SPEECH ACT

A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. We perform speech acts
when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal. A
speech act might contain just one word, as in "Sorry!" to perform an apology, or several words or
sentences: "I’m sorry I forgot your birthday. I just let it slip my mind." Speech acts include real-
life interactions and require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that
language within a given culture.

Here are some examples of speech acts we use or hear every day:

Greeting: "Hi, Eric. How are things going?"

Request: "Could you pass me the mashed potatoes, please?"

Complaint: "I’ve already been waiting three weeks for the computer, and I was told it would
be delivered within a week."

Invitation: "We’re having some people over Saturday evening and wanted to know if you’d
like to join us."

Compliment: "Hey, I really like your tie!"

Refusal: "Oh, I’d love to see that movie with you but this Friday just isn’t going to work."

Speech acts are difficult to perform in a second language because learners may not know the
idiomatic expressions or cultural norms in the second language or they may transfer their first
language rules and conventions into the second language, assuming that such rules are universal.
Because the natural tendency for language learners is to fall back on what they know to be
appropriate in their first language, it is important that these learners understand exactly what they
do in that first language in order to be able to recognize what is transferable to other languages.
Something that works in English might not transfer in meaning when translated into the second
language. For example, the following remark as uttered by a native English speaker could easily
be misinterpreted by a native Chinese hearer:

Sarah: "I couldn’t agree with you more. "

Cheng: "Hmmm…." (Thinking: "She couldn’t agree with me? I thought she liked my idea!")
An example of potential misunderstanding for an American learner of Japanese would be what is
said by a dinner guest in Japan to thank the host. For the invitation and the meal the guests may
well apologize a number of times in addition to using an expression of gratitude (arigatou
gosaimasu) -- for instance, for the intrusion into the private home (sumimasen ojama shimasu),
the commotion that they are causing by getting up from the table (shitsurei shimasu), and also for
the fact that they put their host out since they had to cook the meal, serve it, and will have to do
the dishes once the guests have left (sumimasen). American guests might think this to be rude or
inappropriate and choose to compliment the host on the wonderful food and festive atmosphere,
or thank the host for inviting them, unaware of the social conventions involved in performing
such a speech act in Japanese. Although such compliments or expression of thanks are also
appropriate in Japanese, they are hardly enough for native speakers of Japanese -- not without a
few apologies!

PRESUPPOSITION

In pragmatics, the meaning of presupposition is more or less synonymous with the common
term, at least on the surface.

Presupposition: an assumed-to-be-true fact upon which an utterance is delivered

For a simple example, take this sentence:

The dog no longer barks at the mailman.

Although it is unstated, the speaker assumes something to be true here.

 The speaker presupposes the dog once barked at the mailman.

After all, if the dog did not once bark, there would be little cause to say it no longer barks. And if
the dog never barked at the mailman, the utterance would probably be:

The dog has never barked at the mailman.

Where the discussion of presupposition in pragmatics might differ from the broader discussion of
presupposition lies in the goal of pragmatic discourse. Pragmatic discourse aims to explain how
language impacts social interactions. Pragmatism values immediacy as well as context, which
means that many presuppositions in the utterance “the dog no longer barks at the mailman” are
less important or potentially irrelevant, such as these:

 The speaker presupposes there’s a dog in this situation.

 The speaker presupposes dogs can bark.
 The speaker presupposes a bark can be directed at something.
 The speaker presupposes dogs and mailmen exist.
These presuppositions increasingly become a matter of existential, not pragmatic, discourse.
Take a closer look at this one:
  The speaker presupposes dogs and mailmen exist.
No one outside an existential or ontological arena would dispute this. Indeed, the only arguments
to be made that dogs and mailmen don’t exist are existential. This is because, observably and in
the plain use of the word “existence,” dogs and mailmen exist. As such, this presupposition has
limited social relevancy and is unlikely to be on the speaker’s mind when saying, “The dog no
longer barks at the mailman.”

COOPERATIVE IMPLICATURE
Cooperation is the process by which the components of a system work together to achieve the
global properties. Examples can be found all around us.
Implicature is anything that is inferred from utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of
the utterance
Implicated, is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H.P. Grice,
which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly
implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance. For example :
The sentence “ Mary had a baby and got married” strongly suggests that Mary had the baby
before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she
got married. Further, if we add the qualification”- not necessarily in that order” to the original
sentence, then the implicated is cancelled even though meaning of the original sentence is not
altered.
Some of the boys were at the party.
On the sentence implicate, it’s mean not all of the boys were at the party.
The cooperative principles goes both ways : speakers (generally) observe the cooperative
principle, and listeners (generally) assume that speakers are observing it. This allows for the
possibility of implicates, which are meanings that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but
that can nonetheless be inferred. For example, if Alice points out that Bill is not present, and
Carol replies that Bill has a cold, then there is an implicated that the cold is the reason, or at least
a possible reason, for Bill’s absence; this is because Carol’s comment is not cooperative – does
not contribute to the conversation – unless her point is that Bill’s cold is or might be the reason
for his absence.

Hedges
1. In pragmatics, a hedge is a mitigating word or construction used to lesson the impact of an
utterance. Typically, hedges are adjectives or adverbs or clauses. E.g. The party was somewhat
spoiled by the return of the parents.
2. By means of hedges, speakers take precautionary measures to protect themselves from the
negative effect of their sayings. (They are cautious notes expressed about how an utterance is to
be taken).
3. The importance of the maxim of quality for coorperative interaction in English may be best
measured by the number of expressions we use to indicate that we’re saying may not be totally
accurate.
E.g :
- I’m not sure if this is right, but I heard they separated.
- I’m not an expert, but you might want to try restarting your computer.
4. Hedges can be used to show that the speaker is concious of the quantity maxim
E.g :
- As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs.
- So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and rain.
5. Hedges can be used to show that the speaker is concious of the maxim of relation
E.g :
A: I mean, just going back to your point, I mean to me an order form is a contract. If we are
going to put sth in then let’s keep it as general as possible.
B: Yes
6. Hedges can be used to show that the speaker is concious of the maxim of manner.
E.g :
- Thank you,Chairman. Just to clarify one point. There is a meeting of the Police Comittee on
Monday and there is an item on their budget for the provision of their camera.
7. Hedges are pragmatic markers that attenuate (weaken) the strength of an utterance. Most
verbal hedges are regarded as a negative politeness strategy.

Implicatures
1. Implicature is an additional unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain the
cooperative principle.
2. Implicatures can be calculated by the listeners via inference (sO. (by making the necessary
inferences) (by drawing logical conclusion).
- John was on his way to school last Friday.
3. Conversational implicatures happen when speakers mean more than what they say. It is a
prime example of more being communicated than is said. (Speakers are able to communicate
more information than the words they use).
Bill : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.
Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.
Dexter has conveyed more than he said.
A : Will Sally be at the meeting this afternoon?
B : Her car broke down,
C : Where’s Bill?
D : There’s a yellow VW outside Sue’s house.
X : Bill and Martha are leaving tomorrow.
Y : I’ll miss Martha.
X : You were not so fond of Bill then?
Y : Hardly so, I just meant that Martha’s a real treasure.
Alice : What are the police doing? (an interrogative asking a question)
Brenda: I’ve just arrived
(Brenda made an apparently non-relevant remark)
Wife : That’s the telephone.
Husband : I’m in the bath.
Wife : OK
Every utterance creates an expectation of relevance in the hearer.
3. Properties of conversational implicatures.

 They are deniable. Speakers may cancel an implicature.

 They can be calculated by the listeners via inferences.
 They are not part of the conventional meaning of linguistic expression.

4. A Conventional implicature is an implicature which arises from the particular choice of words
or syntax, rather than from conversational maxims.
 Even Bill could solve the problem.
 Even a little child is able to solve the problem.
 Dennis isn’t here yet. (The present situation is expected to be different at later time)
 Susan suggested black, but I chose white.
 Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work. (Two statements containing static
information)
 She put on her clothes and left the house. (Two statements containing dynamic, action-
related information)
5. Properties of conventional implicatures :
 They are non-cancellable.
 They are part of the conventional meaning of a word or construction.

Implicatures
1. Implicature is defined as “the implied meaning generated intentionally by the speaker”. These
meaning are often made covertly, hidden using politness strategies.
2. Implicatures can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context.
3. Conversational implicature consists of particularized conversational implicature and
generalized conversational implicature.
4. Particularized conversational implicature is an additional unstated meaning that depends on
special or local knowledge.
A : How did you get to this hotel?
B : I parked my vehicle on the third floor, over there.
(The meaning is unfolded by knowledge of the world that in Indonesia motorcycles are
usually parked on the ground floor and that the higher floors are for cars).
A : Has John arrived?
B : There is a red car in the garage.
 Leila : Whoa! Has the boss gone crazy?
Mary : Let’s go get some coffee.
(Implicature with thematic switch)
5. Generalized conversational implicature is an additional unstated meaning that does not depend
on special or local knowledge.
Dobbie : Did you invite Bella and Cathy?
Mary : I invited Bella
6. Scalar implicature refers to an additional meaning of the negative of any value higher on a
scale than the one uttered, e.g in saying “some children”, I create an implicature that what I
say does not apply to “all children”
[all,most, many,some,few,none]
[always, often, sometimes, seldom,never]
7. A : What time is it?
B : Some of the guests are already leaving.
Particularized conversational implicature : “It must be late.”
Generalized conversational implicature : “Not all of the guests are already leaving.”
C : How was the party?
D : People left late at night.
To preserve an assumption of cooperation, we have to infer why the addressee made an
apparently non-relevant remark.