‘considerate’ and “thoughtful” Recognizing. of such evaluations makes it very clear that more iS ‘being communicated than is said. The investigation of that impacts normally carved out in terms of politeness. Politeness tis posible to treat politeness asa fixed concept, as inthe idea of ‘polite social behavior’, or etiquette, within a culture. I is ao possible to specify a numberof different general principles for being police in social intecaction within a particular culture. Some ‘of these might inclade being tactful, generous, modest, and sym pathetic toward others. Let us assume that participants in an Interaction are generally aware that such norms and principles exist in the society at large. Within an interaction, however, there is arsowly specified type of politeness a¢ work. In order todescribeit, we need the concept of face Asa echnical term, fae means the public self-image of a per son, [tsfers 0 has emotional and socal sense of elf tha ever -pachas and expects evervone else 0 recognize, lene, in an interaction, can chen be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person's face, In this sens, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness for another person's face when that ther coms socially distant often described in terms of respect of deference. Showing the equivalent awareness when the ote i socially close is often described in terms of friendliness, cama rade or solidarity. The frst type might be found ina student's question to his teaches, shown as (ra, and a second type in the friend's question tothe same indvidaal, asin 1b. {2} a. Excuse me, Mr Buckingham, but can [talk to you fora b, Hey, Bucky, go minute? Iefollows from this type ofapproach that there willbe dfferent {kinds of politeness associated (and marked linguis Shamplon of telauve social datance or elosees. In mos eae teen asiy sesh ae weal Sane Serveen then and hence ther ace wan Face wants oh dc, aume tat the parcpns nadia a ee Ciing na comext vic ar reste tip ssh ico ah ese te Se a Se A oem al teteel Ah a meso aiid Tats Sapecradone rearing mage ts describe foe et eee cece pouibliy tat some action migh ito another’ fact, the ition might be intsnpected as a theea ean say something to lessen the possible shrest, (hiss. “speaker can say something 10 lessen the possible sheeat coe, where young neighbors paying ing sleep. One of hismusicveryloud and an older couple at tying: them, in [2], proposes a face threatening act and the other sug esr fae saving act {a} Him: Fm going o tll him to stop that awful note right Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if es going to stop soon because its geting it late and peopl need fo pettoslesp. Negative and positive face ‘When we attempt to save anothers face, we ean pay attention 0 ir negae face want other postive face wan A person ee need to be is Jependent have freedom of son, and notto be imposed on By others. The word ‘negative 66 here docs’ mean ‘ba’ just isa the opposite pole fom peste A peso’ pate face isthe need oe ace even hed, ches o be teatedar member ofthe same ro ato kay that his or her wants are shared by others. In simple terms, ney ative face isthe need to be independent and positive face fs the 4 ce svg act WRG ORGTSTS We POA AUT face wilted to show deference emphasis he portance ofthe cies time o concerns, and even include an apology fo the imposion or iteration. This als called neg onan ‘fice saving act which is concerned wih he persons ponte face wll tend to show soda empha tat bot speakers vrant the ane hig od tat hey haves common gol Tas {scaled pout pees Self and other: say nothing ‘One way to ste the relevance ofthe Op way oe he laonsip betwen these ees concepts and langue tae to tke’ age Event and map ou he diferent interpretations asscted wk Aiferent possible expresions sed within tht event, For exam ble you arta an portance plot tls plot your notebook to {ike nos, bt discover tha you dea have sytg tee ‘ith ou hk the enon sting ne oyu a pe slain. ths seen, you ate going to be SiS hc Peron nexto youtgometebe Obes, are seit hing ot Yen of couse, rummage bag eater siouly te Your pockets go beckino yout ag who veting wo y teh evade inenon tar your probe lb pe hy ang spouh nay of ay mt wor a does itsbecauethe ote fen anor Seach sak, anf} (3) Sale docking) Other ofers penBeresethis Many pope sem peter to have their needs copied ches without having texts thse nee langage hen the nels ae cgi ann a ence ‘communicated than was said. heeled ee ‘Say something: off and on record ven yu decide say somthing, ou don't actly hve ro Tor gnything You can (perkape ater your search through Saar amply produce a sttement ofthe ype in 4a.) Ua} a: Us Lorgot yp. i Hh, Lwondr where put my Pe. These, and otee similar types of statement, are not directly TELUS che oukee Te okercanact ifthe statements ave seta heen hard. They ae ech described as being of sen canal descriptions, hey might ered shit Stensgainc on offrecordrcement nay or may por succeed (aa Sees 28 ainga pen buf dcs wil be beeause more as Seencommuniated han vassud in conan to such of record watemens, you can dicetly adc the other 352 means of expressing your neds, These ‘ec sddefors are technically serie a5 bingo oar ‘The most dee approach, using imperative forms sucha tote Ish known 2 aiden cre The other person i iey ke torsomehing Is] 2. Givemea pen i Lendie yout pen “hese haldon record forms maybe followed by expressions ike ‘Fede and would you? mich serve ster the demand and Tele seach th al ic icmpeng equate the bald on fcord approach with iectcomaand fms mpestive). This woul be mileading ee mperrte lomo aren se y close fama without eiaterced as commands. Examples would bea frend of eee Sichigtoes, cn (en ortyingto belpyou. asin) {6} a. Havesome morecae. Gimme tac wet bret. Eiergncy sation also ocaion the ws of direc commands Bel of who being adiessed, a when ange romps use shee expresions inf Url a. Dontrouch that! Cetoucatheret 6direct command as a bald on record ¢ npropaate among social eqs weve, generally speaking ald on record expressions ae associated with pech evens wher the speaker ater ache or she has power over the other (or examples nay aoe texts) and can contol the others behavior wit words ines, day interaction between social equals such bald on seed beter wold pty een heath the face and woul generally be avoided, Aiding» Ice tecarning isaccomplithed by face saving acts whichasepostneeoes Poles ne MI pone or ogi See eee expression is considered Positive and negative politeness A postive pottonss strategy lead the requester to appeal toa common gal and even fendsip, va expresions aa oe os ini. [8] 4. How about letng me ue your pen? 8. He, buddy. appreciait f you'd let me we your a These on record expressions do represent a greater sis fr the speaker of uflering a refusal and maybe preseded by one {ng to kaow you" tally ofthe kind prontel ng} decks tablish the necessary common ground for this state. {5] Hi. How's ie going? Okay if st here? We mast be inter sted in the same crazy stuff. You take a lot of notes too, huh? Say, do me a big favor and le me use one of your pens. However, in most English-speaking concexts, a face saving act x ‘more commonly performed via 2 negative politeness strategy. The ‘mammal fom wed saquescon contigs modal ver sch [10] a. Could you lend me a pen? by Fe sorry to bother you, but ean I ask you fora pen or something? Tknow you're busy, but might Lask you item-—if you 64 sunver stot ploy forthe imposton, of hey shown in 9) Pe a anmmerrieetypetene kau forexample, Might atk?) 606]. On te phasing ‘The tendency to use postive politeness forms emphasing clos hes wer peer and earecanbeseenas ata sme ‘Tibnay bet principal peratingatsy among whole pup Fey eae dyin sed by an nial peer ona pari Towra igual, uh» sae wil nde personal formation, wie of nicknames, sometimes even abusive ers © , jalect or slang expres- rialny among als), and shared dal = (eben asada ey wile mathe ins Simca and Ter sin he party invation nx 6566 Seen ame How rope pen rom someone ee saysomehing say roshing Ubarseteh nba) oneecoed oftrecord (tg my ge i facesvingact ald on eond (ivemes pen) postive politenes ceptive politeness ‘Hlow afoutesing me use your pen?) (Could youlend mes pen) F1oURE 7.1 How to get.apen from someone else (following Brown and Levinson 1987) [3] Come on, ters goto the party. Everyone will be there We'llhave fan, “The tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing the hearers right to freedom, can be seen a8 9 deference stratogy. It ‘canbe the typical strategy ofa whole group or just an option used ‘ona particular occasion. A deference strategy i involved in what is called ‘formal politeness. Iris impersonal, a8 if nothing is shared, and can include expressions that refer to neither the speaker nor the hearer (for example, “Customers may not smoke haere, si’). The language associated with a deference strategy ‘emphasizes the speaker's and the hearers independence, marked via an absence of personal claims, asin (x2), am alternative ver- sion ofthe part invitation ia [x1 Ue] Thr going ro bes pry ifyou can mae tw be These general types of strategies are illustrated here via wtter- ances which are actually central to the speech event for example, invitation). Face saing behavior, however, is often at work well before such uterances are prodaced inthe form of pre-sequences, Pre-sequences As already suggested, the concept of face saving may be helpful in understanding how participants in an interaction inevitably ‘understand more chan is said. The basic assumption, from the pe. spective of politeness tha faces eypically a risk when the self needs co accomplish something involving other. The greatest risk ppearsto be when the other is putin dificult postion. One way fof avoiding risk sto provide an opportunity forthe other co halt the potentially risky act. For example ather than simply make a ‘teques, speakers will often fst produce what can be described as 4 proroquest, We already noted one example in discussing speech ‘vents eae atthe end of Chapter 6. Anotheris presented as [15], along with one analysis of che structure of his interaction. [15] Her: Areyou busy? re-request) Him: Not realy (= goahead) Hers Check overthismemo, (=request) Him: Okay. cept) The advantage of the pre-request element is that it can be answered either witha “go-ahead? eesponse, asin [x3], © witha “stop response asin [x4] 14] Him: Are you busy? Her: Oh, sorry. “Theresponsein (x4) allows the speaker 0 avoid making request that cannot be granted atthe time. Understanding that i is 2 response toa pre-equest also allows us to interpret the expres- sion sorry not only as an apology about being busy, but also as an apology about being unable to respond to the anticipated request. “There i, however, a general pattern of pre-requests actully being treated as requests and being responded ro, asin [x5], with the anstaed, hoped for) action being performed. [15] Hee: Do youhavea spare pen? Him: Here (hands over pen) ( prerequest) (stop) “This short-cut” process of going from pre-request ro granting of request helpsexplain the literal oddaess ofthe common pattern in ist oeee ee eee ee eee: Him: Yeah, sure ‘As literal response, "Yeah of Yeah, sur’ would be the equ- falen of do mind and would’ count as allowing use ofthe Phone. However these form are normally interpreted a {ive response, noo th prereques, but othe unstated equ. Peesequences ae abo commonly used in aking invitations. As illustrated in [17], with a ‘go ahead’, and [18], with a ‘stop’, invitees tend 0 ask a proton question and receivers tend ‘ecognie thei funtion [17] Him: Wharare youdoing this (= preinvtaion) Friday? Her: Hmm, nothingsofaz _(=go ahead) Him: Come overfor dinner. (winvitation) Her: Ob, alike that. =accept) 18] Him: Areyou ding ating Her: Ob, yeah. Busy, busy, busy. Him: Oh, okay (Children often use pr-announcements to check f thee parents are willing to pay attention, as in example [29] [9] Child: Mom, guess what happened? (=pre-announcement) Mother: (Silence) Child: Mom,youknow (= pre-announcement) what Mother: Not right now Jay, Pm busy. (= stop) In example [29], there are two presannouncements, neither of which receives a'go-ahead’. The initial pee-announcement is met with lence, which is generally interpreted as astop The childs second atemps must be based on an interpretation that the parent did not hear the fst atempe. The final response has to be inter: preted as a ‘stop’, but noticeably i is expressed, in face-saving ‘terms, as a postponement. ‘Throughout this discussion of politeness in interaction, we have been assuming a well-known and easily recognizable ‘68 survey POU teres teres rere reece tee ee ec aaa . yrtable familiarity with its Snalyzed because it is our comfortable : slttiy that allows great del to be communicated that is ever said. POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 69Conversation and preference structure ‘The previous chapter focused on aspects of social awareness which an have an impact on wit gts communicated by what i said ‘daring am interaction, The term ‘interaction’ could actualy apply toa very large number of quit different social encounters. For ‘example teacher talking to stadentsin a classroom isone kind of interaction; others include a doctor talking toa patient in cisic, tr individuals taking paren courtroom proceedings, attending & committee meeting, buyin stamps ate post office, and dozens of ‘other diferent experiences people have in which there i inerpe: sonal exchange of alk. The kind oftalks kel to difer according to the diffrent contexts of interaction. However, the structure of the ta, the baie pattern of speak—you speak—I speak—you speak’, will derive fom that fundamental kind of interaction we acquite frst and use most often, This isthe structure of conversa Sion. Conversation structure i what we have been assuming 2s familie throughout mach ofthe preceding discussion. Iris time to look more closely at that structure as crucial aspect of pragmatics. Conversation analysis ‘There are many mecaphors used to describe conversation struc ture. For some, conversation is ike a dance, with the conversa- tional partners coordinating their movements smoothly. For others it's like taffie crossing an intersection, involving loss of alternating movement without any crashes. However, the most ‘widely used analytic approach is based, not on dancing there'sn0 music) nor on traffic flow (there ate no trafic signals), bur on an analogy with the workings of a market economy.n See eee eee ee which canbe defined asthe right to speak. Having control of ths searce commodity at any time is called tur. In any situation where control i not fixed in advance, anyone an attempt to get control. This i called turmtahing. Because i sa form of social action, turn-taking operates in accordance with a local manage: ‘ment system thats conventionally known by members of» socal sroup. The local management system is essentially a set of cow Yentions for getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away, ‘This system is needed most at shore points where thet isa pose ible change in who has the ura. Any possible change-of-uea Point i called a Transition Relevance Ptce, or TRP. Within any Social group, here will be feaures of talk (or absence of talk) typ. ically associated with aTRP. This type of analytic metaphor provides us with a basic pr $pective in which speakers having a conversation are viewed as ‘aking tums at holding the loot They accomplish change of turn smoothly because they are aware ofthe local management sytem for aking those turns at an appropriate TRP. The metaphor can be applied to those conversations where speakers cooperate and stare the oor equal Ican alo ewido dsr thee co versations where speakers seem tobe in competition, fighting keep the floor and preventing others from getting i. These pat teens of conversational interaction difer substantially from one social group to another. In order to illustrate the system at work ‘we will focus on the conventions of one social group-—anidde «lass English speakers in public—while remaining aware that ‘other social groups wil have subsantaly different assumptions about the meaning of various features Pauses, overlaps, and backchannels ‘Most ofthe time, conversation consists of two, oF more, paticip nts taking turns, and only one participant speaking at any tne Smooth transitions from one speaker to the next seem to be val ued. Transitions with @ long silence between turns or with sub. Stantial overt (ie. both speakers trying to speak atthe same time) are fle 0 be awkward eavempt wersat 0 isno “ow th an ssid. There ia sense of distance, an absence of familia & ‘in the interaction shown in [1] between a student and his friends father during thie first meeting, [1] Me Strait: What's your major Dave? Daves English—well haven't relly decided ye. (picond seach (Me Strait: Somyou want to bea teacher? Daves No—not eally—wel nor if Tcan help it. (2.5 seconds) Me Stat: Whe—i! Where doyou— __goahead Dave: Imeanitsa—oh sorry /Tem— Asst ih ey spe md wa a tra estan: bor longer poe bcome lees SIC no renal ie peer bce ch ial urs oepeakr clr verte (Stsomerand thet des notes then see seaicscond per sotecome giant to sce. sowe the ames of Dae set pcends espa commoncstngsonelie Sl or Devetngung einer ‘ (2 seconds) Jans Bare Scent Jan; Dave—is something wrong? Dave: What? What's wrong? Jan: Nevermind. Silence ata TRP isnot as problematic for the local management system as overlap. Ifthe expectation tha only one person speaks a ‘Ttime then overlap can bea serious problem. Returing to example Until wotns itr overlaps, conventional marked Aoabl slat atthe beginning of he overanping kT, the a one osu ath speakers emp ite kf accordance wih heloel manage ptr one speaker wil top {wallow the other to have the floor Howeves fortwo speakers, tre having difficulty geting into a shared conversational rhythm, the stop-rtart-overlap-stop pater may be repeated. n™ ‘The ype of overlap shownin x issimplypartofa dificult ise conversation with an unfamiliar person. Tere are ocher kindof overlap and they are interpreted deren. For many (often Younge) speakers overlapped talk appens to function ike st {xpression of solidarity ot closness in expresing silat opin fons or ales. As shown in bh, the elec ofthe onan alk creates feling of wo voices alaboratingab one in farmony, [a] Min: Didyousee him inthe video? Wendy: Yeahthe parton he beach Min: "Ohm godi7hewas so sexy Wendy: was bing so cool Mins” Andallthe waves crashing atound hint Wendy Yeah het was relly wid In example (3} overlap communicates closeness. In example 4) overlap comminicats competion {4} Joe: when they were in i powerlas— Jessy: that pone said In example 4) the speakers may appar tobe having discus sion, But they rein fc, competing forthe floor The pone st whch overlap occurs is rested a an interuption and te Bat Speaker actually has to makes comment abou procedae (vith louder voice, shown by the capital lees in-CAN T FINISH) rather than abou therpi of emvesation iby wing tention an Cetin ta be sold be alloned ro fm he Sra speaker [4 appealing some of the unwed le of conversation aeucore Each poral speaker is expected to wait unt the curent speaker teaches ‘TRP. The mont obvious markers of TRP ae the end of ari. tara nit a phrase or clase) anda pause, Notice that inal the fise speaker has ured when they werein— athe pont ere the second speaker begins to tlk, Thete sno pate snd iis not the end ofa phrase or clase, Ths isa clear interruption and bres the les ‘Normally those who wish to get the flor wll wait fora poss ibe TRP before jumping, Of couse those holding the arias competitive environment wil avoid providing TRPs Too so, wwaie CAN I FINISH? they mus avid an open pause atthe end of syntactic unit As owned in [shthe speaker seach this paes om? oF uh which re pce nie, ox ate end of sarc nit ost Jrort ds tre, another pera atempedtotakethe foo Ste speaker ins] seems concerned protect sr) {was elking about—am bis rst book that was—ah . really just Tikes start and so—uh isn’t—doesn't count wal Another ypeotloc holding device isto indicate thar theresa larger stctre to your turn by epaning with expressions ofthe sypeshown in {6} a Thereare thre points ike omake—fis.. 1h Theres more than one way todo this—-one example weal Didnt you know about Mlvin?—oh ie was ls Cain 4 Dalyouhearabout Cindy new car2—she goin. The epresions in [6 ad eb] ae associated th dca safes on options wheres [ea fe ae pe ides sorting nal sy hey ate sed to gt he ela ‘change of ura process suspended and allow one speaker 0 ave anextended un, Within anextended ur however speakers Silleper bir convrational partners to indicat that thy are Sent. There are many diferent ways of doing ths icadng, cad ne me, and ote facial expression and gestures, bat Sicmosecommon vocal indcaon se clled beckett al simply peta, Some ofthese are presenti Marys con” ‘ibutoo 07 1) Gale you eyoarlng dan sie sateen Ma Eee Caler: beinerstedince dicoun Tm elking show beau May yeah Cale: itcanony sve youn toswichtoa cheaper esr Macy mm “Thesetypesofsigals us, yea’ mmm’ pond edbackr the cunt speaker ta the rca being rece. They n¢- aly inde ta these follwing and no objeto 0 776 suacuce of Dackchannels is typically interpreted as significant, During telephone conversations, the absence of backchaninel ay Prompt the speaker toaskifth listener ise here, During faceo- face interaction, the absence of backchannels may be interpreted 8 way of withholding agreement, leading to an inference of de agreement, Jn conversation, silences significant and wil be ites peed as meaningful Conversational style Many ofthe features which characterize the turntaking system of ‘conversation ae invested wih meaning by their users. Even within «broadly defined community of speakers, cere is often sulfiient ‘aration to cause potential misunderstanding. Fr example, some individuals expect tha participation ins conversation wl be very active that speaking rate will be relatively fast, with amos no pausing between turns, and with some overlap even completion, Of the others turn. This is one conversational syle. It has been What does the term ‘contest seem t refer toi tie text? If you have different concept of ‘context, how would you ‘evse thie paragraph to illustrate it more clearly? 92 READINGS (Bin what ways is the view of pragmatics tn this text simular to or diferent from the way pragmatics is defined in Text 1? Chapter 2 Debxis and distance Texts (CHARLES F1LLMoRE:Samta Crue Lectures on Deis. Indiana Universicy Linguistics lub 1975, pages 4o-2 ‘The most obvious place deicic terms in English ace the adverbs ‘here’ and ‘there’ and the demonstratives ‘thie’ and tha, along, with their plural forms; the most obvious time deere words ate adverbs lke ‘now’ or ‘today’. There are important distinctions in the uses of these and other deictic words which would ike us ro be clear about right away. Iwill frequently need to point out whether word or expression cha lam referring tocan be used in| fone or more of three different ways, and these Twill call gesteral, symbolic, and anaphoric. By the gesteral use ofa decic expres son Imean that use by which it can be propery interpreted only bbysomebody whois monitoring some physical aspect of the com ‘munication situation; bythe symbolic use ofa deictic expression T ‘mean that use whose interpretation involves merely knowing er tain aspects ofthe speech communication situation, whether this knowledge comes by current perception or not; and by the anaphoric use ofan expression l meaa that use which can be co rectly interpreted by knowing what other portion ofthe same i ‘course the expression is coreferential with. ‘can illustrate the distinction I'm talking about by taking the word ‘there’. Irhas al three uses. Its gestural use can be een in a Sentence lke, ‘Twant you to putitther'- You haveto know where the speaker i pointing inorder to know what place hei indicar- Ing, The symbolic use i exemplified inthe telephoner's utterance, “Is Johnny cher? This time we understand the word ‘there’ as meaning ‘in the place where you are’. An example of the anaphoric use of there’ is a sentence lke“ drove the car to the parking lot and left it there’ In that case the word refers to a place which had been identified earlier in the discourse, namely the parking lt. Take another example, this time one showing jst 93the distinction between the gestural and the symbolic us, If dur- ing my lecture you hear me use a phrase like this finger’, the chances are fairly good that you wil lookup to see wht ts that want you to see; you wll expect the word o be accompanied by 8 gesture or demonstration of some sor On the other han if you hear me use the phrase ‘this campus’, you donot need to look up, because you know my meaning to be the campus in which am now located’, and you happen to know where Lam. The for- mer isthe gestural use, the later the symbolic use, > Cam you transfer this discussion to temporal deixis (as described in Chapter 2), considering ‘then’ instead of there’) in gestural, symbolic, and anaphoric uses? > Given the three categories described here, which category seems to fitthe typical uses of deitc expressions such as yes terday' and tomorrow"? Place indications take par in che deictic system ofa language by virtue ofthe fact that for many locating expressions, the location of one, oranothe,or both, ofthe speech act patcipancanserveata spatial reference point. Sometimes all that means i that for an ‘expression which in a nondeictic use requires mention of «reference object, in its deictc use the reference object, taken tobe the speaker's body atthetime ofthe speech ac, simply goes ume tioned. Take, for example, the expression "upstaicr’. IF Isa, ‘Johnny lives upstairs’, you will understand me as meaning upstairs ‘ofthe place where Tam a the time Tsay the sentence, unless the immediately preceding discourse has provided some oer refer- nce point If say "Harey’lves nearby, the same can be sid. You will understand that Harz lives near tothe place where am when [say the sentence, again, except for the ase where a reference point has ben identified in che immediatly preceding discourse, > Isthe speaker’ body always the wumentioned reference point, 45 Fillmore suggests here? Consider the uses of worde like ‘front, back, ‘down (the street)’, above’, ‘outside’, and any shes tht sem tobe sia taps a narby te examples 94 READINGS Text (Quen siti fts“The mulipl ses ofndexials in Syese 78,1985, ages 182-3 “Lam in ase plac” is often used to nda thatthe speaker isin last place, Bu this sentence ako used ons namber of occasions to indicate chat somebody else isin lst pace | am watching 2 face andthe person upon whom Ihave bet, No. 20, ops the las place. am nat place" Texclaim in anguish 0 my compan- ion. My companion knows perfectly well what Lmean-—that the personupon hor bove bt isis place Indeed, she replies in ind, disagreeing with my statement. "No you aren! Look" she exclaims, pointing at No, 10, You ae passing No. > Canyou think of anyother contexts where isnot beliter- Aly imterpreted.as the person who is speaking’? © Docxamples suchas these mean that we ned anew definition ofthe meaning ofthe word Tn Enlist If es, what would Ihave 10 be in that defiition? If no, how would you explain thstypecf extra asaget Tots ‘GEOFEREY NUNBERG: ‘Indexicalty and dexis!in Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 1993. age 4 sw you might point ata picture of John Ashbery to identify his ‘moet recent book, using the demonstrative that, with no restric ‘ion onthe things you could say about it (94) Thatisin all he bookstores (on the top shelf temporarily ourof stock) [But while John Ashbeery might easly say of himself Tam in all she bookstores it would be od for him to say Lamon the top shelf or “Tam temporarily out of tock,’ unles could be supposed thatthe fact that an author's book wat on the top shelf or was temporarily ‘out of stock caried some noteworthy implications fr him, © Following om from hese examples, could you point t0 an ‘empty space on the bookshelf and and ask the owner of the bookstore ‘ls that out of stack? If yes, da we have 10 re formulate the definition of dei (ce. ‘pointing va language’) sehen there's nothing being pointed tot 9s> Why do you think the idea of ‘some noteworthy implications’ is mentioned inthis text? Does identifying the reference of Can the atributiv versus referential distinction be related to Fillmore’ distinction (Text 3) benween gestural, symbolic, ‘and anaphoric uses of deicic expressions? Text? MLA.K. HALLIDAY and RUQAIVA HASAN: Cohesion it English, Longman 1976, page 32 “There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference, in the specifi sense in which we are using the term her; that i 10 5a; instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference ro something else for their interpretation. In English these items are personals, demonstra- tives and comparatives ‘Weestart with an example ofeach: 8, Three blind mie, three blind mice. Seehow they run! See how they unt », Doctor Foster went to Gloucester ina shower of ran. “He steppedin a puddle right upto his middle and never went there again. «. There were two wrens upon a tree. Another came, and there were thre, In (a) they refers to three blind mice; in (b) there refers t0 Gloncestersinc) another refersto wrens 7‘These items are directives indicating that information isto be retrieved from elsewhere, So much they have in common with all, cohesive elements. What characterizes this particular type of cohesion, that which we are calling REFERENCE, isthe specific ‘nature ofthe information thats signalled for cetrieval Inthe ease of reerence the information to he retrieved isthe referential caning the ideniy ofthe particular thing or clas of things that isbeingfeferred to; andthe cohesion ies i the continuity of rel erence, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second In this analysis, the assumption is that certain words refer to other words. Do you think that this is a helpful or misleading assumption? Da you agree with the final statement that ‘the same thing “enters into the discourse a second time’? How about example (ch, where the analysis proposes tha the word ‘another’ refers to wrens’? 1 Ifthe word ‘there’ i (b) i am example of cohesion by refer. cence, is the word ‘there’ inthe second line of (2) the same? How do you decide? Is Donnellan’s distinction in Text 6 relevant to what these authorsare saying? Chapter 4 Presupposition and entaiment Texts ROBERT c.STALNAKER: ‘Pragmatic presupposition in ‘Milton Muniee and Peter Unger eds Semantics and Philosophy. New York University Press 1974, ages 199-200 Although it s normally inappropriate because unnecessary for tne to asert something that each of us assumes the other already believes, my assertions will ofcourse always have consequences which ate part ofthe common background. For example, ina context where we both know that my neighbor is an adult male, 98 REaDiNos [say ‘My neighbor isa bachelon? which, le us suppose, entail ‘thacheisadule and'male. might just aswell have sad my neigh- bor is unmarsied.’ The same information would have been con- ‘veyed (although the nuances might noe have been exactly the same). Thai, the increment of information, or of content, co2- veyed by the fest statement isthe same ae that conveyed by the second, Ifthe asserted proposition were accepted, and added to the common background, the resulting situation would be the same asf the second assertion were accepted and added tothe background. This notion of common background belie isthe frst approx: imation t the notion of pragmatic presupposition that I want (0 tse. A proposition Pisa pragmatic presupposition ofa speaker in augiven context just in cate the speaker assumes or believes that P assumes or believes that his addresse assumes or believes that P, and assumes oc believes that his addresse recognizes chat he is ‘making these assumptions, or as these belies Do you agree that the two utterances quoted inthe irs por: ‘graph would add exactly the same information to the com ‘mon background? According o the definition presented in the second para ‘raph, wouldit be correct, or no, say thata pragmatic pre- supposition is any belief of the speaker? (It may be helpful to Took again at Chapter 4, pages 25-301) © Can you think of circumstances where its not inappropriate for someone ‘to assert something that each of ws assumes the other aleady believes’? Tot ‘GERALD GAZDAK: Pragmatics. Implicatre, Presupposiion, ‘and Logical Form. Academic Press 1979, page 106 (63) Jobn got to safety before the boiler blew up. (66) John got tothe safety handle before the boiler blew up. If we assume in (66) that John's geting tothe safety handle pre” vented the boiler blowing up, then (66) does not, but (65) does+ presuppose that the boiler blew up. If we treat before as being ‘ambiguous’, then we are agai left with no principle for deciding 9tence. Note also that, if all presupposing constructions are Ambiguous, then the notion of fly or unaccepeaiity” inapplicable, since we wil always have an alternative reading ‘wth respect to which the sentence will be acceptable > How do you account forthe fact that “efore creates a pre- “supposition im example (63) but notin (66)? Can you tink of ther examples ohare the use of ‘before’ does, or does ot, lead toa presupposition? © Does ‘after’ work the same way? Should we define before? and ‘fer’ nov only as opposites, but also as creating diferent presuppositions? Chapter 5 Cooperation and implicature Tet10 PAUL GRICE: ‘Logic and conversation’ in P. Cole and JL ‘Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Act. Academic Press 1975,page 48, I would like to be able to think ofthe standard type of conversa sional practice not merely ae something that all or most do 16 act follow but as something that it is REASONABLE for us to follow, that we sHouLD Not abandon. For a time, I was ateracted by the idea that observance of the CP [co-operative principle] and the maxims, in a talk exchange, could be thought ‘fas a quasicontractual matter, with parallels ouside the realm of discourse. If you pass by when I am struggling with my ‘seanded cas, no doubt have some degre of expectation that you will offer help, bur once you join me in tinkering under the hood, my expectations become stronger and take more specific forms (inthe absence of indications that you are merely an incompetent smedaler) and talk exchanges seemed to me to exhibit, character istcaly, certain features tha jointly distinguish cooperative 1. The partcipanes have some common immediate getting a car mended; thei ultimate aims may, of course, be ‘car mended in order to drive off, leaving the other stranded. Incharacteristic talk exchanges, here isa common aim even if, as in an overthe-wall chat, itis x second order one, ‘namely that each party shoul, fr che time being, dently himself with the transitory conversational interests ofthe other + The contributions ofthe participants should be doveailed, ‘mutually dependent. 3 There is some sort of understanding which may be explicit, but which is often tacit) tha, other things being equal, the transaction should coatinue in appropriate style unless both parties are agreeable tha it should terminate, You do not just shove off or start doing something else But while some such quasi-contractual bass as this may apply t0 some cass, there are too many types of exchange, ike quarreling and letter writing, cht it fails to ft comfortably. Canyou spell ou why ‘quarreling and letter writing’ do not fit comfortably with the conditions presented bere? > What would you cll the three ‘features’ listed here if you were to make them into maxims for cooperative transactions? > Grice emphasizes the word ‘reasonable’ as he describes his consideration ofthe cooperative principle and bismaxims asa lind of contract. Would the cooperative principle, the ‘maxims, and the three features listed here be treated as ‘reasonable’ mall societies and cultures? Text a1 J-L-MORGAN: Two types of convention in indirect speech actin P. Cole (e,)Sytax and Semantics Volume 9 Pragmatics. Academic Press 1978, pages 277-8 Just above I presented eases involving particular expressions and the conventionalization oftheir use for certain implicatures, ain the cas of If you've seen one, you've seen them all ofthe original example, Can you pass the salt? I said i the later cate that it had become @ convention of usage to use this expression, with its eral meaning, to convey an implicature of request. The questionsnow ariss, can there be this kind of conventionalization of rules ff conversion? [think there can. For example itis more or less Conventional to challenge the wisdom of a suggested course of ‘ction by questioning the mental health ofthe suggestor, by ANY appropriate linguistic means, as in (37) Areyou crazy? (58) Have you lost your mind? (39) Are you out of your gourd? and so on, Most Americans have two or thee stock expressions Usable answers to obvious questions, a in: (40) Is the Pope Catholic? (4x) Do bagels wear bikinis? ‘But for some speakers the convention does not specify a particu lar expression, and new ones are manufactured as they are needed. It seems that here a schema forimplicatre has been con- ‘entionalized: Answer an obvious yesino question by replying ‘with another question whose answer i very obvious and the same asthe answer You intend to convey. ‘ina similar way, most speakers havea small number of expres- sions usable as replies to assertions, wich the implicate thatthe ‘assertion i transparently fase—(43), for example: (42) Yes and I'm Marie the Queen of Romania But again, for some speakers the convention specifies only 2 general strategy, rather than a particular expression: To convey that an assertion is transparently false, reply with another asser- tion even more transparently false, > Doyou know any ather ‘stock expressions for these types of ‘occasions (request, challenge, answer t0 obvious questions, reply toa false assertion)? How would you explain (to some- tne learning English as a foreign language, for example) how to work out the communicated meaning from the literal ‘meaning? [> The author uses the term ‘convention’ in talking about the kinds of mplicatures involved here. Do you think that the ‘examples presented here can be analyzed in terms of conven ‘oma implicature (as discussed m Chapters, pages 45-6)? > What do you think about the idea that an implicature may begin by being based on inference, but an become so conven tionalized that no one has to make the inference any more? Is that the same process as we use i interpreting idioms? Chapter 6 ‘Speech acts and events Yet22 JOHN SEARLE: Speech Acts, Cambridge University ress 196, pages 38-9 ‘One crucial distinction berween promises on the one hand and threats onthe other is that a promise is 2 pledge to do something, for you, not to you; but a threat isa pledge to do something you, not for you. A promise is defective if the thing promised is something the promisee does not want done; and i is further defective i the promisor does not believe the promisee wants i done, since a non-defective promise must be intended 5 2 promise and not asa threat oF Warning, Furthermore a promise unlike an invitation, normally requires some sort of occasion of situation that calls forthe promise. A crucial feature of such occa- sions or situations seems toe tha the promisee wishes (needs, desires et chat something be done, andthe promisorisaware of this wish (need, desire ee). chink both halves ofthis double condition are necessary in order to avoid fairly obvious counter examples. This paragraph lists several required features for a speech act 40 count asa promise. Do you agree that all these features are necessary? Ave other crucial features not included here? One can, however, think of apparent counterexamples to this condition as stated. Suppose I say ro a lazy student, ‘lf you don’t hand in your paper on time I promise you I wil give you failing trade in the cours’ Is cis utterance a promise? Lam inclined to think nots we would more naturally describe it asa warning of possibly even a threat. But why, then, is it possible to use the Focution I promis’ in such a case? think we use it here becanse “Vpromise’ and ‘I hereby promise’ are among the strongest 103illocutionary force indicating devices for commitment provided by the English language. For that reason we often use these expressions in the performance of speech acts which are not Sercly speaking promises, but in which we wish to emphasize che degre of our commitment. To illustrate this, consider another apparent counter-example to the analysis along different lines Sometimes one hears people say ‘I promise’ when making an emphatic assertion, Suppose, for example, | accuse you of having stolen che money s8y,"You stole that money, didn’ you?’ You reply, ‘No, I didn't, I promise you I didn't Did you make a ‘promise inthis case? I ind it very unnatural to describe your utterance as a promise. This utterance would be more aptly described as an emphatic denial, and we can explain the occur- rence of the illocutionary force indicating device ‘I promise’ as derivative from genuine promises and serving here as an expres sion adding emphasis to your denial. > Do you agree that having used the words ‘I promise’, you could later claim that ‘strictly speaking” you did wot make a Promise because you meant something else? > What seem to be the conditions for am uttrance containing the IFID ‘I promise’ to serve as an emphatic denial? > Isthe recognition of speech act conditions related at allo the cooperative principle a discussed in Text ro (Itmay be help- fulta refer tothe discussion of felicity conditions in Chapter , pages 50-1) Teta (GEOFFREY LeKcH: Principles of Pragmatics, ‘Longman 1983, pages 177-8 In referring to human conversational behavior, as to other areas ‘of experience, our language provides us with categorical dstinc- tions. Bur its to commit a findamental and obvious error to assume that che distinctions made by our vocabulary necessarily exist in reality. Language provides us with verbs like order, ‘request, beg, plead, just a it provides us with nouns ike puddle, pond, lake, ea, ocean. But we should no more assume that there fare in pragmatic reality distinct categories such as orders and 04 READINGS - en aryeielalemepnial lel ed are emma apendbppemt cegories such as puddles, ponds and lakes. Somehow, thi assump- sion slips unnoticed into Searle's introduction to his taxonomy: ‘What are the criteria by which we can tll hat of three actual vurterances one isa report, one a prediction and one a promise? In order to develop higher order genera, we mus fist know hhow the species promise, prediction, report, etc. differ from fone anothee. (Searle, J. 1979.: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge (Cambridge Universiey Press, page 2.) Bur it would be strikingly inappropriate if one were to begin a treatise on expanses of water on the world’s surface in this way: ‘What are the criteria by which we can tll that of three actual expanses of water, one isa puddle, one a pond, and one a lake? In order to develop higher order genera, we must fst know how the species puddle, pond, and lake differ from one another Indefence of Searle could be argued, ist, thatthe comparison is unfair: fone had chosen monkeys and giraffes (ay) instead of ponds and puddles, the example would have been les ridiculous. ‘Bur my replys (a that one has no right in advance to assume that such categories exist neal (although one might discover them by observation; and (b that in actuality, when one does observe them, illocuions are in many respects more ike puddles and ponds than lke monkeys and grafes: they ae, that so say di Fingushed by continuous rather than by discrete characteristics What exactly is the argument being presented here against the idea tat we can identify speech act.asa prediction or mot? > What would distinguish the definition ofa puddle, Lech’ vies from the Kind of dentin of «promise presented in > Do you think that Lech’s argument is based on an important issue, oF just a minor point? How do you think Searle would respond to this criticism from Leech? 105Chapter 7 Politeness and interaction Text 14 omin LAKOF#: Talking Power. The Politics of Language. Basic Books 1990, pages 34, 36,38 Indirectness can function as a form of politeness. Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the porential for confit and confrontation inher- cntin all human interchange, We ike to think of conversation 2s conflictfre, with speakers normally being able co satisfy one another's needs and interests, But, in face we enter every conver sation—indeed, every kind of dicourse—with some personal Can you think of other examples of distance politeness an age use? > Can you think of situations oF special circumstances where the typeof distance politeness, as defined bere, 3s ignored? {es een wo realize tha camaraderie can be conventional ‘someone unaccustomed to conventional camaraderie wll take eas genuine arising out oflog acquaintance andthe devlop- ‘ment of mutual iking and eust Modern camaraderie probably Began in California san outgrowth ofthe human poten move spent ofthe 1960s and 19705 For awhile was a ane to vsing Fasteners, who were confounded by the Califor’ appearance of good fellowship and deep caring: the immediate fest naming, touching looking deep into the ey and asking ray caring ques tions: ‘Are you really happy with yout lf? To the propely broughe-up Easterner such behave was permisible only afer Year of carning it and maybe not then Easterners fl noone of Several schools of thought about the character of Californians: citer thathey bathe impbciy of children and shouldbe patron ized; or tht they were rough frontier sont, probably raised by ‘wolves and you know how woles ae); ar that they were rly ‘wonderful people who could get to know you as wel afer to Seconds as would take mos of us etme. Alf these aitudes assumed, of course, thatthe camaraderie was real rather than conventional What examples of language use would you predic or bave ‘you experienced) as representative of ‘conventional cama radeve'ncontrastto distance politeness’?‘Text 15 ‘anareLe easreR: Politeness'in RE. Asher (ed): ‘The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume 6. Pergamon 1994, page 3209, Some types of linguistic action are carried out more frequently in some cultures than in others. Hearerbenefcial act such as com plimenting and thanking occur more regularly in some Western ‘contexts (the USA) than in some Asian cultures (e, main- land China), electing both the stong positive politeness orienta sion and reluctance to impose on others in mainstream American ‘culture, on the one hand, andthe assumption, in Cina, that par Kicipants act according to thei social postions and associated roles and obligation, on the other. Also, hearercostly acts such as refusals are perceived as being more socaly offensive by Japanese sand Chinese interocutors snd thus tend to be avoided, whereas it fcems more consistent with American interlocutor right 10 sel Can you think of other “bearer beneficial acts and other “hearercostly act? For example, what is an imitation oF complaint? Is vt possible thatthe concepts of "ost and “benefit may be cutwaly determined? There sa suggestion in this tex that people in the USA are smore concerned with ther rights as individuals than with {ei soil roles and obligations. Woat kindof evidence from Language bebavior would you look for m order to decide wheter this suggestions treo nt? > Can you characterize the normal bebavior of your own social group as having more ‘hearer-beneial acts? What aboxt “pearercoity’ ate Ate ther other social groups with whom om share the same language, but whose pltnessrateies {appear tobe diferent? > Where does Lakofs ‘conventional camaraderie’ Text 14 fit sto the dstincton that Kasper smaling here? 208 READINGS . Text 16 PENELOPE BROWN and STEPHEN LEVINSON: Politeness (Cambridge University Press 1987, page 28 In language the constraints are more on form than on content (or at least form provides « more feasible area of study), The ways in ‘which messages are hedged, hinted, made deferential, and embed dedin discourse structures then become crucial areas of rudy. But such areas are also the concern of pragmatics, the study ofthe systematic relation of a language to context. The special interest, ‘of sacolingustice in our view is in the differential use of such pragmatic resources by different categories of speakers in differ ‘ent situations. It i in this way that we derive our slogan ‘Sociolinguistics should be applied pragmatics.” > Dosowagree with the assumption that pragmatics comes first ‘and then is ‘applied tothe socal use of language, oF should it be the other way round? > Notice thatthe concepts of ‘hedge’ and ‘hint’ are used here. Recall the use of hedges’ on implicatures in Chapters, pages 38-9 (which themselves may be termed ‘bints’); would such phenomena in the use of language be better analyzed as ‘aspects of poltenes? Is pragmatics really just the study of ki ‘istic politeness? > Does the ‘slogan’ at the end of this text provide a better (or wore perpecteon pragmatics than thos fered in Tet Chapter 8 Conversation and preference structure Yeti7 MARVEY SACKS: Lectures om Conversation. Volume 1. Blackwell 1992, pages 3-4 start off by giving some quotations (1) A: Hell, B: Helo. (2) A: This is Mr Smith may Ihelp you 1B: Yes, this is Mr Brown, 109(3) AsThis is Mr Smith may [help you B: Ican'vhear you. As This is Mr Smith. B: Smith. These are some first exchanges in telephone conversations co lected at an emergency peychiatei hospital. Tey are occuring [between persons who haven' talked to each other before. One of them, A, staff member of this psychiatric hospital. B can be cither somebody calling about themselves, tats t0 sayin trouble inne way or another or somebody calling about somebody else. Thavea large collection ofthese conversations and I got stared looking at these frst exchanges as follows. A series of persons ‘who called this place would not give ther names. The hospital's concern was, can anything be done about it? One question I ‘wanted o address was, where in the course ofthe conversation could you tll that somebody would nor give their name? So 1 began to look atthe materials. teas in fact on che bass of that ‘question that began to try to dealin detail withconvesations. found something that struck me as fairly interesting quite carly, And that was that ifthe sta member usedThieis Mr Smith may I help you’ as their opening line, then overwhelmingly, any’ answer other than "Yes, this is Mr Beoven (for example, ‘Iean't hear you, I don’t know How do you spel your name) meant that you would have serious trouble getting the ealler’s name, if ‘you gotthe name all. ‘Looking at the fist exchange compared tothe second, we can bestruck by two things. First of all there scemsco bea it between what the fist person who speaks uses as their reting, and what the person who is given that greeting rtuens So that if A says, "Hill, then B tends to say “Hello.” IFA says This is Me Smith may Thelp you, Bends to say "Yes, this is Mr Brown.’ We ean say there's a procedural rue there, that a person who speaks first in 3 telephone conversation can choose ther form of address, and in choosing thee form of address they can thereby choose the form ‘ofaddres the other uses > Do you think thatthe ‘procedural rule’ presented here aplies toall fist exchanger in telephone converetions? D> Gam you desribe this ‘procedural ral” in terms of preference structure (as outlined in Chapter 8, pages 78-82) by including example (3)iryour analysis? © What advantages and disadvantages do you think there are in using telephone data asthe bass for analyzing how conversa: tion works? Tet 18 SACKS, E.SCHEGLOFF, and. JEFFERSON:‘A simplest systematics for the organization of tuen-taking in converss- tion’ in Larguage s0, 1974, pages 700-1, To merit serious consideration, it seems tous, a mode should be capable of accommodating (ie, either be compatible with, or allow the derivation of he following grossly apparent facts, ka any conversation, we observe the following: (2) Speaker-change recurs, or at lease occurs. (2) Overwhelmingly, one parry talks aa time. (5) Occurrences of more than one speaker ta time arecom- son, bat brief ‘Transitions (from one turn toa next) with no gap and n0 ‘overlap ate common. Together with transitions charac: terized by gh gap or sh ovr, they make up the vast majority of transitions. (3) Turn orderis not fixed, but varies. 6) Turnsizeis not fixed, bu vaies. (7) Length of conversation ie not specified in advance (8), What partes say is not specified in advance. (o) Relative distribution of turnsis not specified in advance (10) Number of parties can vary (11) Tallccan be continuous or dscontinous. (12) Turnallocatin techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may selectanext speaker (as when be addresses 2 {question to another party); or partis may selfselect in starting to alk (13) Various ‘turn-constructional units are employed ef turns can be projected ‘one word long’ 0 they can be sententil in length (14) Repair mechanisms exis for dealing with tuen-taking errors and violations; eg, ifewo partis find themselvesSEES eager EEE ‘urely, hus repairing the trouble. Cam yow divide these fourteen statements into two groups~ ‘one tbat applies 10 all conversations and ome that apples to ‘omy some conversations in some contexts? What kinds of situations or people appear to create exceptions? Should these statements be restricted 0 amy conversation that i middle-clazs American aed basically friendly? Can you think of different factors such as social class, culture, ethnic- tty relationship, age—or any others that will have an effect on bow twrn-taking proceeds? Text 39 JACK BILMES: Discourse and Behavior Plenum Press 1986, page 166 Consider the following exchange: A [addressing Bl: Where are you going? B [no sponse) A The ell with you. “This exchange makes sens. Ie is orderly, not random, We may characterize Bs (non)response with an infinite variety of neg~ tives Ir not a question, not a promise, nota lecture, and so forth. Howeves, given that questions call for answers, itis rler- Why do you think the word ‘relevantly’ i emphasized inthis text? Does this mean that every (non)response" counts as relevantly not something in conversation? > Gonsider what speaker A says in reaction 10 the ‘nonresponse’. What kind of speech actis this? Does this satterance tellus anything about the relationship between the 0 speakers (ie. strangers, acquaintances, or intimates)? Discourse and culture ‘ext20 JOHN GUMPERZ and JENNY COOK-CUMPERZ: “Inicoduction: language andthe communication of social identity’ in J. Gumper (ed): Language and Social Identity. (Cambridge Universi Press 1982, page 12 Although the pragmatic conditions of communicative tasks are + theoretically taken to be niversl the realizations ofthese tasks as social practices are culturally variable. Ths variation ean be ‘analyzed from several different perspectives, all of which of ‘course co-occur in the actual practices. (1) Different cultural assumptions about the situation and about appropriate behavior and intentions within it (2) Differene ways of structuring information or an argument Different ways of speaking: the use of a different set of unconscious linguistic conventions (suchas tone of voice) +0 emphasize, to signal local connections and to indicate the significance of what is being said in terms of overall meaning and attitudes. By ‘iferen cultural assumption’ we refer to the fat that, even though people in situations such as we study agree on the overall purpose ofthe interaction, there ae often radial differences 25:0 ‘what expectations and rights are involved atany one time. i Theres a suggestion here that ‘pragmatic conditions’ can be treated as ‘universal’ (ie. applicable everywhere). Can you suggest some examples of pragmatic univesals? How about ‘Be polite’? Any others? D> Can you think of any examples that would support the idea ‘hat ‘appropriate behavior differs in diffrent cultures (prag- ‘matically speaking)? > Do you agree with these authors that chere are different ways of structuring an argument”? How i an argument structured in English? How could ibe structured any other way? a5Tost.21 Jnr roms: ‘Cros clara pragmatic alre'in [plied Linguistics 0983, 058005 “Free goods are thos whic, ina give situation, anyone can use st en prin erm riding of cots that you are avin meal in tha rextar {Band haven simply wandered in fom he ect ith Bagot ihandchip), Generally peaking, what nina eardeas “re goods vanes according to tlationships and sioatin. In cnet own family or hme, mos things (ood, dink, books, Bats) ae fe goods. na stanger’s howe they are not Cros falar too perceptions of hat costes ie” 0 "early fre goods dies In Brisa, matches ae "early feo one oul no uses particulary elaborate polenessratey © Teauest ne een ofa total strange Inthe Soviet Union gates frvabo ral ret’ anda equ forthem demands an eqaly iinimal age of poltenes sach a Date sigaret ge (ne) & igure) A Rossin requesting 4 cigarete i thi county and ing nul stategy woold eer have wronly encoded the Sinount of poltencs ae tended cove grammatical or agar igus fare) or eriously misjudged these of impostion (socopragmati fare > Theauthr swing nthe cour) about Britain Do you thet cua nsaine enantio feral cnmponcnt of estaurant sept? Ina fay context, dhs you ape tat ‘most hing are rested as fre goods? {What about ter cates youre fair with? > Theexamplsin ths ext are physical obec There ae aio ull differences shat nd of information contdeed ‘ec oode What constant are here iv cares you are familiar with, on asking people about certain topics (for Ecample, their politial ews, religion, marl states, ‘tcome, cs ofthe posession, bathroom bebaio sexual practices > What do you think the distinction betwen the two kind of aie (prgmalngutc and scloprapmatic) decribed hee? sq READINGS Text 22 DEBORAH TANNEN: You Just Don't Understand, Wim, Morrow 1990, page 42 ‘woman wa eine why a longer lainship aden She recounted recurrent aad prea conversation, She nd che tan sh lived with Bad gerd tase would both be fe bat ‘hey would nt do anything to bur exch one: When the man began to sleep with other women she protested, and he wat incensed ate protest. Theiconveston wen ike th Sut: How can youdotht when ouknow ts hrtig me? HE: Howean yout tol my feedom? Sit: Buvitmaee meee awh Hes You se yng o manip me (On one level, thisis simply an example ofa clash of will: What he wanted conflicted with what she wanted. But ina fundamental way, reflects the difference in focus Ihave been describing. In arguing for his point of view, the Key isue for this man was his independence his freedom of action. The key sue forthe woman ‘was their imerdependence—how sthat he did made her fel. He interpreted her insistence on their interdependence as “manipul ‘ion’ She was using her feelings to contol his behavior, > Do you agree with the analysis presented here? Are there other implicatures possible from achat i said nthe dialog? We are used 10 thinking tha the term ‘cross-cultural will apply to people from different countries st appropriate to think ofthe interactions between males and females within ‘ome country (sharing alot ofone culture) asa site for he study ‘of cross-cultural pragmatics What kinds of diferences might beworthy of moestigation? > nsSECTION 3 References The references which follow can be classified into introductory level marked w29), more advanced and consequently more tech= sical (marked mmc), and specialized, very demanding (marked Chapter 1 Definitions and background STEVEN Davis (ed: Pragmatics. A Reader Oxford University Press 1991 ‘This isa collection of thiry-five papers, originally published in journals dealing maialy with philosophical issues in the recent history of pragmatis. ‘OFORGIA GREDN: Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Laweence Erlbaum 1989 ‘This isan introduction which focuses on linguistic pragmatics as “the stady of understanding intentional human action’, with a stcongemiphasis on grammatic GEOFFREY LEECH: Principles of Pragmatics. Longman 1983 ‘This introductory text presents a shetorical model of attempting to describe ‘principles and maxims of good com: nysmunicaive behaviour’. Pragmatics is defined as ‘the stay of how tterances have meanings i situations, with an emphasis onthe analysis of politeness STEPHEN LEVINSON: Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press 1983 ‘This widely used introductory text offers several different definitions of pragmatic and pretents‘an overview of some ofthe central tasks that pragmatcists wrestle with. The emphasis ison linguistic and philosophical issues. Jacos Mey: Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell 1993 “This is a comprehensive intcoduction to pragmatics as ‘the study cof the conditions of human language use as these are determined by the context of sciey’ Theres strong emphasis on the ways In which society's institutions govern the use of language. JAN NUS and JEF VERSCHUEREN (eds): ‘A Comprehensive Bibliography of Pragmatic, Volumes 1-4. John Benjamins 1987 “This remarkable resource provides a wide range of references “The very useful diagrams inthe Subject Index (pages 51-69) act asa guide to the wide areas of study covered by pragmatics. Chapter 2 Delxis and distance STEPHEN ANDERSON and EDWARD KEENAN: ‘Deixis'in ‘Timothy Shopen (ed): Language Typology and Syntactic Deseription. Volume 32 Grammatical Categories andthe Lexicon. Cambridge University Press 1985 “This paper presents a review of the range of deitic expressions sed in a wide variety of languages. 18 REFERENCES ROBERT JAfVELLA and WOLFGANG KLEIN eds) Speech, Place and Action: Studies m Desc ond Related Topi John Wiley 8 Sons 1983 ‘Thin colcion of Seen papers on ferent aspects of dics by both linguists and prychologivts, incorporating suds on dtixis andthe bind in th sign language othe Get. Jon tvs: Naural Language and Universal Grammar Cambridge University Pes i931 Chapters 8 and 9 in this collection of essays provide a loc of insights into the nature of dei Roctn waLes:‘Deixin. Fletcher and M. Garman ed) aauage Acaustion andedn) Cambridge Unversity Pes 1986 ‘This is a review paper covering seis ofthe fst appearance and development of dite forms inthe eal language of Youn children, ae JunorN wrisseNnonw and Wourcasc KLEIN (ed: Here and There: Cross lust euies on Deis and Demonstration Job Benjamins 1982 ‘This isa colton of fourteen papers on ifeent types of dss ina wide rangeof languages Chapter 3 Reference and inference [HERBERT CLARK and DEANNA WitkES-GiBBSt Referring asa collaborative process in Cognition 23, 986 ‘This importane paper presents evidence for the ways in which speakers in conversation collaborate ro create relersing expressions x9(cites PaucoNNtER: Mental Spaces. Cambridge University Press 1994 ‘hiss very orginal approach to the ways in which we connect words co referents, emphasizing the assumption of shared know: ledge and he role of pragmatic connections. FALMY GIVON: Mind, Code and Content: Essays Pragmatics. Lawrence Eslbaum 1983 ‘This collection of essays covers many topics in pragmatics, including reference (Chapters § and 6), from a perspective that ‘emphasizes Function (what language i used for. JOHN LYONS: Semantics. Volume x (Cambridge University Press 2977 (Chapter 7, on reference, sense and denotation, presents com- prehensive background co the basi issues inthe traditional semantic reatment of how words are used to refer. ‘GEOPEREY NUNBERG: The Pragmatics of Reference Indiana University Linguistics Club 1977 ‘This disteraton uses the idea that words can be shoven to have endless possible referents to argue for a pragmatic analysis in ‘which word-meanings cannot be separated from ‘knowledge of other kinds of conventions and social practices. Chapter 4 Prosupposition and entallment NOEL BURTON-ROBERTS: The Limits to Deite.A Revived ‘Theory of Semartc Presupposition. Cambridge Univesity Press 1989) “This book eepresens one ofthe few recent attempts to reconsider ‘the basic concepts involved in presupposition. 420, REFERENCES ‘cHOON-KYU OM and DAVID DINEEN (eds) Symtax and Semantice Volume r1: Presuppositon, Academie Press 1979 This collection of sixteen papers, plus an extensive bibliography, illustates the types of controversies surrounding the nature of presupposition. Many are presented in very technical language. NEIL SMITH and DEIRORE WILSON: Modern Linguistics, Penguin 1979 Chapters 7 and 8 ofthis text provide a detailed eview of presup- position entailment, and the role of ordered entailments. ROB VAN DER SANDT: Context and Presuppostion. Croom Helm x98, ‘This book reconsiders the connection beeween presupposition, context, and the projection problem. Chapter 5 Cooperation and implicature DIANE BLAKEMORE: Understanding Utterances Ant Introduction to Pragmatics. Blackwell 1992 This isan introduction to pragmatics in which Relevance is taken tabe the central concept. LAURENCE 1084: ‘Toward anew taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-basedimpicatur’ in Deborah Schifrin (ed): Meaning, Form and Use in Contexts Linguistic. Applications, Georgetown University Press 1984 ‘This paper proposes an alternative approach to analyzing how implicatures arise, using two instead of four maximsFro onice: Studs nth Wayof Words Harvard Unversity ress 989 “his volume includes the collected papers ofthe philosopher Aros ens te considered by many ro be the Foundation ofo0- temporary pragmatics, Proceedings ofthe Berkeley Linguistic Society 16, r990 “There isa collection of sixteen papers, presented as aparasession within these published proceedings, onthe legacy of Grice, cover- Jing a wide range of ssues in the analysis of meaning, Dan srenaex and DbiKDRE WiLson:Releance. Blckwallo8e Preseted a a study of human communication, this bok kes these matinee ek. Armen an Tom ae presented to suppor te contention that ‘communica information comes with guarantee of elevance Chapter 6 Speech acts and events Jhosein: How toDo Things with Words. (20d eda.) “Eteadon Pes 1975 “The orginal work which inoduced the concep of language wse 2aform of action Teer sactandnonex WaRnist: Linguistic Communication Speech Acts MIT Pes 1979 “wo linguists preset a detailed framework fo he analysis of pacha JOHN SEARLE: Speech Acs. An Esay inthe Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Pres 1969 The best known work on the topic, with detailed discussion of both conditions and applications ofthe concept ofa specch ac. JOWN SEARLE: Expression amd Meaning, Studies inthe Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge Univesity Press 1979 collection of seven papers, including one on indicect speech acts and another on a taxonomy of illocutionary acts. These fre quently cited papers representa development of the ideas pre- sented earlier in Searle (1969) 188 verscitvEnen: What People Say They Do With Words. Ablex 1985 ‘This book presents a critical review of problems in speech act theory anda proposal fora ferent approach asedon the study oflingustc action. Chapter 7 Politeness and interaction SHOSHANA BLUM-KULKA and GABRIELE KASPER: Journal of Pragmatic 14/ (Special Issue on politeness), 1990 ‘Thiscolection of sx papers includes a review paper by Kasper on curtent research issues as wel s three repors on the develop: ‘ment of politeness behavior in children. PENELOPE BROWN and STEPHEN LEVINSON: Politeness Somie Universals of Language Usage, Cambridge University Press 1987, ‘This isthe most comprehensive hook om linguistic politeness, Bsoffering lots of detailed discussion and illustrations from different Tangeaes av DAE and ow HERITAGE (ed) Talat Work: Imeraccon Instintondl Sets Cambedge University Pres 9g2 “This ia collation of iten papers onthe general topic of ne {eron in work conten for example, ews trie, cour eO- ‘edn, doctor off) “Bibliography on Linguistic Pltens in Journal of Pragmatics 21,1994, a8 527-78 ‘This is an extremely useful listing of published work concerned seth ngage and polienes. Ervine corewan:Formsof Tall Univesity of Pennsylvania ress 98 This isa olin of ive important papery on ofthe most, Inlocnalwoteron guage andsodal imeracion Chapter 8 Conversation and preference structure MAXWELL ATRINSON and JOHN HERITAGE (ed): Structures of Socal Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis: Cambridge University Pres 1984 “This isa collection of sixteen papers by some ofthe best known writers on conversation analysis JACK BILMES: “The concept of preference in conversation ‘analysis in Language in Society 17,1988 dang REFERENCES ‘This paper presents a review of the uses of the term ‘preference’ and argues for a more precise application ofthe analytic concept. ROBERT CRAIG and KAREN TRACY (eds): Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy Sage 1983 ‘This isa collection of fourten papers on coaversition as interper- sonal communication, viewed from range of perspectives, HARVEY SACKS: Lectures on Conversation, Volumes 1. Blackwell 1992 ‘These rwo volumes present the original lcrare material in which the foundations ofconverstion analysis were established, DEBORAH TANNER: Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk ‘Among Friends, Ablex 1984 This book presents extensive illustration of ciffrent aspects of con ‘versatonal style asthe basi tools with which people communicate TTEUN VAN D1) x: Handbook of Discourse Anais, Volume 3: Discourse and Dialogue. Academic Press 1985 ‘This volume contains sixteen papers illustrating a range of dif: cent perspectives on aspects of interactive tal, Chapter 9 Discourse and culture S.BLUMCKULKA, J.HOUSE, and G.xaSPER (ed) Cross cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Alex 1989 This isa collection often papers describing studies undertaken within the framework of the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project. as‘Situsan skown andcxoKos vuLt: Discourse Anabsi CambecdgeUnversty ress 983 ‘hiss a standard ebook with ngsiifocus onthe study of discourse JonN GuMPERz: Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University ress 1982 “This isa collection of ten papers by one the most influential ers on social interaction and cross-cultral communication. Imerlngnge Pragmatics Oxford Univer Pes 1993 ‘hiss acoletion of eleven papers on various pragmatic aspects cfsecond langue ering DEBORAH SCHIFFRIN: Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell 1994 “Thisisa guide to several different frameworks fr doing discourse alysis ANNA wieRZBICKA: Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter 199 This isa book about how cultural values and norms shape difer- ent modes of interaction, 126 REFERENCES SECTION 4 Glossary Page referencesto Section 1, Survey, are given atthe end ofeach etry, ‘adjacency pair A sequence of two uterances by different speakers inconversation, The second isa response tothe fst, eg ques" ‘ion-answer. (7) ‘anaphor The word, ypically a pronoun, used to maintain rofer- ‘ence to someone or something already mentioned, eg “An old ‘man was limping towards us. He slowly came into view’ (23) ‘antecedent The inital expression used to identify someone ot something for which an anaphor is used later, eg “An old man was limping towards us. He slowly came into view: (23) attributable silence The absence of tall when a speaker is given ‘the right. speak in conversation. (73} attrbutive use. Using an expression to identify someone or some- ‘thing without being committed to the existence ofan actual per sonor thing, "the st person to wallon Mats’ [8] nel signals Vocal indications of atren- tion, eg. u-huh’, ‘hme’, when someone else is talking. 75) background entaliment Any logical consequence ofan utter- ance. (33) bald on record Utterances, e.g. orders, directly addressed to another where the Meeutionary fore is made explicit. (631 ‘cataphora The use of a word (ically a pronoun) to introduce someone or something tha is more fully identified late. He slowly came ino view. An old man was limping towards us (23) coherence The familiar and expected relationships inexperience wyeg ee ‘those connections are not explicitly made. (41 ccommissive A speech actin which the speaker commits him or ‘herself to some furure action, eg a promise. See Table 6. (58) constancy under negation Quality ofthe presupposition of a statement remaining tre when the statement is negated. [26] content conditions In order to count asa particular type of ‘speech act, an uterance must contain certain features, eg. 2 ‘promise must be about a future event. (50) contest ‘The physical envionment in which a word is used: cf costae. (28) contrastive pragmatics The study of culturally different ways of ‘using language (88) conventional implicature An additional unstated meaning asso- ciated with the use of a specific word, eg. °A but BY implies a ‘contrast between A and B, so ‘contrast isa conventional implicatare of ‘bu. 45} conversational impicature An addtional unstated meaning that has tobe assumed in order ro maintain the cooperative princi, ‘eg if someone says The President isa mouse, something that is lieally false, the heater must assume the speaker means to ‘convey more than i being said. (0) conversational style Particular way of participating in conversa- ‘on. 76) ‘cooperative principle A basic assumption in conversation that ‘each participant will attempt to contribute appropriately atthe Fequied time, tothe current exchange of talk (37) ‘cotext The linguistic environment in which a word is wed: cf, context (21 ‘counterfactual presupposition The assumption that certain information is the opposite of tue (25) ‘erose-cuttural pragmatics The study of different expectations ‘amtong different communities regarding how meaning is con- seructed. (871 . ‘cultural schemata Pre-existing knowledge structures based on experience ina particular culture (871 declaration A speech act that brings about a change by being, uttered, e,ajudge pronouncing a sentence. Se Table 6.1. 53] a8 GLossary ‘ve potteness, he non-personal, and freedom from imposition. (66), Seletic center ‘The speakers locationtime (9) eletc expression See debs. (9) oleic projection Speakers acting as if they are somewhere else (23) eins “Poincing’ via language, using a delete expression, e.g, “this ‘here’ 9) ‘irective A speech act used to get someone else to do something, ‘eg. an order. See Table 6.1.4) ‘iroct speach act Speech act where a direc relationship exists ‘between the strucire and communicative function of an ute ance, eg using an itertogaive form (Can you ...?)t0 ask ‘question ‘Can you swim?" cf, ndvet speech act (55) discourse analysis The study of language use with reference to ‘the social and psychological factors that influence communica tion. @3) Aispreterrod The structurally unexpected next utterance as a response, eg an invitation is normally followed by an accept nce, so refusal is disprferred, (7), distal Away from the speaker, eg, ‘that’, ‘there’. proximal. 8) (lipsis The absence of a word or words from a structural slot 123} fentallment Something that logically follows from what is asserted. (25) essential condition In performing a speech act, a requirement that the utterance commits the speaker tothe act performed. (5 exclusive we? Addressee excluded: cf ctsivewel. (1) existential presupposition An assumption that someone of something, identified by use of a noun phrase, does exist (27 ‘plc performative A speech aet containing performative verb: ck Imp pertormative (52) ‘expressive A speech actin which the speaker expresses feelings ‘ot artinudes, eg. an apology. See Table 6.53] face A persoa’s public self-image. (60 face saving act Usterance or action which avoids a potential threat toa person's public el-image. 631 nyface threatening act Utterance or action which threatens 3 person's public self-image. (61 face wants A persons expectations that their pubic self-image willbe respected. (63) fective presupposition The assumption that information sated afer certain words, eg know, ‘regret’ i tru: cf. non-active ‘resuppostn. (27) {felicity conditions The appropriate conditions fora speech acto be recognized as intended. (01 ‘est part The fist utterance in an ajaceney pair, e.g How are you? See also second pat. (7) ‘oor The current right to speak in a conversation. (721 foreground entallment The main logical consequence of an utterance. (33) frame A pre-existing knowledge structure with a fixed static pattern, 86) {general conditions Preconditions on performing a pocch act. (50) keneralized conversational implicature An addtional unstated ‘meaning that does nor depend on special or local knowledge: conversational implcature. (41) hedges. Cautious notes expressed about how an uxterance isto Detakea, e's farasi know” used when giving some informa: tion. (38) high consideratoness style A non-interrupting, non-imposing ‘way of taking partin conversation. 76) high involvement style An active fast-paced, overlapping way of taking partin conversation. (76) hhonorie. Expression which marks thatthe addressee i of higher status. 10) deational function ‘The use of language as a means of giving strueture to thought and experience (65) Wocutionary Foree Indicating Device (IFID) Indication in the speaker’ uterance ofthe communicative force of that utterance. us) ocutionary act or foree The communicative fore ofan uterance Co 130 GLossaRY Implicature_A short version of comersational impiature [35] impli performative A speech act without 2 performative ver. expe performative (52) Inclusive "we" Speaker and addresse included: cf. xtute ‘we a) Indexdeals Like delete expressions, forms used for ‘pointing via Tanguage See dete (81 Indirect speech act Speech act where an indirect relationship ‘exists between the seracture and communicative function of an ‘utterance, e.g the use ofan incerrogaive (Can you...) notto ‘ask a question, but to make a request Can you help me with this), rec pooch act. (5) he liste sec sense of whatis notexpliitin-an utterance. (17 Insertion sequence A two part sequence that comes between the frst and second parts of another sequence in conversation. mm Intertanguage pragmatics The study of how non-native speakers ‘communicate ina second language. (8) Interpersonal function The use of language for maintaining social roles and taking pat in social interaction. (83) 10 maki lexical presupposition The assumprion tha, in using one word, ‘the speaker can act asf another meaning (word) will be under stood. (28) tooal management systom A metaphor for describing the con ‘ventions fr organizing the right 0 speakin conversation. (72) locutionary ect The basi act of uttering & meaningful linguistic form. 68) manner One of the maxims in which the speaker isto be cleas, brief, and orderly See Table 5.1 (39) ‘maxim One ofthe four sub-princiles ofthe eooperatv principe ‘See manner, quant, quay, and relation, Se also Table s.2.(37) mitigating device Expression used to soften an imposition, eg. ‘please’ 631 negative face The need to be independent, aot imposed on by ‘others: cf, postive ac. (61) odnegative politeness Awareness of another's right aot to be imposed on: f poste pottaness (62) negative politeness trategy An attempt to demonstrate aware- ess of another's right not to be imposed on: cf. positive po- itaness strategy. (04) non-factive presupposition The assumption that certain in Tormation, as presented, snot tr: cf fect presuppeton [23] off record Uerances not directly addressed to another. 1631 fonrecord Urterance dicey addressed to another. 63) ‘overlap More than one speaker talking atthe same time in ‘conversation (72) parcuartzed convrestionl mpleature An additional un stated meaning hat depen on special or loeal wedge: ronnie "propor iat undecingevery wer Pete recluse th rr hat ei the peck ot. ou performative verb Ave iat explicit ams the spec a vibe vrb-promiein the unerance I promis tobe het i pevoctionary acletect The effet of an uteance sed to pet Ieemaaprh a 8) 8 ate Forms vedo ointo people. ney" pottoness. ‘Showing awareness of another person's public self- image tc art 0) peatove face The ned robe connected to belong toa group not ce. (62) postive pottnese Showing oiariy wih another negate otters 02 postive poteness strategy An appeal to slidariy with fs ngrvepotaness etn. (51 petontal presappocon An sasanption ply asocaed wrth of nite orn the ea the tb regen “He ep doing ta” cuir a sami that he cal “dine a7 pragmatic acert Arps of talk ta india whats assumed tobe communiated without bing 18) kas2 ctossary : pragmatic connection A conventional associatiun vewwcen « Denon same tad snd of cece Shapes wed Tica books pragmates The si of speaker meaning distin om word etence meaning preennomeamont titans before an announcement to eck Vfansanouctentcan be mde) erecta & pute in which one pe of trie wil bemore peal fosad neem to aan ‘coneruationdlsqutee, ean scence ll moe Cally follow sn invitation hana fa 79) . protred Thessaly expected ent tance wed in & reponse) breton Licance before an invitation wo check if an Tova can be made ropartory condone Speci reuitement pit to an trerane in order for fo oun a parla auth et ior brerequest Uren before gues to check fa request can emnde e7 bresonpontan Soothing the speaker sumes to be the ese tat ary peromatve An erance wich peionms a pone at Dar wich doesnot coninins pert breton pao ‘pce at wecppoatin ose Sractrenotsurivng when put oft moreconpes sce bor puma Neat speaks hi hee’ cf ta 0 Devetlogea dance Sears suring of i ls di ‘ansoneinghoetanelesbe ot ‘quality One ofthe maxim, in which the speaker has to be truth: ful See Table s.r. (38) ‘quantity One of the maxims, in which the speaker has t0 ‘be neither more or less informative than is necessary. See Table 5-138] range of reference All the possible referents identifiable by use ‘ofa word. 24) 133reference An act by which a speaker uses a word, oF words, to ‘enable a listener to identify someone of something. (17) referential use Using an expression to identify someone or something when the person or thing is assumed to be known: tte use (28) referring expression A linguistic form which enables a listenes, ‘or reader to identify something (27) relation One ofthe maxims, in which the speaker has o be rel- evant, See Table 5.1. representative A speech actin which thespeaker states what i ‘believed or known, eg an assertion. See Table 6.1. (53) scalar implicature An additonal meaning ofthe negative of any ‘value higher on a scale than the one uttered n saying some children’ Treat an implicarue that what say does not apply to"al chldeen’.&4) schoma (plural schemata) A pre-existing knowledge structure ‘in memory typically involving the normal expected patterns ‘of things, gan apartment schema has a kitchen, a bedroom, ee. (88] script A pre-existing knowledge structure for interpreting event ‘sequence, e a Visio the dentist has a script of specifi events in sequence (which might start with giving one's name to the receptionist and finish with making further appointment). (851 ‘second part The second or response utterance in an adjacency aire Fine, thanks’ See rst part. (7) ‘semantics ‘The study of how words literally connect to things, ot more generally, the investigation of meaning as encoded in lan guage. (4) sincerity conditions Requirements onthe genuine intentions of ‘speaker in order for an uterance to count asa particular speech act (511 ‘s0cial debe Forms used to indicate relative social staus. (10) ‘olidarty strategy An emphasis on the closeness of speaker and addressee (65) ‘spatial debs Forms used to point to location, eg ‘her’ "the cl-temporal debs (9) ‘speech act An action performed by the use of an wrterance to ‘communicate. (7) 334 GLossany speech event A ser of circumstances in which people interact in some convntonal way to arrive at some outcome. (47,571 ‘structural presupposition ‘The assumption that part ofa stu ‘ure contains information being tested a already known, (28) syntax The study of the structures connecting linguistic forms. @ tautology An apparently meaningless expression in which one word is defined as itself, busines is business (35) ‘temporal detxis Forms used to point to location in time, eg ‘now’, ‘then’ f spatial dba. 8) textual function The use of language in the creation of well: Formed text (83) ‘Transition Relevance Place (TRP) A possible change of speaker point in an interaction (721 ‘um The opportunity to speak at some point during a conversa tcl turntaking The change of speaker during conversation (72) JW distinction A distinction beeween forme used for familie (‘tu’) anda non-famiia ( vou") addressee, in French and other languages. 20) ‘ero anaphora The absence ofan expression in a structural slot where one is assumed, asa way of maintaining reference, eg "Mary mowed the lawn and then watered it? (23) BsAcknowledgements “The author and publisher are gratefultothe following or permis- sion to reproduce extracts from copytight mate ‘Academie res Ine. and the authors for extract from Gerald Gandars Pragmatics Impicaure, Presapposttion and Logical Form (1979) J. Morgan: Two types of convention in indect speech cin Peter Cole ed) Sytax and Semantics Volume Pragmatics (978) Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, In. for an centract from Robin Tolmach Lao Talking Power: The Poles of Language copyright ® 1990 by Robin Tolnach Lakot BlackvellPblshers for an extract from Harvey Sacks Lectures on Conversation (193) Cambridge Universi Press and the authors for extracts from Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson: Politeness (1987); John Gumperr and Jey Cook-Gumpers ntrodaction: language and the communication of social identity" in J. Gumpere (ed): Language and Socal Idenity (1983); Jon Searle: Speech Acts (1969). Ehevier cence Lu, Th Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington (x5 108, UK for an exact from Gabrile Kasper Politenest in Ron Asher (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Volume 6 (1994) copysight © 194 Lawrence ifbaum Asocates, Inc and the author fran extract from Georgia Green: Pragmatics ond Natural Language Understanding (3989). 137Charles Fillmore for an extract from Charles Fillmore: Santa Gruz Lectures on Deis indiana University Linguistics Club 1975) Kathleen Grice for an extract from Paul Grice: ‘Logic and conver- sation’ in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts(1975}- Kluwer Academie Publishers for extracts from Geoffrey Nunberg: ‘Indexicalty and deixis in Linguistics and Philosophy 46 (2995); Quentin Smith "The multiple uses of indexical’ in Synthese 78 (1985). ‘The Linguistics Sociery of America for extracts from Harvey Sacks et als‘ simplest systematics forthe organization of tarn- ‘taking in conversation’ in Language 50 (1974) Longman Group Ltd, for extracts from M.A.K. Halliday and Rugaiya Hasan= Cohesion in English (1976), Geoffrey Leech: Principle of Pragmatics (1983) ‘Wim, Morrow for an extract from Deborah Tannen: You Just Don't Understand (1990). New York University Press for an extract from Robert C. Stalnaker: ‘Pragmatic presupposition’ in Milton Munitz and Peter Unger eds: Semantics and Philosophy (1974) ‘The Ohio Seate University Pres for an extract from: Pragmatics: ‘meaning and context’ File 70 in Language ies: Materials for at Iniroduction to Linguistics (6th edn., the Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, edited by Stefanie Jannedy, Robert Poletto, and Tracey L. Weldon, copyright © 1994 by the Ohio State University Press. All rights reserved. ‘Oxford Univesity Press for an extact fom Jenny Thomas: "Cross cultural pragmatic failure’ in Applied Lingustice 42 (1983)- Plenum Publishing Corporation and the author for an extract, from Jack Blmes: Discourse aed Behaviour (1986). Despite every effort to trace and contact copyright holders before publication, this has not always been possible. If notified, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any eros or omissions atthe caries opportunity: 138 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS