INTRODUCTION

Our group, definitely are getting in charge of explaining the role of context in
interpretation utterances or language, in terms of pragmatics and discourse context.
However, before we elaborate about this part so far, we have to know the basic definition
of this course first, namely discourse analysis which will enable us to understand this topic
clearly. Hopefully.
Discourse Analysis is the area of linguistics that is concerned with how we build up
meaning in the larger communicative rather than grammatical units, in this case meaning in
a text, paragraph, conversation, etc, rather than in a single sentence. It is the examination of
language use by members of a speech community. It involves looking at both language form
and language functions and includes the study of both spoken interaction and written text.
The analysis of discourse is the analysis of language in use. The discourse analyst is
committed to an investigation of what the language is used for. But to better understand
the term, it is necessary to outline the components that comprise it. Analysis is the
understanding of the examination and evaluation of the relevant information to select the
best course of action from among various alternatives. While discourse is verbal interchange
of ideas, formal, orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject that is
rooted in language and its concrete contexts.
Thus, the term discourse analysis refers mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally
occurring connected speech or written discourse. It focuses on knowledge about language
beyond the word, clauses phrase and sentence that is needed for successful
communication. Its looks at patterns of language across texts and considers the relationship
between language and the social or cultural contexts in which is used.
 DISCUSSION

Pragmatics and discourse context

Having seen on the brief explanation above, we continue learn more about
pragmatic and discourse context in the deep understanding or interpretation. Regarding to
this term, the discourse analyst necessarily takes a pragmatic approach to the study of
language in use. This approach brings into consideration a number of issues which do not
generally receive much attention in the formal linguist's description of sentential syntax and
semantics. The discourse analyst has to take account of the context in which a piece of
discourse occurs. Some of the most obvious linguistic elements which require contextual
information for their interpretation are the deictic forms such as here, now, I, you, this and
that. In order to interpret these elements in a piece of discourse, it is necessary to know (at
least) who the speaker and hearer are, and the time and place of the production of the
discourse. Therefore, we shall discuss these and other aspects of contextual description
which are required in the analysis of discourse.
Because the analyst is investigating the use of language in context by a speaker/
writer, he is more concerned with the relationship between the speaker and the utterance,
on the particular occasion of use, rather than with the potential relationship of one
sentence to another, regardless of their use. To cope with this commonly cases, the
discourse analyst is describing what speakers and hearers are doing, and not the
relationship which exists between one sentence or proposition and another by using terms
such as reference, presupposition, implicature and inference. Let’s take a look for further
explanation about those terms.

1. Reference
Reference is the symbolic relationship that a linguistic expression has with the
concrete object or abstraction it represents. In other words, it is the relationship of one
linguistic expression to another, in which one provides the information necessary to
interpret the other.
Here is an example of reference:
A pronoun refers to the noun antecedent that is used to interpret it.
Here are some kinds of reference: Coreference, endophora, and exophora.
  Coreference is the reference in one expression to the same referent in another
expression.
A referent is the concrete object or concept that is designated by a word or expression. A
referent is an object, action, state, relationship, or attribute.
Historically, there was only one person called George Washington, the first president of the
United States. He can be referred to in a text in many ways, such as the president, Mr.
Washington, he, or even, my friend.
Even though there are many ways to talk about him, there is only one referent in the
referential realm.
>>>> Here is the example of coference:
In the following sentence, both you's have the same referent: You said you would come.
 Endophora
Endophora is coreference of an expression with another expression either before it or after
it. One expression provides the information necessary to interpret the other.
The endophoric relationship is often spoken of as one expression “referring to” another.
Examples:
 A well-dressed man was speaking; he had a foreign accent. (Anaphora)
 If you need one, there’s a towel in the top drawer. (Cathapora)
Here are some kinds of endophora: Anaphora and cathapora

 Anaphora is coreference of one expression with its antecedent. The antecedent

provides the information necessary for the expression’s interpretation. This is often
understood as an expression “referring” back to the antecedent.

Example: In the following sequence, the relationship of the pronoun he to the noun phrase
a well-dressed man is an example of anaphora:
 A well-dressed man was speaking; he had a foreign accent.

 Cataphora is the coreference of one expression with another expression which

follows it. The following expression provides the information necessary for
interpretation of the preceding one. This is often understood as an expression
“referring” forward to another expression.
Example : In the following sentence, the relationship of one to a towel is an example of
cataphora:
 If you need one, there’s a towel in the top drawer.
  Exophora
Exophora is reference of an expression directly to an extralinguistic referent. The referent
does not require another expression for its interpretation.
>>>>> Here are some kinds of exophora:  Deixis and homophora

 Deixis is reference by means of an expression whose interpretation is relative to the

(usually) extralinguistic context of the utterance, such as who is speaking, the time or
place of speaking, the gestures of the speaker, or the current location in the
discourse.

Deictic words are language features that refer to the who, where and when of language. In
which describe the speaker's position in space and time.

There are three main types of deixis:

personal: pronouns such as I and you

spatial: words describing the speaker in space or in relation to other objects such as here
and there, come and go.
temporal: words describing the speaker in terms of time such as now, then, yesterday and
verb tenses.
So, deixis provides context in relation to the speaker.
Example : If Bob says "I swam over here" we hear Bob referring to himself in the context of a
given place and time and we assess the situation in relation to where he is, was and where
we are. The viewpoint must be understood in order to interpret the utterance.
 Homophora is reference that depends on cultural knowledge or other general
knowledge, rather than on specific features of a particular context.
Examples :
 The use of the President in the U.S.
 The use of the sun
 The use of the baby between parents to refer to their own baby.

2. Presupposition

A presupposition is a background belief (something that sits, unsaid, and helps

provide meaning about what a person says). When a person says something (makes an
utterance), the meaning of that sentence has to do with the words, etc, but the meaning
only exists within the context of what else is in the person's head that provides meaning.
When two people are trying to communicate, and their presuppositions are not known
to each other, that's when misunderstanding takes place.
 Let's take an example that you'll be familiar with. Someone says:

 Did you stop beating your spouse?

Under what circumstances does that question have meaning? What presuppositions are
required for it to make sense and be understood?
It presupposes that "you" have a spouse. It also presupposes that you WERE beating
your spouse. The question makes no sense without that supposition, since why would a
person ask you if you stopped doing something you were never doing anyway?

Another example:

The utterance John regrets that he stopped doing linguistics before he left Cambridge has
the following presuppositions:

 There is someone uniquely identifiable to speaker and addressee as John.

 John stopped doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
 John was doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
 John left Cambridge.
 John had been at Cambridge.

You can also consider this sentence:

Why did you steal the money?

In simple terms, the sentence assumes the existence of a sum of money, that the
money has been stolen and further that 'someone' - in particular 'you' - have stolen it, and
that you have a reason ('why') for doing so. Four assumptions in six words (there are more if
a complex analysis is carried out - e.g. that the money had a rightful owner, that 'money'
exists, that there are notions of property and logic and so on).

3. Implicature
An implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a
condition for the truth of the utterance. In other words, it refers to what is suggested in an
utterance, even though not expressed nor strictly implied by the utterance.

Examples :
 The expression Some of the boys were at the party implicates in most contexts Not all of
the boys were at the party.
 Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the baby before the
wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she got
married.

 Alan: Are you going to Paul's party?

Barb: I have to work.

In that sentence, Barb meant that she is not going to Paul's party. But the sentence she
uttered does not mean that she is not going to Paul's party. Hence Barb did not say that she
is not going, she implied it. Thus Barb implicated that she is not going; that she is not going
was her implicature. Barb performed one speech act (meaning that she is not going) by
performing another (saying that she has to work).

Types of implicature:

1. Conversational implicature

Paul Grice identified three types of general conversational implicature:

1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional meaning

not expressed literally. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "How did you like
the guest speaker?" with the following utterance: Well, I’m sure he was speaking English.

If the speaker is assumed to be following the cooperative principle, in spite of flouting the
Maxim of Quantity, then the utterance must have an additional nonliteral meaning, such as:
"The content of the speaker’s speech was confusing."

2.The speaker’s desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one
maxim to invoke the other. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "Where is
John?" with the following utterance: He’s either in the cafeteria or in his office.

In this case, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality are in conflict. A cooperative
speaker does not want to be ambiguous but also does not want to give false information by
giving a specific answer in spite of his uncertainty. By flouting the Maxim of Quantity, the
speaker invokes the Maxim of Quality, leading to the implicature that the speaker does not
have the evidence to give a specific location where he believes John is.

3.The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. In the following
exchange: Do you know where I can get some gas? There’s a gas station around the corner.

The second speaker invokes the Maxim of Relevance, resulting in the implicature that “the
gas station is open and one can probably get gas there”.

2. Scalar Implicature

According to Grice (1975), another form of conversational implicature is also known as a

scalar implicature. This concerns the conventional uses of words like "all" or "some" in
conversation. e.g: I ate some of the pie.

This sentence implies "I did not eat all of the pie." While the statement "I ate some pie" is
still true if the entire pie was eaten, the conventional meaning of the word "some" and the
implicature generated by the statement is "not all".
3. Conventional implicature
Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its maxims. A
statement always carries its conventional implicature.
e.g: Joe is poor but happy.

This sentence implies poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of this Joe is
still happy. The conventional interpretation of the word "but" will always create the
implicature of a sense of contrast. So Joe is poor but happy will always necessarily imply
"Surprisingly Joe is happy in spite of being poor".

A maxim is a brief statement of a general truth or rule of behavior. Kinds of maxim are:
 Maxim of Quality. Make your contribution true; so do not convey what you believe
false or unjustified.
 Maxim of Quantity. Be as informative as required.
 Maxim of Relation. Be relevant.
 Maxim of Manner. Be perspicuous; so avoid obscurity and ambiguity, and strive for
brevity and order.
Cooperative Principle. Contribute what is required by the accepted purpose of the
conversation.

4. Inferences
Inferences are evidence based guesses. They are the conclusions a reader draws about the
unsaid based on what is actually said. Inferences drawn while reading are much like
inferences drawn in everyday life. When you infer, you go beyond the surface details to see
other meanings that the details suggest or imply (not stated). When the meanings of words
are not stated clearly in the context of the text, they may be implied. That is, suggested or
hinted at. When meanings are implied, you may infer them.
e.g: Suppose you are sitting in your car stopped at a red signal light. You hear screeching
tires, then a loud crash and breaking glass. You see nothing, but you infer that there has
been a car accident. We all know the sounds of screeching tires and a crash. We know that
these sounds almost always mean a car accident. But there could be some other reason,
and therefore another explanation, for the sounds. Perhaps it was not an accident involving
two moving vehicles. Maybe an angry driver rammed a parked car. Or maybe someone
played the sound of a car crash from a recording. Making inferences means choosing the
most likely explanation from the facts at hand.