Micro summary of Pragmatics

Types of Presuppositions

According to Yule 1996, p. 25-34 there are six types of presuppositions, namely existential presupposition,
factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presupposition, non-factive presupposition, and
counterfactual presupposition.

1 Existential Presupposition Existential presupposition is the basic type of presupposition. It usually

presupposes the existence of something in such circumstances. Existential presupposition is normally
triggered by definite descriptions which are formed by using proper names, definite article, demonstrative
pronoun and possessives. Here is the example of existential presupposition: Mary’s car is black. 33

2 Factive Presupposition Factive presupposition is a presupposition which has information following verbs
like know , realize , regret , surprised , strange , and a quite large number of other verbs, predicate adjectives,
and predicate nouns which take a clause as a subject or object. The information conveyed in factive
presupposition is considered as a fact, meaning that this kind of presupposition presupposes truth of what is
stated. Here are some examples of factive presupposition: a He did not realize Brad was sick. The sentence “
he the person mentioned above did not realize Brad was sick ” presupposes that there exists a person name
Brad, and it is true that the person name Brad was sick. The other examples of factive presupposition are: b I
was not aware that he was married. The sentence “ I was not aware that he was married ” presupposes that
he the person mentioned above was married and I the speaker was not aware about that. c I regretted telling
him. The sentence “ I regretted telling him ” presupposes that I the speaker here have told something to him
the person mentioned above. And the fact that I the speaker regret it is true. 34

3 Lexical Presupposition Lexical presupposition is a kind of presupposition that another non- asserted
meaning is understood. Different from factive presupposition, lexical presupposition presupposes an
unstated concept. Here are some examples of lexical presupposition: a Mr. Bennet started complaining. The
sentence above presupposes that Mr. Bennet the person mentioned in the sentence was not complaining
before. And the fact is that in the sentence Mr. Bennet started complaining. b Don managed to win the
competition. The sentence “ Don managed to win the competition ” presupposes that Don the person
mentioned in the sentence above intended to win the competition and he succeeded in the competition. c
Don did not manage to win the competition. Different from the previous sentence “ Don managed to win the
competition ”, the sentence “ Don did not manage to win the competition ” presupposes that Don the person
mentioned in the sentence above failed in the contest. But if those two sentences are combined, those two
sentences presuppose that Don tried to win the competition. d He stopped smoking. The sentence above
presupposes that he the person mentioned above used to smoke. And the fact that now, he the person
mentioned stopped smoking. This 35 sentence shows the shift of how he in this sentence used to smoke and
then stopped smoking. e He started smoking. The sentence “ He started smoking ” is the opposite of the
previous example of lexical presupposition “ He stopped smoking ”. The sentence “ He started smoking ”
presupposes that he the person mentioned in the sentence above did not smoke before. And the fact is that
now he the person mentioned is starting to smoke.

4 Structural Presupposition A sentence which is triggered by structural presupposition presupposes that the
part of the structure is already assumed to be true. Here are some examples of structural presupposition: a
When did he leave? The question “ When did he leave? ” presupposes that he the person mentioned in the
question has been there before, and the fact is that now he has left. b Where did you buy the hand phone?
The question “ Where did you buy the hand phone? ” presupposes that the speaker asks where you the
person mentioned bought the hand phone, and the fact in this question is that you someone mentioned in
the question have bought the hand phone. c How fast was the motorbike going when it ran the red light? The
question above presupposes that the speaker asks about how fast the motorbike going when it ran the red
light and the fact is the motorbike ran the red light. 36

5 Non-Factive Presupposition Non-factive presupposition is the opposite of factive presupposition. The

information conveyed in non-factive presupposition is considered not true or unreal. Here are some
examples of non-factive presupposition: a I dreamed that I was famous. The sentence “ I dreamed that I was
famous” presupposes that I the speaker was not famous. I the speaker here, dreamed or has desire to be
famous. But the fact is that I the speaker was not famous. b Megan pretends to be ill. The sentence “ Megan
pretends to be ill ” presupposes that there exists a person name Megan and she pretends to be ill. In this
sentence, Megan is only pretending to be ill so that another person will think that she is ill. The truth in this
sentence is that Megan is not ill. c We imaged we were in Hawaii. The sentence “ We imaged we were in
Hawaii ” presupposes that we the speaker and the people mentioned by the speaker in the sentence imaged
that they were in Hawaii. The truth in this sentence is that we the speaker and the people mentioned by the
speaker are not in Hawaii. They are only imagining that they were in Hawaii.

6 Counterfactual Presupposition In counterfactual presupposition, what is presupposed is not only not true
or unreal , but also opposing to what is true. 37 Here is an example of counterfactual presupposition: If you
were my brother, you would have told me. This sentence presupposes that the reader or the listener is not
my the speaker’s brother. The sentence “ If you were my brother, you would have told me ” indicates that
the speaker wants you the person mentioned by the speaker to tell something to the speaker. In this study,
the researcher’s focal point is to find out what types of presupposition where countries’ and states’ slogans
belong to. There are six types of presuppositions mentioned previously and the researcher would like to
analyze the presupposition by firstly analyze the presupposition triggers and then the researcher would like
to categorize the presupposition according to its type. The researcher would like to discuss the
presupposition discovered in some countries and states slogans in this world because the researcher finds it
interesting to categorize the presupposition according to its type.

Conversational Implicature
The philosopher HP Grice first suggested that in conversation we often convey information beyond that
which we say and that this added meaning is inferred and predictable. He referred to this as 'conversational
implicature'.

Since Grice's initial proposal and work, conversational implicatures have become one of the major research
areas in pragmatics.

Conversational Implicature: Examples

Conversational Implicature is also known as Implication: this happens when the speaker says something that
requires interpretation and is an indirect way of saying something.

For instance, a mother says to her daughter who is about to go to the beach:

'Better put some sunscreen on before you go.'

From this we understand: 'I  t is hot and sunny outside, so you  might get sunburned '.

A couple of housemates are getting ready to go to a party; one of them asks the other:

'Are you going to be much longer?'

To which the other replies:

'You can mix yourself another drink.'

In the question, the implied meaning could be: 'It's time to go / We're going to be late / What is taking you so
long?'

In the answer, the implied meaning could be: 'I don't know, maybe / I will be ready soon, you have time for
another drink.'

These are indirect exchanges, where the original information or query is 'encoded'; by doing this, we imply
something (which means we don't explicitly state it). Exchanges like this rely on context, situation, and
inferences to be understood.

Most of the time, when we ask "are you nearly ready?", we're implying that we need to leave soon.

We use conversational implicature to supplement what we say; it also offers us a discreet way of supplying
sensitive information.

Let's say Jeff wants to take on a new assistant called Flint. Jeff's friend also knows Flint, and when Jeff asks
him about Flint, the friend says:

'Oh he's very friendly, very media-savvy, loves animals.'

At first glance these could all seem like positives, but what his friend might actually be saying is that Flint is
not best suited to the role Jeff is offering. However, to avoid appearing indiscreet, or unhelpful, the friend
chooses to encode his message - and this is an example of implicature.

Have a look at the following two exchanges:

A and B are in the sitting room, with the TV on. Neither of them is watching. A asks B: Are you watching
this? B responds by changing channels on the TV.
In the question 'Are you watching this?' A communicates one or more of the following: 'I am bored with this
programme/neither of us is watching, so why not change it? A doesn't explicitly say either of these things - it
is implied.

Based on the situation and the inferences B can make from A, B deduces that A is in fact asking for the TV to
be switched off. So A's question is an example of implicature.

When we ask questions, we often are wanting to know something else. Here, the speaker want's to know if
he can change the channel.

C: I need to get some breakfast.

D: There's a baker's just around the corner.

C, a newcomer to the area, needs to find something to eat; D's reply at first glance might seem irrelevant or
unconnected. We (and C if he wants to get his breakfast) need to use our powers of inference to understand
that D is showing us where to get essentials for breakfast.

Some more examples:

A: Have some cake?

B: Thanks, but I'm gluten intolerant. (So I won't have any cake)

A: Where can I get fresh fruit here?

B: There's a daily market in the square. (You can buy fresh fruit there)

A: Do you have a rolling pin I can borrow?

B: Sorry, I don't bake. (So I don't have a rolling pin)

Create Conversational Implicature notes faster than ever before

Gricean Theory

Let's look a little closer at Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature.

Grice was the first to properly study how what a speaker says can be different from what they mean. He
introduced the terms 'implication' and 'implicature' to illustrate this phenomenon.

Conversational maxims

Grice's Theory suggests that people in conversation are guided by the Cooperative Principle and Maxims of
Conversation. This means that people are expected to communicate in a cooperative, helpful way by
following these maxims. There are four Maxims, which are as follows:

 The Maxim of Quality, which requires us to aim for truthfulness (i.e. what you believe to be true, or
have evidence for).

 The Maxim of quantity says we should only be as informative as is necessary/useful for the current
exchange, and no more.

 The Maxim of Relation tells us to be relevant.

 The Maxim of Manner requires us to be brief, clear and orderly.

Quality: Zach has a doctorate in archaeology. (I believe Zach has a doctorate in archaeology and I have
evidence of this) Quantity: He stayed in a forest cabin. (The cabin was not his own, or the speaker would say:
'He stayed in his forest cabin') Relation: Those cookies look good! (I would like one or more) Manner: The
play ended and the audience trailed out to the bar. (By describing the events clearly, in the sequence they
happened, the speaker is being clear and orderly)

In a conversation, the speaker may

 observe the maxims

 opt-out by 'hedging', eg: - using cautious or vague language that signals hesitancy

 flout a maxim, in full knowledge of the addressee

Opting out or flouting the maxims are what cause conversational implicatures to arise in speech; these
actions are also signalled to the addressee.

A participant may be trying to follow the maxims and discover they cannot, and this can lead to a clash of
maxims.

Everything you'll need for your studies in one place for Conversational Implicature

Types of conversational implicature - maxim clashes

It isn't always possible to follow all the maxims at the same time, which leads to a maxim clash. This is where
conversational implicature comes in.

Let's say a couple of friends are planning a night out on the town. X suggests a new restaurant that's just
opened. Y says: Sounds good. Where is it? X: Somewhere off the high street. (X doesn't have the exact
address)

X's answer does not contain enough information to plan the occasion; by not having the exact information, X
cannot obey either the quantity or quality maxim. By saying 'somewhere' X suggests 'I know sort of where it is
- I just don't have the exact address'; this becomes an indirect answer, hence implicature.

Flouting maxims can leave someone with either incorrect or not enough information.

A: 'Is the sun shining yet?' B: 'It might be.'

B wishes to cooperate by offering some information in this exchange (so obeying the maxim of quality, i.e.
striving for truthfulness - he believes the sun is out); he isn't certain, however, so he opts out of the maxim of
quantity (being informative). These contrasts become a maxim clash.

Hedging

We might also opt out of the Cooperative Principle by using cautious or vague language; this is to let the
other person know that we are not totally certain of the information we are giving.

Amy is a journalist asking her colleague (Brent) for information about a famous person she is about to
interview; Brent has heard something but does not have evidence, and he doesn't want to suggest something
that might prove to be untrue. So Brent opens his answer with 'I'm not sure if this is true, but ...'. He could
also open with 'I may be wrong, but ...' or 'As far as I know ...'
Brent is being cautious about the information he is about to share; he is hedging. This means that he is
signalling to Amy that the information might not be correct and therefore should not be relied on too much.

Stop procrastinating with our smart planner features for Conversational Implicature

Flouting

Conversational implicatures can also happen when a speaker clearly and intentionally violates the Maxims of
Conversation, intending for this to be recognized.

Let's look at what happens when the maxims of conversation are flouted:

Flouted Maxim of Quality:

He hit the roof when he heard the news.

Saying something that is obviously false can demonstrate figures of speech such as
irony, hyperbole and metaphor.

In the above example, it is unlikely he was tall enough to hit the roof, or that he was propelled like a rocket to
hit the roof; It is also very unlikely that the speaker was intentionally lying or mistaken - the addressee has to
infer that the speaker was using a metaphor or figure of speech.

Flouted maxim of quantity:

It is what it is.

You do what you have to do.

Either it is or it isn't.

Saying something that appears obvious, without being informative (including tautologies), can still suggest
information via implicatures. Take a look at the examples in context below:

A and B have been talking about work.

B ends by saying 'It is what it is.'

B means here: There's nothing we can do about it/no point in complaining about it.

'You do what you have to do.'

This implies that whatever someone is about to do is unpleasant but necessary.

Another way to flout the quantity maxim is by damning with faint price:

'The painting had a very beautiful frame.'

This suggests the painting was terrible, but the frame was nice to look at.

'The critic described the play as a good first effort.'

Here the critic avoids saying there were problems with the play by focusing on the inexperience of the
author.

Flouted maxim of relation/relevance:

In the exchange below, B's answer seems irrelevant, so A infers that B means something else:
A: Glenn's a bit of a bore, isn't he?

B: Have you seen Free Guy yet? (i.e. Glenn is standing behind you!)

Providing unnecessary information is a form of flouting the maxim of relevance.

Flouted maxim of manner:

It would be quicker to say 'the food was over-cooked / burnt/inedible' than the following:

'The chef presented us with a plateful of items that might at one point in their existence have been food, but
had long since given up that claim.'

By over-describing, the speaker avoids saying directly just how terrible the food was.

Particularized versus generalized implicatures

The most common conversational implicatures only happen in specific contexts and are called particularized.

Many of the examples we have looked at so far require some kind of context; this makes them particularized
implicatures.

Other conversational implicatures can be inferred without reference to a special context and these are called
generalized.

Usually, the indefinite article 'a' / 'an' will imply that there is no close connection to the speaker or subject.

Terry walked through a park and saw a parakeet in a tree.

This shows us that Terry is unrelated to the park, the parakeet, and the tree: they could be anywhere, it could
be any tree, and any parakeet.

Properties

Grice attributed various properties to conversational implicatures.

Defeasible (cancellable)

This means the implicature can be cancelled by further information or context.

Take the examples from above:

'Those  cookies look good!  ' (I would like one or more)

Now compare it with:

'Those cookies look good, but I'm on a diet.' (implicature defeated; i.e. 'I won't have any.')

And compare this:

C: I need to get some breakfast.

D: There's a baker's just around the corner. (You can get what you need there)

With

C: I need to get some breakfast.

D: There's a baker's just around the corner. But they won't be open yet. (implicature defeated)

They are usually non-detachable:

This means they rely on meaning and not the wording. So you can rephrase 'Those cookies look good!'  as:

Those biscuits look delicious!

The chocolate wafers you brought are to die for!

And the implicature will remain.

Here, "those look yummy" has a non-detachable implicature.

They are calculable:

This means they can be worked out rationally, as they are inferred and implied (and not encoded/decoded).

They are non-conventional:

They are not part of the literal meaning of a sentence.

They can be context-dependent.

Conventional implicature meaning

Grice also presented a theory of conventional implicature but never developed it. Conventional implicature
does not rely on the cooperative principle and the four maxims; instead, it is directly attached to the literal
meaning of the words being said.

Let's look at a simple sentence:

A) 'Tom is tall and weak.'

Both parts of this statement can be true.

B) 'Tom is tall  but  weak.'

Both parts of this statement are still true, only now there is a contrast, introduced by the word 'but'.

If we replace 'but' with 'and', we lose the sense of contrast.

The contrast must be part of the conventional meaning of the word 'but'. At the same time, the contrast is
not part of the truth condition. Therefore, statement B is not truth conditional (both statements contain truth
conditions but only one contains the contrast).

So this kind of conventional, but non-truth conditional, meaning is what Grice called
a conventional implicature.

Note: Conventional implicature uses other particles and phrases like 'but' such as "although, however,
nevertheless, moreover, anyway, whereas, after all, even, yet, still, besides".

'Even Kate knew they were on holiday.'

(i.e. Kate is the least likely person to have known)

'Jeremy still isn't at the gallery.'

Jeremy is not at the gallery; the use of 'still' hints that he is expected there.
Unlike conversational implicatures, conventional  implicatures are not defeasible.

Certain verbs also introduce conventional implicature:

'Tom managed to get there on time.'

The speaker tells us Tom got there.

The conventional implicature is: he had some difficulty in getting there.

'He failed to get there.'

This means he didn't get there.

The conventional implicature is: he attempted to get there, but didn't succeed or, he could have got there but
didn't try to.

Conversational implicature: Implications derived on the basis of conversational principles and assumptions,
relying on more than the linguistic meaning of words in a sentence.

* A (conversationally) implicates B if it is the case that uttering A in a certain conversational context

systematically suggests, everything else being equal, that B is true. However, the implicature can be called off

(i.e., cancelled).
Speech acts

Speech acts are statements that constitute actions. They correspond to the language in use, to the
language in practice, in the concrete communicative situation. When we speak, we not only
speak words but also perform certain actions: we describe, invite, advise, greet, congratulate, discuss, etc.,
that is, we do things with words. It matters not only what we say, but how we do it and with what
intention. Examples of Speech acts

The origin of speech act theory dates back to the studies of Reid, Reinach, and Austin. To the elements
contributed by these authors, Searle adds the primary role of the intentions, both of the speaker and the
listener, in the constitution of a complete meaning of the speech act. A speech act, says our author, is the
minimum and basic unit of linguistic communication and distinguishes between the act of issuing words,
morphemes or sentences – act of issuance – and the act of attributing to those words a reference and
preaching – propositional act. When comparing these elements with those proposed by Austin, the
coincidence between the two authors regarding the “consecutive” component of the speech act can be
appreciated. Searle, in addition, would admit an illocutive and perlocutive dimension in linguistic
uses. Examples of Speech acts

From this perspective, the speaker when participating in a communicative process triggers three acts of
communication:

ACT ASPECTS OF THE ACTION

It corresponds to the content of the statement, that is, to the meaning of what was said. It is the
information that the statement delivers. For example, when saying “lend me your pencil”, the
Speech act
speech act corresponds to the meanings of the words that make up the sentence. (The simple ac
of saying something)

It refers to the intention of the issuer and the action taken through the statement, for example
Illocutionary ordering, asking and apologizing, advising, reprimanding, among others. It is the part of the actio
act carried out by the speaker through his statement. In the example above, what the sender does is
a request: ask for the pencil. (The objective, purpose, or intention of what was said.)

It is the effect that the illocutionary act produces in the world, the consequence it has on the
person who receives it. This perlocutionary act can be more or less active: for example, if a priest
Perlocutionary blesses a person, the perlocutionary act is to be blessed, which does not imply any action on the
act part of the recipient. On the other hand, if the illocutionary act is a request, the perlocutive act
will be the fulfillment of that request. In the examples above, borrow the pencil. (The effects of
what is said on the listener.)

Direct speech acts

When the intention of the issuer is clearly understood. For example, if a man asks a boy:

"Buy me the newspaper"

This is a direct speech act because it is clearly stated that it is a command.

Indirect speech acts

When the intention of the issuer is not clearly expressed. If the same man says to the boy:

"I need to check the newspaper classifieds"

This is an indirect speech act, as you are not clearly stating the order or request, but the other must “take
it for granted” and facilitate the diary. In this case, a hint was made, which within the context can be
understood, but which strictly speaking is not a clear order, because the true intention is to make the other
facilitate the diary. Examples of Speech acts

If a specific action is requested, the most direct way is to use the imperative, for example, “Turn off the
light”, but this statement can be impolite or cause discomfort, both for the speaker and the
receiver. Hence, we prefer to use indirect forms that could be manifested with statements such as:

It would be better with the light off.

You're wasting energy ...

Speech acts are concrete, therefore, they are in the plane of everyday speech. They respond to the
situations of the context, that is why they will be different depending on the degree of formality and the
standard used. The norm, as we already know, corresponds to the degree of education of the
people. Depending on the specific situations that people have to live in, they will be more or less formal.
It’s clearly a different situation if someone talks to their boss or talks to friends. In the first case, his speech
acts will be of a greater degree of formality and, if he is a person of a cultured level, he will try to speak
according to that level. In the second case, if he is a cultured person, he will continue in that registry, but
his degree of formality will be different. There will be more closeness and the treatment will be equal to
equal.

Classification of Speech Acts Examples of Speech acts

Speech acts can also be classified according to the type of action carried out through them. This action is
manifested fundamentally in the verbal form of the sentences that we produce. In this way, we can say
that there are five types of speech acts: Examples of Speech acts

1. Assertive

The speaker affirms something about the world, that is, he elaborates a referential content that represents
things or states of affairs in the world. For example: Examples of Speech acts

"Today it's cloudy".

"The price of the dollar fell."

2. Compromising

By means of these acts, the speaker commits himself to carry out an action in the future. For example:

"I promise I'll go to your house."

3. Directors

Acts that seek to direct the listener or engage him in an action, making him act according to the wishes of
the speaker. For example:

"Bring the vial of vitamin D that is on the counter."

4. Declarative Examples of Speech acts

Acts that create a new state of affairs in the world through the word, for example, when priests bless or
marry two people and when judges sentence. It requires a certain level of authority on the part of the
issuer. For example, if a teacher says when expelling a student: Examples of Speech acts

"You are suspended from class."

5. Expressive

Through these acts, the speaker expresses his feelings and attitudes towards situations in the external
world. For example:

"I congratulate you on your triumph."

Based on this classification, any statement can be categorized as a particular speech act that is carrying out
an action in the communicative interaction. Examples of Speech acts

Hedges

Hedging in Academic Writing

Assume Seem

= Believe Maybe

Possibly Perhaps

Appear to be Looks like Think

In the linguistic sub-fields of applied linguistics and pragmatics, a hedge is a word or phrase used in a
sentence to express ambiguity, probability, caution, or indecisiveness about the remainder of the sentence,
rather than full accuracy, certainty, confidence, or decisiveness.