PRAGMATICS

Background:
CHARLES MORRIS (1903 – 1979)
Was concerned with the study of science of signs,


which he called semiotic.

Three Branches of Semiotics:

syntactics semantics

pragmatics
 PRAGMATICS
o
is a branch of linguistics that investigates the
ways language is tied to the contexts in which it
is used.
o
it is the study of ‘invisible’ meaning or how we
recognize what is meant even when it is not
actually said (or written). (Yule, 1996)
 PRAGMATICS
o
it is the study of how language is used to communicate within
its situational context.
Pragmatics is distinct from grammar, which is the study of the


internal structure of language. (Wijana, 2009)

Grammar is generally divided into a number of particular areas of


study: phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

 Examples of Pragmatics

Will you crack open the door? I am getting hot.

Semantically, the word "crack" would mean to
–

break, but pragmatically we know that the speaker

means to open the door just a little to let in some
air.
Examples of Pragmatics
I heart you!
–
Semantically, "heart" refers to an organ in our body
that pumps blood and keeps us alive. However,
pragmatically, "heart" in this sentence means
"love"-hearts are commonly used as a symbol for
love, and to "heart" someone has come to mean
that you love someone.
 Sample Situations

The utterance I apologize for stepping on your toe

can constitute an act of apology. The utterance
Eden apologized to Nelsa for stepping on her toe
cannot.
 This situation illustrates the fact that we can do
things by uttering sentences, as well as say
things.
Sample Situations
The utterance I now pronounce you man and wife
can constitute an act of marriage if spoken by an
appropriate authority, like an ordained priest. If
uttered by a 7-year-old child, however, it cannot.

This situation illustrates the fact that the nature of

the participants in a verbal exchange can determine
the effect of what is actually said.
 Pragmatics Stylistic Analysis

Pragma
Pragmatics Stylistics stylistic

the study of the study of

language style.
use.
Pragmastylistics is stylistics but with a pragmatic
component added to it (Hickey, 1993). According to
Davies (2007), it is concerned with showing the extent to
which pragmatics contributes to the study of literature; it
looks at the usefulness of pragmatic theories to the
interpretation of literary texts. It is a branch of stylistics
which applies ideas and concepts from linguistic
pragmatics to the analysis of literary texts and their
interpretation.
Conclusively, it is possible to state the difference between
linguistics, stylistics, pragmatics, and pragmatic stylistics by
displaying the following questions stated by Hickey (1993)
with some modifications since Hickey's presentation of
the questions is not well-stated: linguists ask: what do
you say or what aspects of language are used?, stylisticians
ask: how do you say what you say?, pragmatists ask: what
do you do with what you say?, and pragma-stylisticians ask:
how do you do, what you do?
 Herbert Paul Grice
•
usually publishing under the name H. P. Grice, H. Paul
Grice, or Paul Grice
•
was a British philosopher of language, whose work on 
meaning has influenced the philosophical study of 
semantics. He is known for his theory of implicature.
•
Grice's most influential contribution to philosophy and
linguistics is his theory of implicature, which started in
his 1961 article, 'The Causal Theory of Perception', and
was most fully developed in his 1967 "Logic and
Conversation", at Harvard's 'William James Lectures'.
Gricean Theories of
Conversational
Implicature
 IMPLICATURE
–
In a 1975 article entitled “Logic and Conversation,” the
philosopher Paul Grice pointed out that an utterance can
imply a proposition (i.e. a statement) that is not part of
the utterance.

Jack says to his wife Belle Uncle James is

coming over for dinner tonight, and Belle
responds with I guess I’d better lock up the
liquor.
 IMPLICATURE

Jack: Uncle James is coming over for dinner tonight.

Belle: I guess I’d better lock up the liquor.

Implicature: Uncle James has a drinking problem

1. The implicature(Uncle James has a drinking problem) is not
part of Belles’s utterance.
2. The implicature does not follow as a necessary consequence of
Belles’s utterance.
3. It is possible for an utterance to raise more than one
implicature.
CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

Grice proposes that conversations are governed

by what he calls the Cooperative Principle, that
is, the participants cooperate with one another.
 THE FOUR MAXIMS
Quantity Quality
(informative
) (true)

Relation Manner
(relevant) (clear)
 FLOUTING
•
According to Thomas (2013) flouting happens if “speaker blatantly
fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with deliberate
intention on generating implicature”. In flouting, speakers do not give
right information as required by maxims, but still, the hearer can reach
the meaning because of the implicature. Flouting can happen in four
sub-principles of maxim. There are flouting the maxim of quantity,
flouting the maxim of quality, flouting the maxim of relation, and
flouting the maxim of manner.
Maxim of Quantity
This maxim demands the speaker’s
contribution informative as is required and no more
informative than is required. Below are the
examples of an utterance that obeys the maxim of
quantity and one that violates the maxim.
 Maxim of Quantity
Example of obeying:
A: “Where are you going?”
B: “I’m going to the post office.”
In the example, B gives comments to A’s statement without adding
other information.

Example of disobeying / violation:

A: “Are you going to work tomorrow?”
B: “I am on jury duty, but I’ll have to go to the doctor in the evening. I
have asked the manager for permission”
In this example, B’s reply violates maxim of quantity because B does not
give information as required by A, i.e. yes or no. Instead, B gives more
information which is not required or expected at all.
Maxim of Quality
This maxim requires the speaker not to say
what is believed to be false and for which the
speaker lacks adequate evidence.
 Maxim of Quality

Example of obeying:
A: “Why did you come late last night?”
B: “The car was broken down”
In t he example, B gives the truth that his car was broken down so
that he came late.

Example of disobeying / violation:

A: “The Tehran is in Turkey, isn’t it teacher?”
B: “And London is in America I suppose.”
In the example, B’s reply is supposed to suggest that A is incorrect
and B violates the maxim of quality
Maxim of Relevance
This maxim required the speaker to be
relevant.
 Maxim of Relevance

Example of obeying:
A: “Where is my box of chocolates?”
B: “It is in your room.”
In the example, B’s reply relates to the question, not talking about
something else.

Example of disobeying / violation

A: “Where’s my box of chocolates?”
B: “I don’t know mine either.”
In the example B’s answer is not relevant to A’s question. B says
something else which is not about A’s problem at all.
Maxim of Manner

This maxim requires the speaker to avoid

obscurity of expression and ambiguity. Maxim of
manner demands the speaker to be brief and
orderly. 
 Maxim of Manner
Example of obeying:
A: Where was Alfred yesterday?
B: Alfred went to the store and bought some whiskey.
In the example, B’s answer obeys the manner maxim: be orderly,
because she gives a clear explanation where A was.

Example of disobeying / violation:

A: Why was he arrested?
B: He stole the money from the bank.
In the example B’s statement is ambiguous. It can be interpreted
that B didn’t steal the money which is stored in he bank. He had
gone the bank first and he stole the money in another place.
Another interpretation is that he stole the money stored in the bank.
He got the money by robbing the bank.
 Levinson (1983) stated that Grice’s
maxims above specify what participants
have to do in order to converse in a
maximally efficient, rational, cooperative
way: the participant should speak
sincerely, relevantly, and clearly while
providing sufficient information.
Sample of the Conversational Implicature Analysis In Oscar Wilde’s
short story “Happy Prince”

"Who are you?" he said. "I am the Happy Prince." "Why are you
weeping then?" asked the swallow; "You have quite drenched me."

This conversation is in accordance to the cooperative principle by the

maxim of quantity. When the statue of Happy Prince was asked by the
swallow He gave an answer which was exactly provides the quantity of
expected answer. He did not give an information more that the reply
needed by the swallow.
"I am glad that you are going to Egypt at last, little swallow," said the
prince, "You have stayed too long here; but you must kiss me on the
lips, for I love you." "It is not to Egypt that I am going," said the
swallow. "I am going to the house of death. Death is the brother of
sleep, is he not?" and he kissed the Happy Prince on the lips, and fell
down dead at his feet.

This conversation is in line with the cooperative principle by the maxim

of quantity. When the statue of Happy Prince was asked by the
swallow He gives an answer which is exactly provides the quantity of
expected answer. Quite similar to above analysis The Happy Prince did
not give an information more that needed by the swallow.
References:
•
Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 14th “Oscar Wilde” . Chicago. William Benton Publishers.
•
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. London. Oxford University Press.
•
Hickey, L. (1993). "Stylistics, Pragmatics, and Pragmastylistics". Revue Belge De Philology Et
D'histoire, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 573-586.
•
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York. Cambridge University Press.
•
Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York:
Routledge.
•
Wijana, I Dewa Putu. 1996. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset
•
Yule, G. (1996) The Study of Language (2nd Eds). Cambridge university Press.