You are on page 1of 48

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

DEIXIS AND DISTANCE
BASIC CONCEPTS
The phenomenon of deixis ('pointing/indicating' via language) constitutes the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structure of languages themselves. Any linguistic form used to accomplish this pointing is called a deictic expression (or indexical sign) - Among the first forms to be used by very young children. - Used in face-to-face spoken interaction, to be easily understood by the people present (but difficult for someone not right there and then or in darkness). I'll put this here. Meet me here a week from now with a stick about this big. Listen, I’m not disagreeing with you but with you, and not about this, but about this. If the semantic content of a sentence is identified with its truth conditions, then utterances with deictic elements cannot be assessed (without context information). I am the mother of Napoleon. There is a man on Mars. How should indexicals be accomodated so that the notion of logical consequence can be applied to them? a. John Henry McTavitty is six feet tall and weighs 200 pounds. b. John Henry McTavitty is six feet tall. c. I am six feet tall and weigh 200 pounds. d. I am six feet tall. → While b. can be inferred from a., the only way for d. to be a valid inference from c. is if they were uttered by the same speaker (need for pragmatic indices or reference points).

THE DEICTIC CENTER
• proximal vs.distal There is a basic distinction between things 'near' or 'away from' the speaker. Proximal terms: this, here, now Distal terms: that, there, then These terms are defined in relation to the deictic center: - Central person is the speaker. - Central time is the time of utterance production. - Central place is the speaker’s location at utterance time. - Disourse center is the point which the speaker is currently at in the production of his/her utterance. - Social center is the speaker’s social status to which the status of the adressee(s)/referent(s) is relative. The structural distinctions between direct and indirect (reported) speech are reflected in the switch from proximal to distal forms.

1

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Other languages may have more distinctions than English: e.g., in Japanese demonstrative pronouns (‘this’ / ‘that’) will distinguish between 'that near the addressee' (<sore>) and 'that distant from both speaker and addressee' (<are>) with a third term being used for the proximal 'this near the speaker' (<kore>)

DEICTIC USAGE
Gestural: terms used in gestural deictic way can only be interpreted with reference to an audio-visual-tactile, and in general a physical, monitoring of the speech event. This one’s genuine, but this one’s fake. He’s not the Duke. He is. He’s the butler. Voici! (with selecting gesture) (Presentative in French)

Symbolic: symbolic usages of deictic terms require for their interpretation only knowledge of the basic spatio-temporal parameters of the speech event (and occasionally participant role, discourse and social parameters). This city is really beautiful. (General location is sufficient) You can all come with me if you like. (Set of potential addressees) We can’t afford a holiday this year. (General time) Deictic expressions can be used in a non-deictic function! Oh, I did this and that. There we go. You can never tell what age they are nowadays.

PERSON DEIXIS
• Each person in a conversation constantly shifts from being 'I' to being 'you'. – Children may go through stages of acquisition where this is problematic: Read you a story! • Basic three-part division speaker, addressee, others (1., 2., 3. person). • Markers of relative social status, so-called honorifics, may be used (see also social deixis). – T/V distinction: familiar vs. non-familiar addressees (tu - vous, du - sie, tu- usted). – Higher status, older, more powerful speakers tends to use the familiar form toward a lower status, younger, less powerful addressee. – On-familiar forms express distance, are often of 3rd person origin. Would his highness like some coffee? Somebody didn't clean up after himself. Inclusion/exclusion distinction: • Speaker and others without addressee vs. speaker and addressee included “we” Let’s go to the movies. Let’s go to see you tomorrow.

2

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Vocatives (special address forms for names, titles, kinship terms) are noun phrases that refer to an addressee, but are not syntactically or semantically incorporated as the arguments of a predicate (they are also set apart prosodically). Call/summons: Hey you, you just scratched my car with your frisbee! Address: The truth is, Madam, nothing is as good nowadays. Summons: utterance/conversation-initial, independent speech acts (gestural). Address: parentheticals that can occur anywhere in an utterance (symbolic).

SPATIAL DEIXIS
• Locations can be specified relative to other objects or fixed reference points. The station is 200 yards from the cathedral. Kabul lies at latitude 34 degrees, longitude 70 degrees. • Locations can be deictically specified relative to the location of participants at the time of speaking. It’s 200 yards away Kabul is 400 miles west of here • Basic distinction: here/there - additional older/dialectal forms: yonder, hither, thence (The latter two including the notion of motion toward or away from the speaker) • Other languages: – Tlingit has demonstratives for ‘this one right here’, ‘this one nearby’, ‘that one over there’, ‘that one way over there’. – Malagasy even has a six-way contrast for this dimension. Yet other languages do not organize demonstratives in this way (i.e., distance in concentric circles from a fixed deictic center), but with respect to contrasts between participant roles: • Latin: ‘hic’ (close to speaker), ‘iste’ (close to addressee), ‘ille’ (remote from speaker and addressee). • Turkish: ‘bu’ (close to speaker), ‘şu’ (close to addressee), ‘o’ (remote from speaker and addressee). • Samal has a four-way distinction based on four kinds of participant role: (i) close to speaker, (ii) close to addressee, (iii) close to audience (other members of the conversational group), (iv) close to persons present but outside the conversational group. • In Australian and New Guinean languages there are also systems that produce large arrays of demonstratives (‘upriver/downriver from speaker’, ‘visible/not visible to speaker’, ‘above/below/at level with the speaker’). → Some verbs of motion, e.g., come/go, retain a deictic sense when they are used to mark movement toward ('Come to bed') or away from the speaker ('Go to bed') • Location from the speaker's perspective can be fixed mentally as well as physically. Speakers temporarily away from their home location will often continue to use 'here' to mean the physically distant home location. • Speakers are also able to project themselves into other locations prior to actually being in those locations, as when they say 'I'll come later' (= movement to the addressee's location).

3

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

Deictic Projection
– The phrase 'I am not here now' should be nonsensical. It is of course possible to say this on your answering machine, projecting that 'now' will apply to any time somebody calls and not to when the words are recorded (projecting one's presence into the future and a different location). – Similar effect of indirect speech ('here' is not the actual location of the person telling the story). I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad look on its face. It was like 'Oh, I'm so unhappy here, will you set me free? →Psychological Distance as the pragmatic basis of spatial deixis. – Physical and psychological distance often correlate with each other, but deictic elements can be used to express psychological distance (empathetic deixis) only ('I don't like that smell').

TEMPORAL DEIXIS
• Proximal 'now' indicates both the time coinciding with the speaker's utterance and the time of the speaker's voice being heard (the hearer's now) • Distal 'then' applies to both past and future time relative to the speaker's present time. November 22nd, 1963? I was in Scotland then. Dinner at 8:30 on Saturday? Okay, I'll see you then • Non-deictic temporal reference like calendar and clock time islearned later than deictic references such as ‘tomorrow’, ‘today’, ‘tonight’, ‘this week’. • All deictic expressions depend on knowing the relevant utterance time (Fillmore 1971). – Time the utterance was made = coding time (CT) – Time the utterance is heard/read = receiving time (RT) →Deictic Simultaneity: CT = RT (normal verbal utterance situation) – Complication in written messages and pre-recordings of media programs Back in an hour. Free beer tomorrow. In this case a decision has to be made about whether the deictic center remains on the speaker (and CT) or is projected on the addresse (and RT). • The psychological basis of temporal deixis is similar to that of spatial deixis. Temporal events can be treated as objects that move toward or away from us ('the coming week', 'the approaching year' --- 'in days gone by', and ‘the past week') This program is being recorded today, Wednesday April 1st , to be relayed next Thursday. This program was recorded last Wednesday April 1st, to be relayed today. I write this letter while chewing peyote. I wrote this letter while chewing peyote. • Choice of verb tense expresses temporal deixis – Present tense is proximal: 'I live here now' – Past/future are distal: 'I lived there then / I will be in London by then' – Conditional/unlikely event also treated as deictically distant I could be in Hawaii (if I had a lot of money).

4

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

DISCOURSE DEIXIS
Discourse or text deixis (Fillmore 1975, Lyons 1977) deals with expressions within an utterance that refer to portions of the unfolding discourse in which the utterance is located. Pff, pff, pff: that is what it sounded like. This is what phoneticians call creaky voice. This sentence is not true. This subject will be addressed in the next chapter. I bet you haven’t heard this story. That was the funniest story I’ve ever heard. →Token Reflexivity Also included in disccourse deixis are expressions which signal an utterance’s relation to surrounding text (e.g., utterance-initial ‘anyway’). CAUTION: A discourse-deictic expression refers to a linguistic expression or chunk of discourse itself, but not to the same entity as a prior linguistic expression (see anaphor). A: That’s a rhinoceros. B: Spell it for me. Discourse-deictic use of ‘it’ A: That’s a rhinoceros. Anaphoric use of ‘it’ B: I like it.

SOCIAL DEIXIS
Social Deixis deals with the encoding of social distinctions that are relative to participant roles, particularly aspects of the social identities of and the relationship between speaker and addressee(s) or speaker and some referent. Relational Social Deixis (i) Speaker and referent (e.g. referent honorifics) (ii) Speaker and addressee (e.g. addressee honorifics) (iii) Speaker and bystander (e.g. audience honorifics) (iv) Speaker and setting (e.g. formality levels) Honorifics: describing a relation concerninh relative rank or respect (Comrie 1976) - Other grammaticalized relationships: kinship relations, totemic relations, clan membership. Referent honorifics: Respect conveyed by referring to the target of respect. - T/V distinction (tu – vous etc.) Addressee honorifics: Respect conveyed without (necessarily) referring to the target. - Japanese/Korean: ‘the soup is hot’ with choice of linguistic alternates, e.g., for ‘soup’ to express respect for the addressee →Complex speech levels (anything one says is sociolinguistic) Audience honorifics: respect conveyed for participants in audience role or nonparticipating overhearers. - Dyirbal alternative vocabulary in the presence of taboo relatives Formality levels: different language use in particular formal settings

5

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

- Japanese/Tamil: different style (vocabulary, syntax) / diglossic variant (differences across phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon) Absolute Social Deixis Authorized speakers: only certain typed of speakers may use particular words/morphemes. - Thai: ‘khráb’ politeness particle only used by men, ‘khá’ only by women. - Japanese first pronoun only used by the emperor. Authorized recipients: only certain types of addresse may be addressed with certain words/morphemes, titles of address (‘You Honor’, ‘Mr. President’). - Tunica: pronouns differing with sex of addressee, e.g. two words for ‘they’ depending on whether one is speaking to a man or a woman. Socially deictic information can be encoded anywhere in the linguistic system. Lexicon (alternates/suppletives): Morphology (affixes, particles): Phonology (segmental, prosody): Mixtures of all elements: e.g., Japanese (also weakly in English ‘elevated’ terms, e.g. ‘residence’ for ‘home’, ‘dine’ for ‘eat’, ‘lady’ for ‘woman’, ‘steed’ for ‘stallion’ Thai Basque, Tzeltal (honorific falsetto) Javanese, Tamil, Madurese

6

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

REFERENCE AND INFERENCE
BASIC CONCEPTS
Reference: act in which a speaker/writer uses linguistics forms to enable a listener/reader to identify something (‘words don't refer, people do’). Referring expressions - Proper nouns ('Shakespeare', 'Hawaii') - Definite noun phrases ('the author', 'the island') - Indefinite noun phrases ('a man', 'a woman', 'a beautiful place') - Pronouns ('he', 'she', 'them') The choice of expression depends largely on what the speaker assumes the listener already knows. (in shared visual contexts -> deictic expressions) Inference: as there is no direct relationship between entities and words, the listener's task is to infer correctly which entity the speaker intends to identify by using a particular referring expression. - can use vague expressions ('the blue thing', 'that icky stuff', 'whatsisname') - can use expressions focusing on one feature ('Mister Aftershave is late today‘)  Reference needs to use objectively correct naming, but can work with locally successful choices of expression.

REFERENTIAL AND ATTRIBUTIVE USE
Not all referring expressions have identifiable physical referents indefinite noun phrases can refer to • a physically present entity: 'There's a man waiting for you'. • an unknown entity assumed to exist: 'He wants to marry a woman with lots of money'. • an entity that does not exist: 'We'd like to sign a nine-foot-tall basketball player'.  Use in b. (entity only known in terms of descriptive properties) is an attributive use meaning 'who/whatever fits the description'.  Referential use has one specific entity in mind (Donnellan 1966) attributive use is also possible with definite NPs: 'There was no sign of the killer' (when talking about a mysterious death, referential use when a particular person had been identified, chased into a building, but escaped).  Expressions themselves do not have reference but are invested with referential function in a context by a speaker/writer

NAMES AND REFERENTS
Convention between all members of a cultural/language community: collaboration of the intention to identify and the recognition of intention 'Shakespeare' does not refer only to a specific person: Can I borrow your Shakespeare? Yeah it's over there on the table. Conventional set of entities (e.g. things the writer produced)

7

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf. We're going to see Shakespeare in London. I hated Shakespeare at school. 'The cheese sandwich' can refer to a person Where's the cheese sandwich sitting? He's over there by the window.  Pragmatic connection between proper names and objects conventionally associated within a socio-culturally defined community.

THE ROLE OF CO-TEXT
The ability to identify intended referents does not just depend on the understanding of the referring expression, but is aided by the linguistic material, or co-text, accompanying it. Brazil wins World Cup. ('wins World Cup' limits the range of possible interpretations)  The referring expression provides a range of reference, a number of possible referents. The cheese sandwich is made with white bread. The cheese sandwich left without paying. Co-text: linguistic part of the environment in which a referring expression is used. Context: physical environment and (speech) conventions, e.g., a restaurant. The heart-attack mustn't be moved. (hospital) Your ten-thirty just cancelled. (dentist) A couple of rooms have complained about the heat. (hotel)  Conventions may differ from one social group to another.  Reference is a social act in which the speaker assumes that the word/phrase chosen to identify an object/person will be interpreted as the speaker intended (not simply a relationship between the meaning of a word/phrase and an object/person in the world).

ANAPHORIC REFERENCE
In talking and writing we have to keep track of who or what we are talking about for more than one sentence at a time. In the film, a man and a woman were trying to wash a cat. The man was holding the cat while the woman poured water on it. He said something to her and they started laughing. • Initial/introductory reference is often indefinite ('a man', 'a woman', 'a cat') • Subsequent reference with definite NPs ('the man, 'the cat', 'the woman') or with pronouns ('it', 'he', 'she') Reference to already introduced referents is called anaphoric reference (initial expression: Antecedent - subsequent expression: anaphor) - Anaphoric reference need not be exactly identical to antecedent: Peel and slice six potatoes. Put them in cold salted water. ('them' now refers to 'the six peeled and sliced potatoes') - Sometimes reversal of antecedent-anaphor order. I turned the corner and almost stepped on it. 8

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam There was a large snake in the middle of the path.  cataphoric pattern ('it' is a cataphor) While definite nouns and pronouns can act as anaphors, ellipsis can as well (zero anaphor). Peel an onion and slice it. Drop the slices into hot oil. Cook for three minutes. The last utterance 'Cook for three minutes' works with the expectation that the listener will be able to infer that the speaker intends to identify the peeled onion slices It is possible to make inferences when anaphoric expressions are not linguistically connected to their antecedents. I just rented a house. The kitchen is really big. We had Chardonnay with dinner. The wine was the best part. The bus came on time, but he didn't stop. ‘I just rented a house. The kitchen is really big’ requires the inference that if x is a house, then x has a kitchen to make an anaphoric connection.  Knowledge in the listener is assumed (can be specific, e.g. one must know that Chardonnay is a wine, can lead to lack of grammatical agreement (bus - he)).  The social dimension of reference is tied to the effect of collaboration - conversation partners must have something in common/share something (social closeness). Successful reference means that an intention was recognized, via inference, indicating a kind of shared knowledge and hence social connection.

9

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT
BASIC CONCEPTS
Presupposition and entailment describe two different aspects of information that need not be stated as speakers assume it is already known by listeners. [These concepts used to be much more central to pragmatics than they are now, but they are still important to understand the relationship between pragmatics and semantics] Presupposition: something the speaker assumes to be the case before making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presupposition. not the same meaning as in ordinary usage (‘John wrote Harry a letter, presupposing he could read’). Entailment: something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments. Example analysis: Mary's brother bought three horses. Presuppositions: Mary exists, Mary has a brother, Mary has only one brother, Mary's brother is rich.  Speaker’s subjective presuppositions, all can be wrong . Entailments: Mary's brother bought something, bought three animals, two horses, one horse etc.  Entailments follow from the sentence regardless of whether the speaker's beliefs are right or wrong. [Because of its logical nature, entailment is not generally discussed as much in contemporary pragmatics as the more speaker-dependent notion of presupposition]

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Concern with this topic originates with debates in philosophy, specifically debates about the nature or reference and referring expressions. Frege (1892): If anything is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition (‘Voraussetzung’ in the original) that the simple or compound proper names used have a reference. If one therefore asserts ‘Kepler died in misery’, there is a presupposition that the name Kepler designates something (‘Kepler designates something’ is not part of the meaning of ‘Kepler died in misery’). (i) referring phrases carry presuppositions to the effect that they do indeed refer. (ii) a sentence and its negative counterpart share the same set of presuppositions. (iii) in order for assertion to be either true or false, its presuppositions must be true or satisfied. Russell (1905): Sentences that lack proper referents are meaningful (vs. (iiii) in Frege). The King of France is wise. 10

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam The sentence is meaningful because it is simply false. The King of France is not wise. can be taken in two ways: a. there is a King of France and he is not wise. (narrow scope of negation) b. there is no King of France and he is not wise. (wide scope of negation) (‘The King of France is not wise because there is no such person.’) Strawson (1950): Sentences must be distinguished from uses of sentences. Russell’sconflation of the distinction led him to think that because ‘The King ofFrance is wise’ is meaningful, it must be either true or false. Sentences aren’t true or false, only statements are The statement of ‘The King of France is wise’ may have been true in 1670 and false in 1770, but in 1970 it cannot sensibly be said to be either true or false, due to the nonexistence of a King of France the question of its truth or falsity does not even arise.  There is a precondition for ‘The King of France is wise’ to be true or false and that is ‘There is a present King of France’. This is a presupposition.

PRESUPPOSITION
Presupposition is treated as a relationship between two propositions. Mary's dog is cute. (= proposition p) Mary has a dog. (= proposition q) p >> q (p presupposes q) Negation does not change the relationship of presupposition. Mary's dog isn't cute. (= NOT p) Mary has a dog. (= q) NOT p >> q (NOT p presupposes q) Constancy under negation = the presupposition of statement remains constant (i.e., true) even when that statement is negated. Everybody knows that John is gay. (= p) Everybody doesn't know that John is gay. (= NOT p) John is gay. (= q) p >> q & NOT p >> q  Speakers disagree about validity of p, but not of q.

TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION
Linguistic forms (words, phrases, structures) are indicators (or triggers) of potential presuppositions which can only become actual presuppositions in contexts with speakers. A. Existential Presupposition Speaker is committed to the existence of the entities named the King of Sweden the cat 11

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam the girl next door the Counting Crows any definite noun phrase your car B. Factive Presupposition Certain verbs/construction indicate that something is a fact Everybody KNOWS that John is gay. (>> John is gay) She didn't REALIZE he was ill. (>> He was ill) We REGRET telling him. (>> We told him) I WASN'T AWARE that she was married. (>> She was married) It ISN'T ODD that he left early. (>> He left early) I'M GLAD that it's over. (>> It's over) C. Lexical Presupposition The use of a form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another, non-asserted, meaning is understood. He MANAGED to repair the clock. (>> he tried to repair the clock) Asserted meaning: he suceeded. He didn't MANAGE to repair the clock. (>> he tried to repair the clock.) Asserted meaning: he failed. He STOPPED smoking. (>> he used to smoke.) They STARTED complained. (>> they weren't complaining before.) You're late AGAIN. (>> You were late before.) D. Structural Presupposition Certain sentence structures conventionally and regularly presuppose that part of the structure is already assumed to be true Wh-questions: When did he leave? (>> he left.) Where did you buy the bike? (>> You bought the bike.) This type of presupposition can lead listeners to believe that the information presented is necessarily true, rather than just the presupposition of the person asking the question. How fast was the car going when it ran the red light? (>> the car ran the red light) If the question is answered with some estimate of the speed the speaker would appear to be accepting the truth of the presupposition. (very popular with lawyers) E Non-factive Presupposition Certain verbs/constructions indicate that something is not a fact / not true I DREAMED that I was rich. (>> I was not rich.) We IMAGINED we were in Hawaii. (>> We were not in Hawaii.) He PRETENDS to be ill. (>> He is not ill.) F. Counterfactual Presupposition Structures mean that what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, i.e. contrary to facts. If you were my friend, you would have helped me (>> You are not my friend)

12

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam SUMMARY Type Example Existential the X Factive I regret leaving. Non-factive He pretended to be happy. Lexical He managed to escape. Structural When did she die? Counterfactual If I weren't ill,

Presupposition >> X exists. >> I left. >> He wasn't happy. >> He tried to escape. >> She died. >> I am ill.

THE PROJECTION PROBLEM
There is a basic expectation that the presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more complex sentence. Projection Problem: the meaning of some presuppositions (as 'parts') doesn't survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as 'wholes'). EXAMPLE ANALYSIS 1: I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill. a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill. (= p) b. Kelly was ill. (= q) c. p >> q => Speaker uttering a. presupposed b. d. I imagined that Kelly was ill. (= r) e. Kelly was not ill. (= NOT q) f. r >> NOT q => speaker uttering d. presupposed e. (which is the opposite of b.) g. I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill. (= r & p) h. r & p >> NOT q => q can no longer be assumed to be true. EXAMPLE ANALYSIS 2 Dialog in a TV soap opera: Shirley: It's so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. Jean: But he didn't get her pregnant. We know that now.  'George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant.‘ a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. (= p) b. George got Mary pregnant. (= q) c. p >> q d. He didn't get her pregnant. (= r) e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant. (= p & r) f. p & r >> NOT q The presupposition does not project because it is overruled by an entailment: 'He didn't get her pregnant' entails 'George didn't get Mary pregnant' as a logical consequence. Therefore 'George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant' includes the presupposition q in the first half and the entailment NOT q in the second half.  The entailment is more powerful Entailments can also cancel existential presuppositions a. The King of England visited us. b. The King of England does not exist.

13

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam  The speaker uttering b. does not simultaneously believe that there is a King of England (presupposition) and that there is no King of England (entailment). Presuppositions should be thought of as potentials (they are defeasible), they only become actual presuppositions when intended by the speaker to be recognized as such At least John won’t have to regret that he did a PhD. Despite the use of ‘regret’ only the context/knowledge can decide whether John did a PhD or not. Speakers can indicate that a potential presupposition is not presented as a strong assumption. What's that guy doing in the parking lot? He's looking for his car or something.

ORDERED ENTAILMENTS
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic (i.e. having to do with speaker meaning), but a purely logical concept. Rover chased three squirrels. (= p) a. Something chased three squirrels. (= q) b. Rover did something to three squirrels. (= r) c. Rover chased three of something. (= s) d. Something happened. (= t) Relationsship of entailment between p and q: p ||- q a.-d. are examples of background entailments (there are more) the speaker can communicate - usually by means of stress – the order of importance of the entailments Rover chased THREE squirrels. ROVER chased three squirrels.  Foreground entailment If-Cleft constructions can fulfil the same purpose. It was ROVER that chased the squirrels.

14

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE
BASIC CONCEPTS
We assume that speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally cooperating with each other. - For reference to be successful it was proposed that collaboration is a necessary factor. - In accepting speakers' presuppositions, listeners normally have to assume that a speaker who says 'my car' does have a car and is not trying to mislead the listener. People having a conversation are not normally assumed to be trying to confuse, trick, or withhold relevant information from each other  sense of cooperation. In the middle of their lunch hour, one woman asks another how she likes the hamburger she is eating, and receives the answer: A hamburger is a hamburger. Tautology: statement that is always true, but has no communicative value. In a conversation the speaker using a tautology intends to communicate more than is said. The additional conveyed meaning is an implicature. (here: the hamburger tastes as usual, she has no opinion whether it's good or bad) Implicature stands as a paradigmatic example of the nature and power of pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomena. It is intended to contrast with terms like (logical) implication, entailment or consequence.

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE
Scenario: There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of the bench. A man comes along and sits down on the bench. Man: Does your dog bite? Woman: No. (The man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites the man's hand.) Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn't bite. Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog.  The man erroneously assumed that more was communicated than what was said. - This is not a problem involving presuppositions because the assumption that the woman has a dog is true for both speakers. - From the man's perspective the woman's answer provided less information than expected  Giving sufficient information is an example for the cooperative principle of conversation There are four sub-principles, called conversational maxims according to Grice (1975) (key ideas delivered in the William James lectures at Harvard in 1967).

15

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Cooperative Principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

MAXIMS
A. Quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required. (for the current purposes of the exchange) 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. B. Quality (Try to make your contribution one that is true) 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. C. Relation 1. Be relevant. D. Manner (Be perspicuous) 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly. Summary: We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, tell the truth, be relevant and try to be as clear as they can. Speakers rarely mention these principles, except when they may be in danger of not fully adhering to them  hedges

HEDGES
Hedges: cautious notes to indicate that a speaker is aware of maxims, but fears not to adhere to them completely. Speakers are aware of the maxims and show that they are trying to observe them. Examples Quality As far as I know, they're married. I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger. I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret ceremony in Hawaii. He couldn't live without her, I guess. Examples Quantity As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs. So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran. I won't bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip. Examples Relation Oh by the way, his nephew is a member of parliament. Anyway, that's also part of the program. I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing. This may sound like a dumb question, but whose handwriting is this? Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget? Examples Manner This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car.

16

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam I'm not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights. I don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing. Situations where speakers may not follow the expectations of the cooperative principle: - In courtrooms and classrooms, witnesses and students are often called upon to tell people things which are already well-known to those people (violation of the quantity maxim).  Specialized institutional talk is different from conversation Examples for speakers not following the maxims on purpose No comment. My lips are sealed. (These statements are not as informative as required, but interpreted as communicating more than is said, i.e., the speaker knows the answer) Apparent violation of the Maxims is the key to the notion of conversational implicature.

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Basic assumption in conversation: Unless otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to the cooperative principle and the maxims. Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese. Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread. Charlene assumes the Dexter is cooperating and aware of the quantity maxim. If he did not mention the cheese, he must have done so on purpose. She infers that what is not mentioned, was not brought.  Dexter has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature. Charlene: b & c? Dexter: b (+> NOT c) Speakers communicate meaning via implicatures - listeners recognize the communicated meanings via inference.

GENERALIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? (b & c?) Mary: I invited Bella . (b +> NOT c) When no special background knowledge of the context of the utterance is required to make the necessary inferences, it is called a generalized conversational implicature. Example: indefinite articles are typically interpreted as an X +> not speaker's X I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.  not my garden, my child Quantity maxim: If the speaker were capable of being more specific/informative he/she would have said 'my garden' and 'my child'. John has two PhDs. Quality maxim: A speaker believes what she/he asserts to be true Therefore sentences like ??John has two PhDs but I don’t believe he has are anomalous (so-called Moore’s Paradox)

17

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

SCALAR IMPLICATURES
Words of a certain type can be classified as expressing one value from a scale of values, e.g., terms for expressing quantity <all, most, many, some, few> <always, often, sometimes> <must, should, may> <n, …, 5,4,3,2,1> When producing an utterance, a speaker selects the one word from the scale which is the most informative and truthful (quantity and quality). I'm studying linguistics and I've completed some of the required courses.  'some' creates the implicature +> not all scalar implicature: when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated. The linguistic courses are sometimes really interesting.  'sometimes' creates the implicatures +> not often, +> not always It's possible that they were delayed.  implicates +> not certain (as a higher value on the scale of likelihood) This should be stored in a cool place.  implicates +> not must (on a scale of obligation)  implicates +> not frozen (on a scale of coldness) Speakers may correct themselves on the use of scalar implicatures: I got some of this jewelry in Hong Kong - um actually I think I got most of it there.

PARTICULARIZED CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE
Most conversations take place in very specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed  Particularized conversational implicatures - By far the most common type of implicature, therefore usually just called implicatures. Rick: Hey, coming to the party tonight? Tom: My parents are visiting. - seems to violate maxim of relevance. In order to make Tom's response relevant, Rick has to draw on assumed knowledge that one college student expects another to have (Tom will be spending the evening with his parents, who are unlikely to come to the party, consequently +> Tom not at party) Lloyd: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil? Winston: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas! - Any reasonably informed participant in the 1970’s (and today) would know that B’s utterance is blatantly false. That being so, Winston cannot be trying to deceive Lloyd. His seeming violation of the maxim of quality must be intended to mean something different, namely the opposite ( irony). Possibilities: hyperbole (‘I’m starving’), metaphor (‘She devoured this book’), irony (friendly way of being offensive: ‘I just love being woken up at 4 a.m. by a fire alarm’), sarcasm (less friendly form of irony: ‘Why don’t you leave all your dirty clothes on the floor?’), banter (offensive way of being friendly, can have a flirtatious element: ‘You’re nasty, mean and stingy. How can you only give me one kiss?’)

18

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Ann: Where are you going with the dog? Sam: To the V - E - T Sam 'flouts' (i.e. does not adhere to) the maxim of manner. The dog is known to recognize the word 'vet' and to hate being taken there, therefore Sam produces a more elaborate, i.e. less brief, version. Jane: John still has not said if he’ll come. Beth: He’ll either come or he won’t. Beth flouts the maxim of quantity by saying nothing informative. Her true informative inference must be something like ‘calm down, there’s no point in worrying, we can’t do anything about it anyway’. Leila has just walked into Mary's office and noticed all the work on her desk. Leila: Whoa! Has you boss gone crazy? Mary: Let's go get some coffee. Mary flouts the maxim of relevance. Leila has to infer some local reason (e.g., the boss is nearby) for why Mary makes a non-relevant remark. Standardized flouting of relevance: Bert: Do you like ice cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?

PROPERTIES OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURES
1. Conversational implicatures are defeasible Because implicatures are part of what is communicated and not said, speakers can always deny that they intended communicate such meanings. You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five) standard implicature: only five dollars won It is easy to suspend the implicature +> only five by adding 'at least'. You have won at least five dollars! You have won five dollars, in fact, you've won ten! You have won five dollars, that's four more than one!

EXCURSION: LOGICAL REASONING
Deductive inferences are not defeasible i. If Socrates is a man, he is mortal ii. Socrates is a man. Inductive inferences are defeasiable i. I have dug up 1001 carrots. ii. Every one of the 1001 carrots is orange. ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------iii. Therefore, Socrates is mortal iii. Therefore, all carrots are orange.  If premises i. and ii. are true, BUT: then whatever else is true or false, iii. is true iv. The 1002nd carrot is green  implicatures are more like inductive inferences than deductive ones 2. Conversational implicatures are non-detachable (except those due to the maxim of manner)

19

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam An implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to linguistic form, and therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms. If for example an ironic interpretation of ‘John’s a genius’ (i.e., John’s an idiot’) is forced by flouting, then it does not matter, if it is worded differently. John’s a mental prodigy John’s a big brain John’s an enormous intellect 3. Conversational implicatures are calculable. For every putative implicature it should be possible to construct an argument showing how from the literal meaning or the sense of the utterance on the one hand, and the cooperative principle and the maxims on the other hand, it follows that an addressee would make the inference in question to preserve the assumption of co-operation  Conversational implicatures are non-conventional. Conversational implicatures are not part of the conventional meaning of linguistic expressions. Since you need to know the literal meaning/sense of a sentence before you can calculate its implicatures in a context, the implicatures cannot be part of the meaning. An utterance can be true, while its implicature is false: Herb hit Sally. By the quantity maxim this would implicate Herb hit Sally but didn’t kill her but a speaker might say ‘Herb hit Sally’ nevertheless, attempting to mislead.

CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES
Conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They don't have to occur in conversation and depend on special contexts for interpretation. They are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used. 'but' ‘p but q’ will be based on the conjunction p & q plus an implicature of contrast between the information in p and the information in q Mary suggested black, but I chose white. p & q (+> p is in contrast to q) 'even' implicature of 'contrary to expectation'. Even John came to the party. He even helped tidy up afterwards. 'yet' the present situation is expected to be different, perhaps the opposite, at a later time Dennis isn't here yet. (= NOT p) NOT p is true (+> p expected to be true later)

20

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam 'and' the so-called different meanings of 'and' in English can be explained as instances of conventional implicature in different structures. Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work. (p & q, +> p plus q) She put on her clothes and left the house. (p & q, +> q after p) - When two statements containing static information are joined by 'and' the implicature is simply 'in addition' or 'plus'. - When the two statements contain dynamic, action-related information, the implicature of 'and' is 'and then‘, indicating sequence. - In the second case the order of the two parts cannot be reversed without a change in meaning.

21

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS
BASIC CONCEPTS
Speakers can perform actions while making utterances. Situation: At work, boss has great deal of power. You're fired.  More than just a statement, actually ends your employment. Other examples: You're so fantastic. (compliment) You're welcome. (acknowledgement of thanks) You're crazy! (expression of surprise) Actions performed via utterances are called speech acts (e.g., apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, request) The speaker normally expects that his or her communicative intention will be recognized by the hearer - both speaker and hearer are helped by the circumstances surrounding the utterance. These circumstances (including other utterances) are called the speech event. The tea is really cold! Situation A: On a wintry day, the speaker reaches for a cup of tea, believing that it has been freshly made, takes a sip, and produces the utterance  complaint. Situation B: On a really hot summer's day the speaker is being given a glass of iced tea, takes a sip, and produces the utterance  praise No simple utterance-to-action correspondence is possible!!!

PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND
1930s: logical positivism (unless a sentence can be tested for its truth or falsity, it is strictly speaking meaningless) vs. Wittgenstein: ‘Meaning is use’ Austin 1962: - theory of Speech Acts - Series of lectures (posthumously published as ‘How to do things with words’)  Truth conditions are not central to language understanding. - performatives vs. constatives I christen this ship the Imperial Flagship Mao - Speech act goes wrong if + ship already has another name. + I am not authorized to name it. + there are no witnesses, slipways, bottles of champagne.  Felicity conditions (conditions performatives must meet to succeed). Searle 1969: - systematization of Austin’s work, creating speech act theory’s impact on linguistics.

22

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - Felicity conditions constitute various speech acts (illocutionary acts). - Typology of speech acts.

SPEECH ACTS
An action performed by producing an utterance consists of three related acts: locutionary act: basic act of utterance, producing a meaningful linguistic expression Aha mokofa. ( not a locutionary act) I've just made some coffee. ( locutionary act) Illocutionary act: function/communicative force of the utterance (also called Illocutionary force), can be a statement, offer, explanation etc. Perlocutionary act: intended effect of the action (also called perlocutionary effect). - Speech acts are often interpreted narrowly as just the illocutionary force of an utterance. - The same locutionary act can count as different illocutionary forces I'll see you later. can be a prediction, promise or warning. How can speakers be sure that the intended illocutionary force will be recognized by the hearer?  IFIDs and felicity conditions.

IFIDS
An IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device) is an expression with a slot for a verb that explicitly names the illocutionary act being performed. - Such verbs are called performative verbs I promise/warn you that ... - They are not always made this explicit in conversation. A: Can I talk to Mary? B: No, she's not here. A: I'm asking you - can I talk to her? B: And I'm telling you - She is not here!!!! - Most of the time there is no performative verb mentioned. Other IFIDs beside performative verbs: word order, stress, intonation, voice quality (lowered for warnings/threats) You're going! [I tell you X] You're going? [I request confirmation about X] Are you going? [I ask you if X]

FELICITY CONDITIONS
Felicity conditions: expected or appropriate circumstances for a speech act to be recognized as intended. I sentence you to six months in prison. - Performance will be infelicitous if the speaker is not a judge in a courtroom. General conditions: Language is understood, no play-acting, nonsense

23

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Content conditions: Preparatory conditions:

Sincerity conditions:

Essential conditions:

e.g. for promises/warnings the content of the utterance must be about a future event (promise: the event will be an act by the speaker). Pre-existing conditions about the event, e.g., promise: event will not happen by itself, event will be beneficial warning: it's not clear if the hearer knows that the event will occur, the event will not have a beneficial effect. Attitude of the speaker, e.g. promise: speaker genuinely intends to carry out the future action warning: speaker genuinely believes the future event will not have a beneficial effect. Change of state in the speaker, e.g., promise: change of state from non-obligation to obligation to carry out action warning: change of state from noninformation of bad future event to information.

THE PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS
Performative Hypothesis: One way to think about the speech acts being performed via utterances is to assume that underlying every utterance (U) there is a clause containing a performative verb (Vp) which makes the illocutionary force explicit. I (hereby) Vp you that U - The subject must be first person - The adverb 'hereby' indicates that utterance counts as an action. - Vp in the present tense. - Indirect object in second person singular. Clean up this mess. I hereby order you to clean up this mess. The work was done by Elaine I hereby tell you that the work and my self. was done by Elaine and myself. Implicit performatives explicit performatives (Primary perormatives) This type of analysis makes clear what elements are involved in the production and interpretation of utterances: • In syntax a reflexive pronoun (like 'myself') requires an antecedent ('I') within the same sentence structure (it can be found in the explicit performative!!). • It can be shown that some adverbs naturally attach to the explicit performative clause rather than the implicit version: Honestly, he's a scoundrel. (I hereby honestly tell you that he is a scoundrel) What time is it, because I may be late? (I hereby ask you because I may be late ...) • Problem: explicit utterance may change interpretation (versions are not equivalent)

24

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

 We don't how many performative verbs there are in any language!!

SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION
Declarations: - Speech acts that change the world via their utterance. - The speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific situation. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife. Referee: You're out. Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty.  The speaker changes the world via words. - speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be the case or not. - statements of fact, assertions, conclusions and descriptions are all examples of the speaker representing the world as he/she believes it is. The earth is flat. Chomsky didn't write about peanuts. It was a warm sunny day.  The speaker makes words fit the world (of belief) - speech acts that state what the speaker feels. - they express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow ... I'm really sorry. Congratulations! Oh yes, great, mmmmm!!  The speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling) - Speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something. - They express what the speakers want; they are commands, orders, requests, suggestions and can be positive or negative. Gimme a cup of coffe. Make it black. Could you lend me a pen, please? Don't touch that.  The speaker attempts to make the world fit the words via the hearer. - Speech acts that speaker use to commit themselves to some future action. 25

Representatives:

Expressives:

Directives:

Commissives:

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - They express what the speaker intends, they are promises, threats, refusals, pledges. - They can be performed by the speaker alone, or by as a member of a group. I'll be back. I'm going to get it right next time. We will not do that.  The speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words via the speaker. Summary Speech Act Type Direction of fit Form (S = speaker, X = situation) Declarations words change the world S causes X Representatives make words fit the world S believes X Expressives make words fit the world S feels X Directives make the world fit words S wants X Commissives make the world fit words S intends X

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS
Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function.  Direct Speech Act You wear a seat belt. (Declarative) Do you wear a seat belt? (Interrogative) Wear a seat belt! (Imperative) If the relationship between structure and function is indirect  Indirect Speech Act Example: A declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act, a declarative used to make a request is an indirect speech act. It's cold outside.  I hereby tell you about the weather. (direct speech act)  I hereby request that you close the door. (indirect speech act) Example: Speaker wants hearer not to stand in front of the TV Move out of the way! (Imperative ->direct speech act) Do you have to stand in front of the TV? You're standing in front of the TV. You'd make a better door than a window. (Interrogative -> indirect speech act) (Declarative -> indirect speech act) (Declarative -> indirect speech act)

There is a typical pattern in English whereby asking a question about the hearer's assumed ability ('can you', 'could you') or future likelihood with regard to doing something ('will you', 'would you') normally counts as a request to actually do that something. Could you pass the salt? Would you open this? 26

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness than direct speech acts.

SPEECH EVENTS
An indirect request can be interpreted as question whether the necessary conditions for a request are in place, i.e., a preparatory condition would be that the speaker assumes that the hearer is able ('CAN') to perform the action. A content condition concerns the future action that the hearer WILL perform the action. Content condition Future act of hearer 'WILL you do X?' (= hearer will do X) Preparatory condition Hearer is able to perform act 'CAN you do X?' (= hearer CAN do X)  Questioning a hearer-based condition for making a request results in an indirect request. - There is a definite difference between asking someone to do X and asking someone if the preconditions for doing X are in place. - Asking about preconditions technically doesn't count as making a request, but allows the hearer to react as if the request had been made (= less of an imposition on the hearer, smaller risk of refusal).  An utterance is part of a larger social situation involving people with some kind of social relationship and particular goals. Speech Event = the set of utterances produced in such a situation. A speech event is an activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome. - may include one obvious central speech act - may include other utterances leading up to and subsequently reacting to that central action A: Oh, Mary, I'm glad you're here. B: What's up? A: I can't get my computer to work.  The request is the whole speech event, B: Is it broken? Not a single speech act. A: I don't think so. B: What's it doing?  No actual request is made A: I don't know. I'm useless with computers. B: What kind is it? A: It's a Mac. Do you use them? B: Yeah. A: Do you have a minute? B: Sure. A: Oh, great - The question 'Do you have a minute?' could be characterized as a pre-request, allowing the hearer to say that she's busy or that she has to be somewhere else.

27

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - The response 'Sure' is taken to be an acknowledgement not only of having time available, but a willingness to perform the unstated action.

28

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

POLITENESS AND INTERACTION
BASIC CONCEPTS
Much of what we say and communicate is determined by our social relationships. A linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. External factors relating to social distance/closeness are established prior to an interaction:  Relative status of the participants as determined by factors like age and power. - speakers who see themselves as lower status tend to mark social distance between themselves and higher status speakers by using address forms that include a title and a last name, but not the first name (Mrs. Jones, Mr. Adams, Dr. Miller). Internal factors (amount of imposition, degree of friendliness) are negotiated during an interaction.  Can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as less or more during the course of the interaction (e.g., moving to first name basis). - These factors are more relevant to participants whose social relationships are actually in the process of being worked out within the interaction. Both types of factors (external/internal) have an influence on what we say and how we are interpreted.  Interpretation includes also evaluations such as 'rude', 'considerate' or 'thoughtful' which represent an additional aspect of communication perceived in terms of politeness.

POLITENESS
General idea of politeness: fixed concept of social behavior/etiquette within a culture, involves certain general principles as being tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towards others Narrower concept of politeness within an interaction: Face = the public self-image of a person (emotional and social sense of self one has and expects everyone else to recognize) Politeness = the means empoyed to show awareness of another person's face showing awareness for a socially distant person's face  respect, deference. showing awareness for a socially close person's face  friendliness, solidarity. Example (student to teacher) a. Excuse me, Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute? b. Hey, Bucky, got a minute?  Different kinds of politeness are associated and marked linguistically with the assumption of relative social distance/closeness.

29

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

POLITENESS MAXIMS
Politeness maxims (Leech 1983): Tact minimizes cost/maximizes benefit to the other person Could I interrupt you for half a second – what was the website address? Generosity maximizes cost/minimizes benefit to yourself Could I copy the web address? Approbation minimizes dispraise/maximizes praise of the other person Mary you’re always so efficient – do you have copy of that web address? Modesty maximizes dispraise/minimizes praise of yourself Oh I’m so stupid – I didn’t make a not of that web address. Did you? Agreement minimizes disagreement/maximizes agreement between self and other Yes, of course you’re right, but your decision might make her very unhappy. Sympathy minimizes antipathy/maximizes sympathy between self and other I was very sorry to hear about your father’s death. Additional maxim proposed by Cruse (2000): Consideration minimizes discomfort or displeasure/maximizes comfort or pleasure of other Visitor to patient in hospital: You’re lucky to be in here, it’s raining outside. (Billy Connolly)

FACE WANTS
Within everyday social interaction people generally behave as if their expectations concerning their face wants (i.e. public self-image) will be respected Face threatening act: speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual's expectations regarding selfimage Face saving act: speaker says something to lessen a possible threat Situation: Young neighbor is playing loud music late at night. Older couple cannot sleep. A: I'm going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now! B: Perhaps you could just ask him if he's going to stop soon because it's getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep.

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE FACE
Negative face: need to be independent, to have freedom of action, or be imposed on by others

30

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Positive face: need to be accepted/liked, to be treated as a member of the same group, to know that wants are shared by others. A face saving act oriented to a person's negative face tends to show deference, emphasizes the importance of the other's time or concerns and may include an apology for the imposition.  Negative politeness A face saving act concerned with the person's positive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing and have a common goal.  Positive politeness

SELF AND OTHER: SAY NOTHING
Example situation to map out different interpretations associated with different expressions used within a speech event. You arrive at an important lecture. You want to take notes but realize that you do not have a pen. There is a person sitting next to you. First choice: say something or not  rummage in your bag, search through your pockets, go back to the bag  other person offers pen Many people prefer to have their needs recognized by others without having to express them (less imposition), clearly a case of communicating more than what is said.

SAY SOMETHING: OFF AND ON RECORD
Off record: statements not directly addressed to another person (i.e. hints) Uh, I forgot my pen. Where is the pen. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen. On record: directly address the other person to express your needs. Using imperative forms is known as bald on record. Give me a pen. Lend me your pen. Mitigating devices (e.g. 'please', 'would you') can be used to soften the demand. Caution: Not all imperatives are commands. Have some more cake. Gimme that wet umbrella. In emergency situations, commands have no social/politeness component. Don't touch that! Get out of her! Generally, however, bald on record expressions are associated with speech events where the speaker assumes he/she has power over the other - in everyday interaction between social equals they are avoided as face threatening acts.

31

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS
A positive politeness strategy leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, even friendship. How about letting me use you pen? Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me use your pen.  greater risk of refusal, therefore often preceded by 'getting-to-know-you-talk' to establish common ground. Hi, How's it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same crazy stuff. You take a lot of notes too, huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me use one of your pens A negative politeness strategy is more commonly performed in face saving acts. Could you lend me a pen? I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen? I know you're busy, might I ask you if - em - if you happen to have an extra pen. Features: - modal verbs - apologies for the imposition - hesitations - questions (even asking for permission to ask a question) + more indirect approach softens refusal Face saving acts on record are less direct, longer, less clear, with a more complex structure, showing greater effort, concern for face (politeness)

STRATEGIES
Use of positive politeness forms  solidarity strategy (Used more by groups than individuals)

32

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - Includes personal information, nicknames, even abusive terms (esp. among males), shared dialect/slang expressions, inclusive terms ('we', 'let's' etc.) Come on, let's go to the party. Everyone will be there. We'll have fun. Use of negative politeness forms  deference strategy - Formal politeness, more impersonal, can include expressions that refer to neither the speaker nor the hearer, emphasizing hearer's and speaker's independence, no personal claims. There's going to be a party, if you can make it. It will be fun.

PRE-SEQUENCES
Avoiding risk for the another person (i.e. face threatening) can be achieved by providing an opportunity for the other person to halt the potentially risky act.  Rather than simply making a request, speakers will produce a pre-request A: Are you busy? (= pre-request) B: Not really (= go ahead) A: Check over this memo (= request) B: Okay (= accept) Advantage that hearer can decide to stop the pre-request or go ahead A: Are you busy? (= pre-request) B: Oh, sorry. (= stop) This response allows the speaker to avoid making a request that cannot be granted. However, it is also possible to treat pre-requests as requests and respond to them. A: Do you have a spare pen? B: Here (hands over the pen) A: Do you mind if I use you phone? B: Yeah, sure. Not to be interpreted literally as an answer to the pre-request, but to the unstated request. Other uses of pre-sequences Pre-invitations: A: What are you doing this Friday? (= pre-invitation) B: Hmm, nothing so far. (= go ahead) A: Come over for dinner. (= invitation) B: Ahm I'd like that. (= accept) A: Are you doing anything later? (= pre-invitation) B: Oh yeah. Busy, busy, busy. (= stop) A: Oh, okay (= stop) Pre-announcements (often by children): A: Mom, guess what happened? (= pre-announcement) B: (Silence) A: Mom, you know what? (= pre-annoucement) B: Not right now, sweetie. I'm busy. (= stop) (No 'go ahead', silence should be interpreted as 'stop‘)

33

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

34

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE
BASIC CONCEPTS
Conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of language usage, the form in which we are all first exposed to language. All major aspects of pragmatic organization are connected to usage in conversation. + Deixis: encoding of temporal, spatial, social, discourse parameters organized around the assumption of co-present conversational participants. + presupposition: involving constraints on the way in which information has to be presented if it is to be introduced to particular participants with specific shared knowledge and assumptions about the world. + Implicatures: deriving from specific assumptions about conversational context. + Speech acts: building on the assumption of a conversational matrix (e.g., betting requires an uptake to be effective). A: I have a 14-year-old son. B: Well, that’s alright. A: I also have a dog. B: Oh, I’m sorry. This dialog seems bizarre in isolation, its meaning becoming clear only when embedded in a full conversation/situation (discussion with landlord about apartment rental).  No independent, general rules for the sequencing of conversation structure, but particular phenomena can be described: - The term 'interaction' could apply to a very large number of different social encounters. - Typical structure of conversation: I speak - you speak - I speak - you speak...

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Terminology in analogy with market economy floor  the right to speak turn  having control of the right to speak turn-taking  attempt to take control of the right to speak local management system set of conventions for getting, keeping and giving away turns transition relevance place (TRP)  possible change-of-turn point  Speakers having a conversation = taking turns at holding the floor. - Speakers may cooperate and share the floor equally. - Speakers may compete for keeping the floor, preventing others from getting it. CAUTION: systems of conversationational interaction vary greatly between social/cultural groups.

35

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

PAUSES AND OVERLAPS
Conversations typically consist of two or more participants taking turns, and only one participant speaking at any time. Smooth transitions from one speaker to the next are valued. - Transitions with a long silence between turns. - Transition with overlap (both speakers speaking at the same time) are perceived as awkward. Situation: Student and his girlfriend's father during their first meeting. Mr. Strait: What's your major, Dave? Dave: English - well I haven't really decided yet. (3 seconds silence) Mr. Strait: So - you want to be a teacher? Dave: No - not really - well not if I can help it. (2 seconds silence) Mr. Strait: Wha-//Where do you-- //go ahead Dave: I mean it's a--oh sorry //I em- = short pauses, hesitations // = beginning of overlap (both speakers attempt to initiate talk) silences are not attributable to either speaker because each has completed a turn.  No rhythm to transitions (no flow) conveys sense of distance, absence of familiarity/ease. If one speaker explicitly turns over the floor to another and the other does not speak, then the silence is attributable to the second speaker and becomes significant. Jan: Dave, I'm going to the store. (2 seconds) Jan: Dave? (2 seconds) Jan: Dave - is something wrong? Dave: What? What's wrong? Jan: Nevermind. Other types of overlap (apart from initial type): - For many (younger) speakers overlapped talk appears to function like an expression of solidarity or closeness in expressing similar opinions. Deb: Did you see him in the video? Wendy: Yeah - the part on the beach Deb: Oh my God // he was so sexy. Wendy // he was just being so cool. Deb: And all the waves // crashing around him! Wendy: // yeah that was really wild. - Overlap can also communicate competition. Joe: When they were in // power las-- wait CAN I FINISH? Jerry: // that's my point I said –  Speaker are competing for the floor.

36

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam The point of overlap is treated as an interruption and the first speaker actually has to make a comment about procedure, i.e., appeals to an unstated rule of conversation structure, namely that each potential speaker is expected to wait until the current speaker reaches a TRP. Markers of TRPs: - end of a structural unit (phrase/clause) - pause A speaker who wants to keep holding the floor will avoid providing TRPs, i.e. avoiding open pauses at the end of syntactic units and places fillers/breaths in the middle, not at the end of those units. I wasn't talking about - um his first book that was - uh really just like a start and so - uh isn't - doesn't count really. Another floor holding device is to indicate that there is a larger structure to your turn. a. There are three points I'd like to make -- first... b. There's more than one way to do this -- one example would be... c. Didn't you know about Melvin? - Oh, it was last October ... d. Did you hear about Cindy's new car? - She got it in... a/b technical information about coming structure c/d preludes to storytelling.  Suspend regular exchange of turn process, speaker allowed to have extended turn.

BACKCHANNELS
Speakers expect their conversational partners to indicate that they are listening. - Nodding, smiling, other facial expressions, gestures. - Vocal indications are called backchannel signals. Caller: If you use your long distance service a lot then you'll … Mary: // uh-huh Caller: be interested in the discount I'm talking about because … Mary: // yeah Caller: it can only save you money to switch to a cheaper service // mmm • Backchannel signals provide feedback to the speaker that the message is being received; they indicate that the listener is following and not objecting. • The absence of backchannels is interpreted as significant (in telephone conversations the speaker is prompted to ask whether the speaker is still there). • In face-to-face conversations the absence of backchannels may be interpreted as a way of withholding agreement.

CONVERSATIONAL STYLE
There are individual and cultural differences in conversational style/turn taking. • Some individuals expect that participation in a conversation will be very active, that speaking rate will be relatively fast, with almost no pausing between turns, and with some overlap or even competition between turns.  high involvement style • Other speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between turns, do not overlap and avoid interruption or completion of the other's turn.  high considerateness style 37

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Style clashes lead a conversation to be one-sided. - The faster speaker may think the slower one doesn't have much to say, is shy, perhaps boring or stupid. - The slower speaker may view the faster one as noisy, pushy, domineering, selfish and tiresome.  Features of conversational style are often interpreted as personality traits.

ADJACENCY PAIRS
Almost automatic patterns in the structure of conversation, e.g., in greetings and goodbyes. Anna: Hello! Bill: Hi! Anna: How are you? Bill: Fine. Anna: See ya! Bill: Bye! These automatic sequences are called adjacency pairs They always consist of a first and second part produced by different speakers. The utterance of the first part immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a second part of the pair. Failure to produce the second part will be treated as a significant and hence meaningful. A lot of internal variation is possible: Example: opening sequences of a conversation First Part Second Part A: What's up? B: Nothin' much A: How's it goin'? B: Jus' hangin' in there A: How are things? B: The usual A: How ya doin' B: Can't complain Example: question - answer sequence A: What time is it? B: About eight-thirty Example: thanking - response sequence A: Thanks. B: You're welcome Example: request - accept sequence A: Could you help me with this? B: Sure Insertion sequences can intervene between adjacency pairs Form Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1 (one adjacency pair within another). Agent: Do you want the early flight? (= Q1) Client:What time does it arrive? (= Q2) Agent: Nine forty-five (= A2) Client: Yeah - that's great (= A1) Mix of different sequences possible Jean: Could you mail this letter for me? (Req. 1) Fred: Does it have a stamp on? (Q2) Jean: Yeah. (A2) Fred: Okay (Acc. 1)

38

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam also with temporary interactional exit A: Uhm, what’s the price now with VAT? (Q1) B: Er, I’ll just work that out for you (HOLD) A: Thanks (ACCEPT) (10.0 s) B: Three Dollars nineteen a tube, Sir (A1) Delay in response marks potential unavailability of the expected answer. It represents the distance between what is expected and what is provided and is always interpreted as meaningful. Opening Sections (Summons-Answer Sequences) First utterance is a summons, the second utterance an answer to the summons, establishing an open channel for talk (three part structure). Child: Mommy? summons Mum: Yes, dear. answer Child: Can I have chocolate? reason for summons In telephone conversations the ringing of the telephone acts as the summons. Additional potential problems are identification/recognition. A: (causes telephone to ring at B’s location) summons B: Hello answer + display for recognition A: Hi greeting 1 + claim that A has recognized B + claim that B can recognize A B: Oh hi! greeting 2 + claim that B has recognized A Speakers tend to use a signatured prosody/voice quality in identity turns. After the opening sequence the caller announces the reason for the call (first topic slot). B: (causes telephone to ring) A: Hello B: Hello Rob. This is Laurie. How’s everything? A: Pretty good. How ‘bout you? B: Just fine. The reason I called was to ask … Closing Sections The closure of any topic after the first one makes the introduction of a closing section imminent (some phone calls have an expectable overall organization that admits just one topic (‘monotopical’)). - Closings placed in such a way that no party is forced to exit while still having compelling things to say. - Hasty or slow terminations carry unwelcome inferences about the relationships between the speakers. A: Why don’t we all have lunch? B: Okay, so that would be in St. Jude’s wouldn’t it? A: Yes B: Okay so … A: One o’clock in the bar closing implicative topic (arrangement) B: Okay A: Okay? one or more pairs of passing turns with B: Okay then thanks very much indeed George – pre-closing items (okay, alright, so …) 39

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam A: - Alright B: //See you there A: //See you there B: Okay A: Okay // bye terminal elements B: // bye Often closings reference back to aspects of the opening section, include summaries, or ask about the recipient’s state of health.

PREFERENCE STRUCTURE
Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal when they occur as second parts of some pairs, e.g., a first part request expects an acceptance.  Acceptance is structurally more likely than refusal Structural likelihood is called preference. Preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred social acts. First part Second part Preferred Dispreferred assessment Isn't that really great? agree Yes, it is disagree Invitation Why not join us tonight? accept I’d love to refuse offer Want some coffee? accept Yes, please decline Silence is also always a dispreferred response, often leading to a revision of the first part. (Non-response communicates that the speaker is not in a position to provide the preferred response). Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food there (1.6 seconds) Sandy: Hmm - I guess the food isn't great Jack: Nah - people mostly go for the music Silence is risky as it may give the impression of non-participation in the conversational structure. Speakers often signal that they are producing the marked, dispreferred structure. ‘ Assessment Cindy: So chiropodists do hands I guess. Julie: Em - well - out there - they they mostly work on people's feet. - Initial hesitation: delay (em + pause) - Preface: well - Appeal to the views of others: out there - Stumbling repetition: they they - Relativizing statement/mitigation: mostly Invitation Becky: Come over for some coffee later Wally: Oh - eh - I'd love to - but you see - I - I'm supposed to get this finished - you know - Hesitation: oh - eh - Preface: I'd love to (token acceptance) - Stumbling repetition: I - I'm - Account: I'm supposed to get this finished.

40

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - Invocation of understanding: but you see, you know. How to do a dispreferred second part. delay/hesitate pause; er; em; ah Preface well; oh Express doubt I'm not sure; I don't know Token acceptance That's great; I'd love to Apology I'm sorry; what a pity Mention obligation I must do X; I'm expected in Y Appeal for understanding you see; you know Make it non-personal everybody else; out there Give an account too much work; no time left Use mitigators really; mostly; sort of; kinda Hedge the negative I guess not; not possible • Dispreferreds take more time/language/effort • More language creates more distance between first and second part. • Preferred represents closeness and quick connection. • Participants try to avoid creating contexts for dispreferreds e.g., by using pre-sequences

41

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

DISCOURSE AND CULTURE
BASIC CONCEPTS
Language use is functional. • Interpersonal function: taking part in interaction. • Textual function: creating well-formed and approriate text. • Ideational function: representing thought and experience in a coherent way.  Discourse analysis investigating the form and function of what is said and written. (Written text has no immediate interactive feedback, therefore more explicit structural mechanisms are necessary for the organization of text.)

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• Discourse analysis covers an extremely wide range of activities from the narrowly focused investigation of how words such as 'oh' or 'well' are used in casual talk, to the study of the dominant ideology in a culture as represented, for example, in its educational or political practices. • Linguistic discourse analysis focuses on the record of the process by which language is used in some context to express intention. • What makes a well-formed text? + explicit conections between sentences in a text that create cohesion + elements of textual organization that are characteristic of storytelling, expressing an opinion etc. • The pragmatic perspective of discourse analysis specialized on aspects of what is unsaid (or unwritten) but yet communicated + go beyond primarily social concerns of interaction and conversation analysis, look behind forms and structures, and pay more attention to psychological concepts, such as background knowledge, beliefs and expectations  What does the speaker/writer have in mind?

COHERENCE
Assumption of coherence for all language users: what is said/written will make sense in terms of their normal experience of things (locally interpreted and tied to the familiar and expected). Plant Sale Garage Sale - Identical structure, but different interpretation → requires familiarity with suburban life - Listeners tend to make instant interpretations of familiar material, not always thinking about possible alternatives. How many animals of each type did Moses take on the ark? If you thought of 'two' you immediately accessed some common cultural knowledge, without noticing that 'Moses' was inappropriate  Listeners may even create coherent interpretations for texts that do not potentially have it

42

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam A motor vehicle accident was reported in front of Kennedy Theater involving a male and a female  Automatically filling in details (e.g., person) to create coherence Man robs hotel with sandwich  Create a scenario to make sense of the situation - Man used sandwich in bag to pose as gun? - Man eating sandwich while robbing hotel?

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Automatic interpretations are based on pre-existing knowledge structures (familiar patterns from previous experiences used to interpret new experiences) Schema: a pre-existing knowledge structure in memory Frame: fixed, static pattern A frame shared by everyone in a social group is prototypical Apartment for rent: $ 500. 763-6683 'apartment for rent' advertisement frame + $ 500 per month not per year or per week Script: pre-existing knowledge structure involving event sequences I stopped to get some groceries, but there weren't any baskets left so by the time I arrived at the check-out counter I must have looked like a juggler having a bad day script for getting groceries involves having a basket, going to the check-out counter etc.  everything not mentioned is assumed to be shared background knowledge (going through a door, walking around, picking up items from shelves) - for members of different cultures the assumption of a shared script can lead to miscommunication

CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS
Cultural scheme: background knowledge structures for making sense of the world are culturally determined Situation: Australian factory supervisor assumes that workers know that Easter is close and that therefore everyone will have a holiday. Question to Vietnamese worker: You have five days off. What are you going to do? (Vietnamese worker may think he is being laid off.) Cross-cultural pragmatics: study of differences in expectations based on cultural schemata. The concepts and terminology provided so far provide a basic analytic framework, but the realization of those concepts may differ substantially from English - There might even be a cultural preference for NOT saying what you believe to be the case (vs. the cooperative principle, different quantity or quality maxims). - Different turn-taking mechanisms in different cultures. - Different interpretations of speech acts.

43

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam e.g., American style of complimenting creates embarassment for Native Americans (perceived as excessive) or perceived as an apology by Japanese listeners (and thus impossible to accept). Contrastive pragmatics: study of different cultural ways of speaking. Examples: Speech acts - In English offers can be made in the form of questions (‘Would you like another beer?’), this is not used in Polish (instead: direct suggestion). - Anglo-American apologies for an offence include acknowledgement of fault, Japanese ones do not (preferring to offer a remedy). - Anglo-American apologies for refusing an invitation have precise explanation, Japanese ones remain vague. Politeness - Javanese: achieve harmony and peaceful relations by concealing feelings, wants and thoughts. - Anglo-American: ‘white lies’ so as not to offend someone. - Polish/German: honesty valued as a sign of friendship, no well-meaning lies. - Japanese speakers avoid confrontation (never say ‘you’re wrong’, ‘that’s not true’). Example situations: Korean student helps Anglo-American tutor with computer. K: Do you know how to use this program? A: Approximately (MODESTY MAXIM)  K assumes A knows nothing. A German student disagrees with a Chinese student. (AGREEMENT MAXIM) - The German student voices disagreement directly, even highlights dissent (‘No, no, that’s not right’). - The Chinese speaker signals consent before indicating disagreement (‘I believe not, but I must say there is’). - The Chinese speaker concedes the argument to end the conflict.  The Chinese speaker perceives the German speaker as aggressive.  The German speaker perceives the Chinese speaker as boring (or insincere). - In business negotiations Anglo-American business people prefer close, friendly, egalitatarian relationships, symmetrical solidarity, using first names from the beginning. - Asians prefer symmetrical deference, and to keep surnames. They invent Western first names to get around the insistence on first names and reserve their Chinese first name for intimates. Discourse structure East Asian inductive style: start with topic/background, then move to main point Western deductive style: start with main point, then give reasons Interlanguage Pragmatics: communicative behavior of non-native speakers (pragmatic accent). - often diffculties with indirect speech acts - lack of politeness forms, e.g. when learning/using Japanese

44

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

CONVERSATIONAL STYLE
There are individual and cultural differences in conversational style/turn taking. • Some individuals expect that participation in a conversation will be very active, that speaking rate will be relatively fast, with almost no pausing between turns, and with some overlap or even competition between turns.  High involvement style • Other speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between turns, do not overlap and avoid interruption or completion of the other's turn.  High considerateness style Style clashes lead a conversation to be one-sided. - The faster speaker may think the slower one doesn't have much to say, is shy, perhaps boring or stupid. - The slower speaker may view the faster one as noisy, pushy, domineering, selfish and tiresome.  Features of conversational style are often interpreted as personality traits.

ADJACENCY PAIRS
Almost automatic patterns in the structure of conversation, e.g., in greetings and goodbyes. Anna: Hello! Bill: Hi! Anna: How are you? Bill: Fine. Anna: See ya! Bill: Bye! These automatic sequences are called adjacency pairs. They always consist of a first and second part produced by different speakers. The utterance of the first part immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a second part of the pair. Failure to produce the second part will be treated as a significant and hence meaningful. A lot of internal variation is possible: Example: opening sequences of a conversation First Part Second Part A: What's up? B: Nothin' much. A: How's it goin'? B: Jus' hangin' in there. A: How are things? B: The usual. A: How ya doin'? B: Can't complain. Insertion sequences can intervene between adjacency pairs Form Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1 (one adjacency pair within another) Agent: Do you want the early flight? (= Q1) Client: What time does it arrive? (= Q2) Agent: Nine forty-five (= A2) Client: Yeah - that's great (= A1) Mix of different sequences possible Jean: Could you mail this letter for me? (Req. 1) Fred: Does it have a stamp on? (Q2) Jean: Yeah. (A2) 45

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Fred: Okay (Acc. 1) also with temporary interactional exit A: Uhm, what’s the price now with VAT? (Q1) B: Er, I’ll just work that out for you (HOLD) A: Thanks (ACCEPT) (10.0 s) B: Three Dollars nineteen a tube, Sir (A1) Delay in response marks potential unavailability of the expected answer. It represents the distance between what is expected and what is provided and is always interpreted as meaningful. Opening Sections (Summons-Answer Sequences) First utterance is a summons, the second utterance an answer to the summons, establishing an open channel for talk (three part structure). Child: Mommy? summons Mum: Yes, dear. answer Child: Can I have chocolate? reason for summons In telephone conversations the ringing of the telephone acts as the summons. Additional potential problems are identification/recognition. A: (causes telephone to ring at B’s location) summons B: Hello! answer + display for recognition A: Hi greeting 1 + claim that A has recognized B + claim that B can recognize A B: Oh hi! greeting 2 + claim that B has recognized A Speakers tend to use a signatured prosody/voice quality in identity turns. After the opening sequence the caller announces the reason for the call (first topic slot). B: (causes telephone to ring) A: Hello B: Hello Rob. This is Laurie. How’s everything? A: Pretty good. How ‘bout you? B: Just fine. The reason I called was to ask … Closing Sections The closure of any topic after the first one makes the introduction of a closing section imminent (some phone calls have an expectable overall organization that admits just one topic (‘monotopical’)). - Closings placed in such a way that no party is forced to exit while still having compelling things to say. - Hasty or slow terminations carry unwelcome inferences about the relationships between the speakers. A: Why don’t we all have lunch? B: Okay, so that would be in St. Jude’s wouldn’t it? A: Yes B: Okay so … A: One o’clock in the bar closing implicative topic (arrangement) B: Okay.

46

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam A: Okay?

one or more pairs of passing turns with– pre-closing items (okay, alright, so …)

B: Okay then thanks very much indeed George. A: - Alright! B: //See you there. A: //See you there. B: Okay A: Okay // bye terminal elements B: // bye Often closings reference back to aspects of the opening section, include summaries, or ask about therecipient’s state of health.

PREFERENCE STRUCTURE
Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal when they occur as second parts of some pairs, e.g., a first part request expects an acceptance.  Acceptance is structurally more likely than refusal. Structural likelihood is called preference. Preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred social acts First part Second part Preferred Dispreferred Assessment Isn't that really great? Agree Yes it is Disagree Invitation Why not join us tonight? Accept I’d love to Refuse Offer Want some coffee? Accept Yes, please Decline Request Can you help me? Accept Sure Refuse Silence is also always a dispreferred response, often leading to a revision of the first part. (Non-response communicates that the speaker is not in a position to provide the preferred response.) Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food there. (1.6 seconds) Sandy: Hmm - I guess the food isn't great. Jack: Nah - people mostly go for the music. Silence is risky as it may give the impression of non-participation in the conversational structure. Speakers often signal that they are producing the marked, dispreferred structure assessment. Cindy: So chiropodists do hands I guess Julie: Em - well - out there - they they mostly work on people's feet - Initial hesitation: delay (em + pause) - Preface: well - Appeal to the views of others: out there - Stumbling repetition: they they - Relativizing statement/mitigation: mostly invitation Becky: Come over for some coffee later Wally: Oh - eh - I'd love to - but you see - I - I'm supposed to get this finished - you know

47

Name: Ngô Thị Hạnh Class: B2 Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam - Hesitation: oh - eh - Preface: I'd love to. (token acceptance) - Stumbling repetition: I - I'm - Account: I'm supposed to get this finished. - Invocation of understanding: but you see, you know. How to do a dispreferred second part. delay/hesitate pause; er; em; ah Preface well; oh Express doubt I'm not sure; I don't know Token acceptance That's great; I'd love to Apology I'm sorry; what a pity Mention obligation I must do X; I'm expected in Y Appeal for understanding you see; you know Make it non-personal everbody else; out there Give an account too much work; no time left Use mitigators really; mostly; sort of; kinda Hedge the negative I guess not; not possible • dispreferreds take more time/language/effort. • More language creates more distance between first and second part. • Preferred represents closeness and quick connection. • Participants try to avoid creating contexts for dispreferreds e.g., by using pre-sequences.

48