Pragmatics and conversation analysis The word pragmatics derives

Pragmatics and conversation analysis The word pragmatics derives via Latin pragmaticus from the Greek πραγματικός (pragmatikos), meaning amongst others "fit for action"

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics.

Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e. g. , grammar, lexicon, etc. ) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any preexisting knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.

Speech act theory A locutionary act is the production of an utterance. The illocutionary act (force) is the meaning one wishes to communicate The perlocutionary act (effect) is the effect of our words. If I say, please open the window and you do so, I have achieved my perlocutionary aim. [John Langshaw Austin]

Illocutionary speech acts classification John Searle (1975) set up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts: assertives = speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, e. g. reciting a creed directives = speech acts that are to cause the hearer to take a particular action, e. g. requests, commands and advice commissives = speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e. g. promises and oaths expressives = speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e. g. congratulations, excuses and thanks declarations = speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e. g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband wife

The cooperative principle Developed by Paul Grice In social science generally and linguistics specifically, the cooperative principle describes how people interact with one another. Listeners and speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations.

The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims, called the Gricean maxims, describing specific rational principles observed by people who obey the cooperative principle; These principles enable effective communication

Maxim of Quality Be Truthful Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Maxim of Quantity of Information Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxim of Relation Relevance Be relevant. Maxim of Manner Be Clear Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity/wordiness). Be orderly.

Violating Without cooperation, human interaction would be far more difficult and counterproductive. For example, it would not make sense to reply to a question about the weather with an answer about groceries because it would violate the Maxim of Relevance. Likewise, responding to a question with a long monologue would violate the Maxim of Quantity.

Flouting it is possible to flout a maxim intentionally or unconsciously and thereby convey a different meaning than what is literally spoken.

Flouting (examples) 1. He is such a nerd It has started to rain. (relevance) 2. Do you like my new dress? The colour really suits you. (quantity) 3. I am starving! I don’t think you are dying of hunger. You don’t even look thin. (quality) 4. Where is Dave? He went out. Out where? To a place. Doing what ? Some stuff. (manner)

Infringing refers to those situations where a speaker fails to observe a maxim, with no intention to deceive or to generate an implicature. Infringement can occur when a speaker is tired, drunk or cognitively impaired in some other way. E. g. Clear the court! I am adjourning the matter for an hour! Clear the court!

Opting out When you opt out, you intentionally and ostentatiously refuse to abide by the Cooperative Principle. A politician saying “No comment”

Politeness maxims According to Geoffrey Leech, there is a politeness principle with conversational maxims similar to those formulated by Paul Grice. He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation (approval, praise) , modesty, agreement, and sympathy. These maxims vary from culture to culture: what may be considered polite in one culture may be strange or downright rude in another.

The Tact maxim Could I interrupt you for a second? The Generosity maxim You relax and let me do the dishes. The Approbation maxim Gideon, I know you're a genius - would you know how to solve this math problem here? The Modesty maxim Oh, I'm so stupid - I didn't make a note of our lecture! Did you? The Agreement maxim A: I don't want my daughter to do this, I want her to do that. B: Yes, but ma'am, I thought we resolved this already on your last visit. The Sympathy maxim I am sorry to hear about your father.

Assertives. Examples: “John called”, “The sun will rise tomorow”, but also “I swear I saw him on the crime scene” etc. Some associated illocutionary verbs: affirm, assert, swear (that smth. is/was), put forward, state etc. Directives. Examples: “Clean your room!”, “I suggest you take the Volvo”, “Do you have some spare change? ” (indirect) Verbs: ask, beg, order, command, plead, pray, entreat, invite, permit, advise etc. Commissives Examples: “I promise I’ll clean the kitchen”, “You’ll get it done by Monday!” Verbs: promise, swear, commit oneself to Expressives Examples: “Congratulations for the award!”, “I hate Physics” Verbs: thank, congratulate, apologize, condole, deplore, welcome Declarations. Examples: “You’re fired!”, “I hereby declare war on Germany”, “ Verbs: declare, pronounce, announce, condemn etc.

Politeness theory It was first formulated in 1978 by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson. Politeness is the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another (Mills, 2003, p. 6). Another definition is "a battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction". Being polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another.

Politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987) Face is the public self-image that every adult tries to project. Positive face is desire to be liked, admired, ratified, approved of, etc. Negative face is desire not to be imposed upon, to do one’s business unimpeded Positive Face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act. The two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction

A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Most of these acts are verbal; however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such as tone, inflection, etc. ) or in non-verbal forms of communication.

Face threatening acts FTA Negative face threatening acts Positive face threatening acts Freedom of choice and action are impeded The speaker or hearer does not care about their interlocutor’s feelings etc.

Negative face-threatening acts Damage to the hearer Damage to the speaker • An act that creates pressure on the hearer to either perform or not perform the act Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, remindings, threats, or warnings. v. An act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of the hearer. • Expressing thanks • Accepting a thank you or apology • Excuses • Acceptance of offers • A response to the hearer’s violation of social etiquette • The speaker commits himself to something he or she does not want to do • An act that expresses the speaker’s sentiments of the hearer or the hearer’s belongings Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e. g. hatred, anger, lust). • An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker toward the hearer. In doing so, pressure has been put on the hearer to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt. Examples: offers, and promises

Positive face-threatening acts Damage to the hearer • The speaker can display this disapproval in two ways. 1. the speaker directly or indirectly indicates that he dislikes some aspect of the hearer’s possessions, desires, or personal attributes. 2. the speaker states or implies that the hearer is wrong, irrational, or misguided. • An act that expresses the speaker’s indifference toward the addressee’s positive face. Ø excessively emotional expressions Ø disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate Ø belittling or boasting Ø topics that relate to politics, race, religion Ø interrupting Ø misuse of address terms in relation to status, gender, or age (e. g. : Addressing a young woman as "ma’am" instead of "miss. “) Damage to the speaker v. An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, and unable to control himself. • Apologies: In this act, speaker is damaging his own face by admitting that he regrets one of his previous acts. • Acceptance of a compliment • Inability to control one’s physical self • Inability to control one’s emotional self • Self-humiliation • Confessions

Politeness strategies Bald on-record (no attempt to minimize threat to the hearer’s face) Positive politeness (minimizes the threat to the hearer’s positive face) Negative politeness (is oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasizes avoidance of imposition on the hearer. ) Off-record (indirect: removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing)

Bald on-record Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends. Although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize face-threatening acts implicitly. E. g. : Instances in which threat minimizing does not occur Watch out! Hear me out: . . . Pass me the hammer. Don't forget to clean the blinds! Your headlights are on! Instances in which the threat is minimized implicitly Welcomes Come in. Offers Leave it, I'll clean up later. Eat!

Positive politeness Is used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and it is most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. Attend to H’s interests, needs, wants You look sad. Can I do anything? Use solidarity in-group identity markers Hey, mate, can you lend me a dollar? Be optimistic I’ll just come along, if you don’t mind. Include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course. Offer or promise If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor. Pay compliments That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it? Avoid Disagreement Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly.

Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. Be indirect Would you know where Oxford Street is? Use hedges or questions Perhaps he might have taken it, maybe. Could you please pass the rice? Be pessimistic You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you? Minimize the imposition It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks. Use obviating structures, like nominalizations, passives, or statements of general rules I hope offense will not be taken. Spitting will not be tolerated. Apologize I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars? Use plural pronouns We regret to inform you.

Off-record (indirect) This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. E. g. : Wow, it’s getting cold in here! insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up thermostat without directly asking the listener to do so.