• Pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to the context in

which a person is speaking or writing. This includes social,

situational, and textual context as well as background knowledge
context, i.e. what people know about each other and about the world.
• Pragmatics assumes that when people communicate with each other
they normally follow some kind of co-operative principle – a shared
understanding of how people should co-operate in communication.
• The ways in which people co-operate varies across cultures. What is
culturally appropriate in one culture may not be the same in another.
The study of this use of language across cultures is called cross-
cultural pragmatics.
• Pragmatics is interested in the relationship between linguistic form
and communicative function, i.e. what is the utterance doing in the
particular setting.
Example:
“The bus was late”
It could be a complaint – a person complaining that the bus was late
It could be an explanation – student explaining why she was late to
class
The context of situation of what someone says is crucial to
understanding the meaning of what is being said. It includes:
- Physical context
- Social context
- The mental worlds and roles of the participants
Each of these impacts on what we say and how other people interpret
what we say in spoken and written discourse.
Example: A conversation between two people at a restaurant
 A number of key aspects of context are necessary to the
understanding and interpreting of discourse
• Situational context – what people know about what they can see
around them (physical and social context)
• Background knowledge context – what people know about each
other (as well as the discourse community) and what they know about
the world. It includes interpersonal knowledge and cultural
knowledge.
• Co-textual context – what people know about they have been saying.
• Linguistic context
Thomas (1995)
• Meaning is not inherent in the words alone.
• Meaning is not produced by the speaker alone or the hearer alone
• Making meaning is a dynamic process
• It involves the negotiation of meaning between the speaker and the
hearer or the writer and the reader, the context of utterance (social,
physical and linguistic)
Meaning is produced in interaction and it’s a form of collaborative
social action. It involves the speaker and hearer jointly collaborating
in the production of meaning and inferences.
 Indicate the meaning of the following utterance according to context.
What kind of knowledge allows you to interpret the utterance
correctly?
• Two influential works in pragmatics, relevant to discourse analysis, are Austins
(1962) How to Do Things With Words and Searles (1969) Speech Acts.
Logical positivism was the prevailing view in the philosophy of
language. The logical positivism view argued that language is always
used to describe some fact or state of affairs, and unless a statement
can be tested for truth or falsity, it is basically meaningless.
It’s snowing in Paris. < True if it is indeed snowing in Paris.
The theory poses problems for utterances such as “I promise to take to
you to Paris.”
Austin and Searle argued that language is used to “do things.” The
same way we perform physical acts, we also perform acts by using
language.

• We use language to convey information, request information, give

orders, to make requests, to give warnings, make threats, to give
advice….., in other words we use language to do things beyond the
literal meaning of what we say.
1. I promise to improve.
2. I resign!
3. You’re fired!
4. I pronounce you man and wife.
5. Please scratch my back
There can be little doubt that our ability to do things with language - to perform
speech acts - that makes language useful to us. In fact, with language, we can do
things that otherwise would be impossible. Consider (5) a request for a hearer to
scratch the speaker's back. If we did not have language, how would this request be
made? How would the hearer know that the speaker means scratch and not rub? How
would the hearer know that this action was a request and not an order?
 The most common speech acts are:
Speech Act Function
assertion conveys information
question elicits information
request (more or less politely) elicits action or information
order demands action
promise commits the speaker to an action
threat commits the speaker to an action that the hearer does not want
Remember:
What we say often has both a literal meaning, and an
illocutionary meaning (illocutionary force), i.e. speaker’s
intended meaning.
It’s hot in here.
-the temperature
-request
Austin argued that there are three kinds of acts to everything we say
“It’s hot in here”
1. The temperature is high. (locutionary act)
The literal meaning > locutionary act
2. Request to turn on the A/C or open a window. (illocutionary act)
The speaker’s intention in uttering the words > illocutionary
3. Someone getting up and turning on the A/C. (perlocutionary act)
The effect the utterance has on the thoughts or actions of the other
person>perlocutionary
 Bus driver: This bus won’t move until you boys move in out of the doorway
 Locutionary act
The driver won’t start the bus with people standing in the doorway
 Illocutionary act
An order – he’s telling the boys to move
 Perlocutionary act
The boys moving inside the bus
 It is not always easy to identify the illocutionary force of an utterance. The
illocutionary force can only be determined in relation to a number of factors:
• stage in the discourse ( where in the discourse it occurs)
• the social and situational context

 The illocutionary force can thus be determined according to what has come
before and what has come after the utterance, rather than in isolation from the
overall discourse.
 Example related to stage in the discourse : “OK”
• May be an expression of agreement to what someone has just said
A: Let’s get something to eat
B: Ok
• May also be a “continuer” in a conversation A: Ok so as I was saying…
• May function as a “pre-closing” signaling that the conversation is about to end
A: Ok
B: All right. We’ll talk later
A: Definitely! B-bye
B: Bye
 Example related to social and situational context
 Sometimes when we speak we do mean exactly what we say.
A: Did you go to the supermarket?
B: Yes, I did.
 Sometimes we say things indirectly; i.e. we often intend something that is quite
different from the literal meaning of what we say.
Example
A common expression to an invitation to a party “bring a plate”
Example
Another common expression when someone asks “Can I bring something?” the host
will reply “No just bring yourself.” They actually expect the guest to bring
something.
 “Can I have a Whopper with egg and (turkey) bacon…?”
 Direct or indirect?
The customer is not asking about their ability to buy a Whopper – the
literal meaning of the sentence- but making a sales request.
Illocutionary act: request syntactic form: interrogotive
Indirect speech acts: There is no complete one-to-one correspondence
between syntactic forms and illocutionary acts
Can is often used to refer to something other than ability or
permission.
A: Can I take your order now please? <offer of service, not about the
salesperson’s ability…
B: Can I have nine chicken nuggets and chips with sweet and sour
sauce and a can of Pepsi thanks? <acceptance of offer and a sales
request, not a question about ability or permission
 A: I’ll have two boneless breast pieces, original recipe, half
a dozen nuggets, a small piece with extra salt thanks.
 B: Any cold drinks or anything else with the order?
Direct or indirect?
Declaratives are statements, but in the above example it is
used to make a request.
Illocutionary act: request syntactic form: declarative
 Indirect speech acts are of difficult for second language learners to
understand
 This room is a mess < They may not recognize this as a request to
clean up the room.
 Would you mind helping me with the table? < is not asking about
whether the person would mind doing. It is a request for someone to
do something
 Sentences can go wrong in a number of ways: words might be
mispronounced (for example, we might say "No bout adout it" instead
of "No doubt about it"), or we might use an incorrect verb “He
swimmed.”
 Speech acts can go wrong, too, by being situationally inappropriate.
 Suppose that two 5 year olds decided to get married. They walked
down an aisle and one of their classmates pretended to be a priest
and said “I now pronounce you man and wife.”
 Would the speech act work?
 Noooo, because it is situationally inappropriate, and in such cases we
would say that the speech act is infelicitous.
• Felicity condition is a notion in speech act theory. A number of conditions must be met in
order for speech act to work – Let’s look at the speech act of “Inviting”
 There must be a generally accepted procedure for carrying out a speech act.
Example: Inviting someone to a wedding through a formal invitation not an email.
 Circumstances must be appropriate for the use of the speech act.
Example: Someone must actually be getting married.
 The person who uses the speech act must be appropriate
Example: The bride or groom (or family) invite the person to the wedding.
 (Sincerity condition) The person performing the speech act must have the required thoughts,
feelings, and intentions for the speech act to be “felicitious” The communication must be
carried out by the right person, in the right place, at the right time, with the right intention for
the communication to work.
•

• Searle refers to Austin’s felicity conditions as “constitutive rules”

• The conditions are not something that can go right or wrong (Austin’s
view) but something which make up and define the act itself.
• Searle views the pragmatic use of language as rules that can be
precisely stated.
• He tried to classify speech acts into groups according to shared sets of
conditions.
• Thomas suggests principles instead of constitutive rules.
• Rules are more appropriate for grammatical descriptions of
language
• Principles (or Maxims) is more appropriate for pragmatic use of
language
• She argues that it is difficult to devise rules which will account
for the complexity of speech acts.
• She mentions 5 differences between rules and principles.
• Analysis of speech acts should be based on
principles and not rules
• Speech act theory has an important role in
second language teaching and cross cultural
pragmatics
 Example:
 An apology is often more ritual than ‘sincere’ but has been carried out for a very
important reason, so that the person being apologized to will feel better about the
situation and the tension that was there will be resolved.
• Definition
• Two kinds of presuppositions:
 Conventional presuppositions: less context dependent, and are linked to linguistic
forms
 Pragmatic presuppositions: context dependent

Example Conventional presuppositions

Would you like some coffee? Presupposition: Coffee has already been prepared
Would you like anything to drink? Presupposition: Does not suggest that any drinks
have been prepared
The Cooperative Principle, proposed by Grice, maintains that people follow a
pattern in conversation:
They cooperate
In other words, there is a set of principles which direct us to a particular interpretation
of what is said.
The Cooperative Principle “says that we should aim to make our contribution in a
conversation:
such as is required,
at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange in which we are engaged.”
Thus, in interaction we, as hearers, assume that the speaker
is saying:
• what needs to be said, nothing more nothing less
• that he is saying what he believes to be the truth
• and that he is saying it at the appropriate point in the
interaction
• and in the appropriate manner
 FOUR MAXIMS
 1. The Maxim of Quantity:
Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange)
a. Not less informative
b. Nor more informative
 2. The Maxim of Quality:
Make your contribution one that is true:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
3. The Maxim of Relation:
Be relevant
4. The Maxim of Manner:
a. Avoid ambiguity
b. Be brief
c. Be orderly
The use of certain expressions signals our awareness of the maxims:
-I don’t want to bore you with details, but …
Awareness of which maxim is signaled here?
Quantity
-It may rain tomorrow
-I am not sure, but I heard that ….
Awareness of which maxim is signaled here?
Quality
 -By the way, ….
 Awareness of which maxim is signaled here?
 Relation
 Such expressions (in green) are called
 meta-discourse items
 No, we don’t!
 However, hearer expects speaker to observe the maxims,
and when it seems that speaker is not observing a maxim,
hearer still tries to interpret the contribution as though it
observes the maxims
 Speakers flout the cooperative principle on some occasions; they
purposely do not follow the maxims, and intend the hearer to be
aware of this.
 Example of the librarian on page 46..which maxim is being flouted?
 Example of Chinese and American student..which maxim is being
flouted?
 There is an intention to deceive hearer.
 E.g. “Mummy`s gone on a little holiday because she needs a rest”.
 Speaker chooses not to observe a maxim for legal reasons.
 A speaker may infringe a maxim when they fail to observe a maxim with no
intention to deceive.
 E.g. when a speaker does not have a linguistic capacity to answer a question.
 There is also often overlap between each of Grice’s maxims. An utterance may be both
unclear and longwinded, flouting the maxims of quality and quantity at the same time.
 Different cultures, countries, and communities have their own ways of observing and
expressing maxims for particular situations.
 It may be socially acceptable or preferred to flout a maxim for reasons of politeness.
E.g. when I ask someone if they like something I am wearing, and they don’t actually
like it, but they say they do.
 There is often an overlap ( interfere )between the four maxims. It can be difficult to say
which one is operating and it would be more precise to say that there are two or more
operating at once.
 It important for both the production and interpretation of spoken and written discourse
to understand to what extent people are following these maxims or not in what they say.
 Example : princess Diana
 The way people perform speech acts and what they mean by what they say when
they perform them varies across cultures.
 E.g. P:47
 Japan: APOLOGY English speaking country:APOLOGY&
COMMITMENT

 E.g. Thanking in Japanese & English.

 Different languages and cultures then often have different ways of dealing with
pragmatics issues as well as different ways of observing Grice’s maxims.
 E.g.
 Speakers of different languages may have different understanding of the maxim of
quantity in conversational interactions;
 Communication difficulties occurred between English and French speakers
because of questions like: how are you?
 did you have a good weekend?
 English speakers found French flouting the maxim of quantity
 Studies which investigate the cross-cultural use of speech acts.
 Different pragmatic norms reflect different cultural values which are, in turn,
reflected in what people say and what they intend by what they say in different
cultural settings.
 E.g. P:49 thank in Japan and English
 Two key notions in the area of Cross-cultural pragmatics are:
1. Pragmalinguistics.
 The study of speech acts in relation to typical linguistic structures.
2. Sociopragmatics.
 The pragmatic performance of speech acts in specific social and cultural contexts.
 Another important key notion in pragmatics which has implications for both the
production and interpretation of discourse is the concept of conversational
implicature.
 It is generated intentionally by the speaker and they may or may not be
understood by the hearer.
 “ There`s nothing on at the movie” Not the same as inference.
 An inference, on the other hand, is produced by the hearer on the basis of certain
evidence and may not be the same as the speaker intends.
 1. Conversational Implicature.
 No particular context is required in order to derive the implicature.
 E.g. ‘well’, ‘anyway’, ‘but’, ‘on the other hand’ &’ even’.
 2. Particularized Implicature.
 Based on a particular context, rather than the use of words alone.
 These result from the maxim of relation. E.G. p:52
 Most implicatures are particularized conversational implicatures.
 3. Scalar Implicature.
 Derived from the uses of a word from a set of words that express some kind of scale
or value. A speaker may choose one item from a scale then correct it while
speaking to cancel out another item in the scale. E.g. Diana interview P: 52
 Brown and Levinson (1987) talked extensively about politeness. Their basic
argument can be summarized as follows:
 When we enter into social relationships we have to acknowledge and show an
awareness of face. This is very much reflected in the way we interact with one
another.
 The term face refers to the respect one has for herself or himself.
 The concepts of politeness and face are important in interpreting why people
choose to say things in a particular way in spoken or written discourse:
 why people choose to flout a maxim
 why people choose to expresses an illocutionary act indirectly, rather than directly
 The notion of face comes from Goffman`s work on face and from the English folk
notion of face which ties up with notions of being embarrassed, humiliated or
losing face.
 Politeness and face are very important to understand why people choose to say
things in particular way.
 1. ‘ Do not impose’
 2. ‘ Give options’
 3. ‘ Make your hearer feel good’ ( Not only a matter of words).
 There are situations in which one principle might become more important than
another.
 Two imp. Notions in the discussion of face and politeness are :
 1- Involvement refers to the need people have to be involved with
others. It is a person`s right and need to be considered a normal,
contributing, supporting member of a group.
 E.g. showing our interest in someone, agreeing with him, approving
what they are doing, using in-group identity markers such as given
names and nicknames.
 2- Independence refers to a person`s right not to be dominated by
others, not to be imposed by others, and to be able to act with some
sense of individuality and autonomy.
 E.g. Giving people options, not imposing on others, apologizing for
interruption.
 When we decide on a choice of a given politeness strategy, we may consider:
 1. How socially close or distant we are from the hearer. ( are we close friends, is the
hearer older than I am, are we social equals ?
 2. How much power the hearer has over us. ( am I talking to my boss, my employee
a policeman a judge
 3. How significant what I want is to me and the other. ( am I asking for a change, for
a loan , to borrow a car)
 4. How much emphasis both of us place on involvement and independence. ( your
feelings towards the situation)
 Face and politeness vary from society to society and from culture to
culture.
 E.g. in some cultures the idea of personal space and independence
may vary. In some societies, parents have more right to interfere in the
domestic affairs of adult children than in others. In some cultures a
bedroom is private and cannot be entered and in others it is not.
 The idea of personal face and independence may vary.
 For example, gift giving in English and Japanese cultures.
 In English: is listed as a positive politeness strategy or involvement one
 In Japan: it is more of a social ritual.
 Holmes’ study (1995) reveals that women are more polite than men.
 It is also depends on:

1. What we mean by’ polite’.

2. Which women and men being compared.

3. What setting or community of practice the interaction occurs in.

(What are the particular conditions in which the man or woman is speaking)
 Some actions threaten a person`s face.
 Often we use mitigation devices in conversations to take the edge off face
threatening acts. ( to protect us from loosing face)
 1. The use of pre-sequence,

 2. The use of insertion sequence.

 3. The use of an off-record speech act.

E.g. P: 56
 The nature of face varies across cultures. What may be a face-
threatening act in one culture may not be seen the same way in
another.
 While politeness itself is a universal phenomenon, what counts as a
polite behavior is both culture- specific and language-specific.
 The ways in which politeness is expressed is not the same across
languages and cultures and might mean different things in different
linguistic and cultural settings.
 A lack of understanding of ways of expressing politeness in different
languages and cultures can be the cause of cross- cultural pragmatic
failure.
 As Tanaka (1997) pointed out, native speakers of language
are often less tolerant of pragmatic errors in cross-cultural
communication contexts than they are of grammatical
errors.
 These pragmatic errors may lead to misunderstandings.