PRAGMATICS

Compiled by
Dr. Naglaa Awny
THIRD YEAR 2022- 2023
 Contents

Introduction to pragmatics 2

Deixis 7

Reference and Inference 16

Presupposition and entailment 26

Cooperation and Implicature 35

Speech Acts 51

Politeness 68

References 81

1
 Introduction to pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics concerned with the use of language in

social contexts and the ways people produce and comprehend meanings through

language. The term pragmatics was coined in the 1930s by psychologist and

philosopher Charles Morris. Pragmatics was developed as a subfield of linguistics

in the 1970s. Research on pragmatics, however, can be dated back to Greece and

Rome where the term “pragmaticus” is found in late Latin and “pragmaticos” in

Greek, both meaning fit for action.

There are three stages in the development of pragmatics. The first stage

occurred in the 1930s when the term “pragmatics” was used for the first time as a

subpart of semiotics which means the study of signs. Charles Morris being

influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce first used the term ‘pragmatics’ as a branch of

semiotics in the 1930s (Morris, 1938). Later this term was taken in linguistics for

granted as the name of one of its core branches dealing with the usage of language.

Differences between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics

Morris, in fact, isolates semiotics into three different branches— syntax,

semantics, and pragmatics. Syntax is the study of the relationship between linguistic

forms, how they are arranged in sequence, and which sequences are well-formed.

This type of study generally takes place without considering any world of reference

2
or any user of the forms. Semantics is the study of the relationship between linguistic

forms and entities in the world; that is, how words literally connect to things.

Semantic analysis also attempts to establish the relationships between verbal

descriptions and states of affairs in the world as accurate(true) or not, regardless of

who produces that description. Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between

linguistic forms and the users of those forms. The advantage of studying language

via pragmatics is that one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their

assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions (for example, requests)

that they are performing when they speak.

The 2nd stage dates from the 1950s to 1960s when the three philosophers

Austin, Searle, and Paul Grice established their theories of Speech acts and

conversational implicature.

The third stage occurred in 1977 when Jacob L. May published the first

journal of pragmatics in Holland. In 1983, Levinson wrote his book “Pragmatics”,

whereas Geoffrey Leech wrote his “Principles of pragmatics.” The year 1988 marks

the setup of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) and the turning of

pragmatics into an independent discipline.

Definitions of pragmatics

3
 There are many definitions of Pragmatics proposed by many experts. Mey has

suggested that Pragmatics is a science that has something to do with language and

its users. For Leech and Sperber and Wilson, pragmatics studies how people

comprehend and produce a communicative act or a speech act in a concrete speech

situation which is usually a conversation. It distinguishes two intents or meanings in

each utterance or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the

informative intent or the sentence meaning, and the other is the communicative

intent or speaker meaning.

George Yule defines it as follows:

(1) "Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning”; in other words, it is

concerned with the study of meanings as communicated by a speaker and interpreted

by a listener. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean

by their utterances than the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by

themselves.

(2)"Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning”. Pragmatics, according to

this definition, requires a consideration of how speakers organize what they want to

say in accordance with whom they’re talking to, where, when, and under what

circumstances.

4
 (3)"Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said" It

necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what is said in order

to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. In other words, it

explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is

communicated.

(4) "Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance". What

actually determines the choice between the said and the unsaid is the distance

between the speaker and the hearer. Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or

conceptual, implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or distant

the listener is, speakers determine how much needs to be said.

Pragmatics’ schools of thought

In the history of pragmatics, there appear two different schools of thought

each of which consists of different ideology, characters, and scopes. These are as

follows:

1. Anglo-American pragmatic thought

2. European continental pragmatic thought
The Anglo-American school views Pragmatics as one of the core components

of a linguistic theory, along with phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and

semantics. It had a focus on sentence structure and grammar. Authors such as

5
Levinson (1983), Leech (1983), Yule (1996), and Cummings (2005) support this

view, whose central topics of inquiry include implicature, presupposition, speech

acts, deixis, and reference. It was also called micro-pragmatics.

European continental pragmatic thought, on the other hand, incorporates a

broader aspect of linguistic pragmatic investigation, which also includes the topics

of sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. It is supported by

linguists such as Jef Verschueren, who defines Pragmatics as “the cognitive, social,

and cultural science of language and communication”. Bublitz and Norrick point out

that Pragmatics is “the scientific study of all aspects of linguistic behaviour”. The

focus of macro-pragmatics is not on the utterance, but on a series or sequence of

utterances which form dis-courses/texts, seen as bearers of global intentionality of

the speaker.

6
 Deixis

Deixis, as you previously studied within your course of semantics, is a

technical term for one of the most basic things we do with utterances, i.e., pointing

via language. Deictic expressions or indexicals can be used to indicate People via

person deixis (‘me’, ’you’) or location via spatial deixis (‘here’, ‘there) or time via

temporal deixis (‘now’, ‘then’). Deictic expressions, for their interpretation, depend

on the speaker and hearer sharing the same spatial context, in face to face spoken

interaction.

Deixis thus is any word that cannot be interpreted without reference to

physical context: the speaker, addressee, time, and place of utterance. For example,

you’ll have to bring that back tomorrow, because they aren’t there now. Out of

context, this sentence is extremely vague. It contains a large number of expressions

(you, that, tomorrow, they, here, now) which depend for their interpretation on the

immediate physical context in which they were uttered.

Deixis has to do with coding information as close to ('proximal') or remote

('distal') from the speaker. Typically, deictic expressions come in pairs in relation to

this proximal/remote contrast. Consider the place adverbs 'here' and 'there', for

example. 'Here' means 'near the speaker' and so what counts as 'here' and 'there' will

7
change depending on who is talking. The demonstrative pronouns 'this'/'these' and

'that'/'those' also express the proximal/distal contrast.

Deictic expressions range across the grammar of English grammatical categories,

e.g.

Proximal Distal Grammatical category

here there place adverbs
now then time adverbs
this/these that/those demonstrative pronouns
come go verbs - movement towards/ away from
speaker
Examples of proximal terms
Here comes the guest.
This is my uncle.
She is leaving now.
Examples of distal terms
I met him there.
That is the criminal.
I discovered the truth then.
Such deictic terms help the hearer to identify the referent of a referring

expression through its spatial or temporal relationship with the situation of utterance.

Proximal terms are typically interpreted in terms of the speaker's location, or the

deictic center, so that 'now' is generally understood as referring to some point or

period in time that has the time of the speaker's utterance at its center. Distal terms

8
can simply indicate 'away from the speaker. The deictic center is the “speaker´s

location [and] time” during the production of the utterance.

Person Deixis

According to Yule (1996:10), person deixis clearly operates on a basic three-

part division, exemplified by pronouns for first person (I), second person (You), and

third person (she, he, it). Person deixis involves the speaker (I) and the addressee

(You). In conversation, each person constantly changes from being I to being you.

The 1st and 2nd person pronouns (I, you, we) are typically active participants (in

that they speak and hear speech); the third person pronouns (she, he, they) refer to

inactive, i.e., non-speech or narrated participants.

Third person pronouns are distal forms in terms of person deixis. They refer

to outsiders and thus suggest distance. Consequently, if a third person form is used

in cases where a second person form would be possible, distance is communicated.

In English this is sometimes done for ironic or humorous purposes. The following

sentence Would his highness like some coffee? could be uttered by a person, who is

very busy cleaning the kitchen, to an addressee who is very lazy. The distance

communicated through third person can also be used to make accusations like in

Somebody didn’t clean up after himself less direct.

9
Social deixis

Social deixis concerns the social information that is encoded within various

expressions, such as relative social status and familiarity. Two major forms of it are

the so-called T–V distinctions and honorifics. Expressions which indicate higher

status are described as honorifics.

T–V distinction

T–V distinctions, named for the Latin "tu" and "vos" (singular and plural

versions of "you"), is the name given to the phenomenon when a language has at

least two different second-person pronouns. The varying usage of these pronouns

indicates something about formality, familiarity, and/or solidarity between the

interactants. So, for example, the T form might be used when speaking to a friend or

social equal, whereas the V form would be used speaking to a stranger or social

superior. The choice of one form communicates something about the speaker's

relationship with the addressee, thus if speakers have a higher social status, are older

or more powerful, they will tend to use the T-form to a lower, younger and less

powerful addressee, who will tend to use the V-form in return. This phenomenon is

common in European languages.

10
Space/spatial/place Deixis

Spatial deixis is the specification of the relative location of the participants at the

time of communication. This is coded through the demonstratives (this, that) and the

adverbs of place (here, there, above, below). English has a relatively impoverished

spatial deictic system, with a small number of terms, usually labeled proximal and

distal. The proximal term here means something like “region relatively close to the

speaker” and there means “relatively distant from the speaker”. Furthermore, spatial

or place deixis is the form of the space viewed from the location of participants of

the language process. Words which show things or people as near the addressee are

“this” and “here”, while, when the people or things are far from the addressee “that”

and “there” are used.

For example:

1. The airport is fifteen kilometers from my house. That is too far for me to take you

home. That refers to the Airport.

2. I plan to have a vacation to Bali after finishing my study. Probably, I’ll be there

on November. There refers to Bali

Temporal deixis

11
 Temporal indexicals are expressed in time adverbials like “now, then, soon,

lately, recently, ago, today, tomorrow, yesterday” and in “complex time adverbials

like last Monday, next year, or this afternoon.

One can say that nearly every utterance is in some way dependent on the time

of its production. Let us consider the following example from Shakespeare´s Titus

Andronicus, Act IV, Scene 3 as an illustration:

“O, the gibbet-maker! he says that he hath taken

them down again, for the man must not be hanged till

the next week.”

As we do not know when this statement was uttered, we cannot imagine the

date of the execution. It might be in seven or in four days or even the day after

tomorrow. That is why one has to distinguish “the moment of utterance […] or

coding time from the moment of reception or receiving time” which do not always

have to coincide.

In our example, the coding time would be the time when the gibbet-maker

produced the utterance “the man must not be hanged till the next week” and

receiving time would be the time when the speaker transmits this utterance to others

by saying: “O, the gibbet-maker! He says that […]”. The modifier next before the

non-deictic measure word week signifies that the event will take place after the
12
coding time while the modifier last would imply that the event happened before the

coding time. That is, all time indexicals have to be seen in connection to the coding

time to be understood.

The deictic expressions now and then can be very ambiguous. Now

designates proximal time, whereas then refers to distal time and can be reduced to

mean ‘not now’. It can indicate time either in the past or in the future.

a. November 22nd, 1963? I was in Scotland then.

b. Dinner at 8:30 on Saturday? Okay, I'll see you then.

The tense system is an important aspect of temporal deixis. The English

language has only two tenses which are shown in the verb: the present tense and the

past tense. The present tense is the proximal form, and the past tense is the distal

form So, if we for instance consider an utterance in present tense, we know that it

was produced “during a temporal span including the coding time” (Levinson 2005,

115). Past tense would mean that the event took place before the coding time.

. The actual distance or proximity to be expressed means not only the

“distance from current time, but also distance from current reality or facts” (Yule

1996, 14-15).

a. If I had a yacht, ...

13
b. If I was rich, ...

Neither of the ideas expressed in the above examples are to be treated as having

happened in the past time. They are presented as deictically distant from the

speaker's current situation. So distant, indeed, that they communicate the negative

(we infer that the speaker has no yacht and is not rich). The remote or distal form

can be used to communicate not only distance from current time, but also distance

from current reality or facts.

Discourse deixis

Discourse deixis is deictic reference to a portion of a discourse relative to

the speaker's current “location” in the discourse. In other words: “words and phrases

[…] that indicate the relationship between an utterance and the prior discourse”

(Levinson 1983, 87). For convenience one can define discourse deixis as some kind

of commentary on the text or conversation by the speaker. Indexicals like “initial

usages of but, therefore, in conclusion, […], actually, all in all, […]” etc. (Levinson

1983, 87) should help to structure the discourse and to range the current utterance in

chronological order.

Examples:

Use of this to refer to a story one is about to tell in:

I bet you haven’t heard this story.

14
Reference to Chapter 7 of a book by means of in the next chapter or in the previous

chapter, depending on whether the reference is made from Chapter 6 or 8.

Exercises

1. Which of the following italicized expressions are used deictically and

which are not?
1. “We can’t go today, but tomorrow will be fine.”
2. “Today’s costly apartment buildings may be tomorrow’s slums.”
3. “James hasn’t been here yet. Is he there with you?”
4. “The children were running here and there.”
5. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”
2. Explain whether the underlined words in the following sentences are deictic
or not:
1. Jack and Jill have decided to see “The Alien” tomorrow night.
2. The perfect opportunity to invest in gold is now.
3. Batman was a very popular hero last year.
4. The cat slept next to the dog.
5. A picture of Abraham Lincoln is on every 5 dollar bill.
6. George Harrison died of cancer in 1998.
7. Margaret Thatcher gave the Crown Jewels to her favorite charity down the
street.
8. This morning Aunt Harriet knocked at the door at 6 am.

15
 Reference and Inference

Reference

You have already come across the notion of reference in your course

on Semantics where it was contrasted to sense, and defined as the relation between

the linguistic expression and the entity in the real world to which it refers. However,

words themselves actually do not refer to anything but the people using them.

Those referring expressions can be:

1) proper nouns 'John L. Austin' 'Osnabrück'
2) definite noun phrases 'the philosopher' 'the city'
3) indefinite noun phrases 'a man' 'a place'
4) pronouns 'he, him' 'it'

Reference, as the act of the speaker/writer using a linguistic form to enable a

listener/reader to identify something, depends on the speaker's intentions (e.g. to

refer to sth.) and on the speaker's beliefs (e.g. so the listener can identify the speaker's

intention). The choice of one type of referring expression rather than another seems

to be based, to a large extent, on what the speaker assumes the listener already

knows.

Inference

16
Since successful reference does not only depend on the speaker but also on the

listener, we have to include the notion of inference, which denotes the process of

decoding the pragmatic meaning of an utterance. In order to do so, the listener uses

additional knowledge to make sense of what has not been explicitly said.

Therefore, for creating an adequate reference there must be mutual knowledge

(in the speaker and listener's minds) and context about a particular referring

expression so that the listener can identify the intended referent. (Archer, 2012)

(Yule, 1996)

Have a look at the following three sentences and figure out the difference between

the referring expressions set in boldface:

a. There's a woman waiting for you.

b. She wants to marry a man with lots of money.
c. I'd like to see a unicorn.
Referential and attributive uses

Considering the above examples, one comes to the conclusion that not all referring

expressions have identifiable real-world referents.

Indefinite noun phrases can be used to describe a physically present referent as in

a. There's a woman waiting for you.

They can be used to identify a referent that is assumed to exist as in

17
b. She wants to marry a man with lots of money.

Furthermore, they can be used to describe entities that to our knowledge do not

exist as in

c. I'd like to see a unicorn.

The referent in [b.] (a man with lots of money) can be known to the speaker only

with respect to his descriptive properties. In that case, 'any' could replace the

indefinite article 'a'. This is called attributive use, meaning 'whoever/whatever fits

the description'. It is different from referential use where the referent is a specific

person (Yule 1996 ).

Attributive use is the use that a speaker makes of a definite noun phrase to

say something about whatever fits the description of the noun phrase.

Example

The definite noun phrase in The murderer of Smith is insane is used attributively if

the speaker does not intend to refer to a particular person which he knows to be the

murderer of Smith (that would be the referential use), but to the (possibly unknown)

person who murdered Smith, whoever that person may be.

Name and referent

In referring to something, people can also use name. And based on the

18
collaborative understanding among all members of society (not only speaker and

listener) the act of referring to something gains its success. Take a look at these

examples:

1. Can I borrow your [Shakespeare]?

2. Where does the [Mochaccino] stay?
3. [Grasshopper] is coming full-armed
4. [Titanic] takes over the whole upper shelf

What do you think when someone borrows your Shakespeare? Shakespeare

is the name of the famous figure, and he passed away many years ago. Logically,

borrowing Shakespeare will never happen. But when the name ‘Shakespeare’ is

associated with ‘borrow’, the listener can infer something else that it is not a human

named Shakespeare, but a play written by the famous playwriter. The association

between ‘Shakespeare’ (name) and the book (referent) is called pragmatic

connection. The cooperative use of proper name to refer to something else is

influenced with the common collaborative knowledge between the speaker and

listener.

Context and Co-text

Context refers to the social setting in which language occurs.

19
For example, the sentence It's cold in the bedroom means different things in these
two contexts:

Context 1: a guest standing at a hotel reception desk talking to the manager.

Context 2: someone suggesting a good place to store apples.

Many other utterances can only be understood if the context is made clear.

Co-text refers to the language immediately surrounding the item in question which
tells us its meaning.

For example, the word bark is a noun in

The tree has silver bark.

and a verb in

I wish that dog wouldn't bark so much.

Only the co-text allows us to understand which meaning of the word is the correct
one to assume.

Similarly, our ability to identify intended referents actually depends on more

than our understanding of the referring expression. It is normally aided by the

linguistic material, or co-text, accompanying the referring expression. The referring

expression actually provides a range of reference, that is, a number of possible

referents.

In the examples below, the referring expression 'cheese sandwich‘ provides a

number of possible referents. However, the different co-texts lead to a different type
of interpretation in each case (Yule, 1996).

20
The cheese sandwich is made with white bread. (We mean food)

The cheese sandwich left without paying. (We mean a person)

Anaphoric reference

(Yule, 1996) states that anaphor is "the word typically a pronoun, used to maintain

reference to someone or something already mentioned" (Crystal,1992) describes

anaphora as "a grammatical relationship in which a linguistic unit takes its

interpretation from some other part of the sentence, typically from something

previously expressed" Moreover, (Grundy, 2000) defines it as "a reference to a

previous item, or 'antecedent', in a discourse"

Thus, we can state that anaphoric reference is used to avoid repetition and at

the same time maintain the reference when using more than one sentence. This is

illustrated in the following example:

John and Ashley got married at the beginning of 1996, and they spent their

honeymoon in Italy. After one year, they had a beautiful child, and they named her

Lisa. They moved from the city to the country to have a peaceful atmosphere for

raising her. Today, she is leaving them and moving back to the city so that she can

enter Law school.

In the above example, the pronouns ('they',' them',' she', 'her') are examples of

'anaphoric reference' in which we have subsequent references to already introduced

21
referents. John, along with, Ashley is an example of an antecedent which is "a noun

or noun phrase, generally appears earlier in the sentence or discourse than the item

which refers to it" (Crystal,1992). In other words, "the initial expression used to

identify someone or something for which an anaphor is used later" (Yule, 1996)

Thus, in the above example they are an anaphoric reference for the antecedents John

and Ashley.

There is another technique in which the antecedent is preceded by the

anaphoric reference, which is known as 'cataphora'. According to Yule (Yule, 1996),

it is "the use of a word (typically a pronoun) to introduce someone or something that

is more identified later" as in the following example:

He slowly came into view. An old man was limping towards us.

Notice that the pronoun 'He', which is used initially, refers to 'an old man. Such

utterance makes it difficult to interpret until reaching the noun phrase in the

following line. Distinguishing between anaphoric reference and cataphoric reference

is useful in interpretation. (Betty, 2013)

Another type of anaphoric reference can be illustrated in the following

example:

a. Peel a potato and slice it.

b. Put the slices into boiling water.

22
c. Cook for five minutes.

Such anaphoric reference, having no linguistic entity to refer to as in 'cook for five

minutes’ is called 'ellipsis' or 'zero anaphora' which is "the absence of an expression

in a structural slot where one is assumed, as a way of maintaining reference"

(Yule,1996)

In such utterances, the listener is expected to infer the speaker's intended referent

correctly based on mutual knowledge and co-text. (Yule,1996) "successful reference

means that an intention was recognized, via inference, indicating a kind of shared

knowledge and hence social connection" (Yule,1996)

Reference in semantics and pragmatics.

Based on Yule's (1996) definition of semantics, that is "the study of the

relationship between linguistic forms and entities in the world" we can get that

'reference' in semantics is a direct relationship, a literal connection between words

and things, it does not consider the speaker's intended meaning nor the listener's

interpretation of an utterance.

On the other hand, pragmatics "is the study of the relationship between

linguistic forms and the users of those forms" Yule (1996) Therefore, it is no longer

a direct relationship between linguistic forms and entities of the world. Within

pragmatics, language users (speaker and listener) take part in assigning the intended

23
referent, e.g. within semantics, the word Shakespeare refers to a clear direct referent

that is the famous English figure. While in pragmatics, it could refer to a book written

by Shakespeare, a poem, a play, or the person himself. We can assign the intended

referent according to the context, the speaker, and the listener.

Exercises

I. Give an example for each of the following:

1. Reference
2. Variable reference
3. Constant reference
4. Referential use
5. Attributive use
6. Different expressions referring to one referent
7. Anaphoric reference
8. Cataphoric reference
9. Ellipsis/zero anaphora
10.A name of an inanimate thing used to refer to a person
II. Define each of the following terms:

1. Reference
2. Inference
3. Variable reference: a reference that varies acc
4. Constant reference
5. Co-text
6. Context
7. Anaphora
24
 8. Cataphora
9. Zero anaphora - ellipsis
IV. State whether the underlined expressions are used referentially or
attributively:

1. A woman dressed in black was looking for you.

2. They are looking for new applicants.

3. America needs a fearless president.

4. The first sign of the monsoon is a cloud on the horizon no bigger than a
man's hand.

5. Forty buses have been withdrawn from service by the Liverpool

Corporation."

6. This engine has the power of forty buses.

7. Nancy married a Norwegian.

8. The man who shot Abraham Lincoln was an unemployed actor

9. If anyone ever marries Nancy, he's in for a bad time.

10. Every man who owns a donkey beats it.

25
 Presupposition and entailment

Presupposition

Hudson (2000: 321) states that "a presupposition" is something assumed

(presupposed) to be true in a sentence which asserts other information". In the
following example, sentence (a) presupposes sentence (b).

1. a. The child sneezed again.

b. The child had sneezed before

The first sentence presupposes the information in the second, and this is apparent in
the fact that if the first sentence is negated, the truth of the second remains
unchanged:

1. c. The child did not sneeze again.

Thus, the negation of the sentence can be considered as one of the tests used
to check for the presupposition underlying the sentence, as in:

2. a. Mary's hat is red.

b. Mary's hat is not red.

Although these two sentences have opposite meanings, the underlying

presupposition, 'Mary has a hat', remains true (the same). This case is called by
linguists as "constancy under negation", which is one of the properties used in
pragmatics for testing presuppositions.

Types of presupposition

Yule (1996) sees that presupposition has been associated with the use of a
large number of words, phrases, and structures. These linguistic forms are

26
considered to be indicators of potential presupposition, which can only become
actual presupposition in context with speakers. Thus, he states six types of
presupposition which are: the existential, the factive, the non-factive, the lexical, the
structural and the counterfactual.

These six types of presupposition can be brought together under the heading
of potential presupposition which represents the whole. The existential
presupposition is assumed to be present either in possessive constructions (such as:
your car presupposes (») you have a car) or in any definite noun phrase as in using
expressions like: the King of Sweden, the cat, etc. in which the speaker presupposes
the existence of the entities named.

The second type of presupposition is called factive presupposition since some

words are used in the sentences to denote facts, such as know, realize, regret, glad,
odd, and aware. For example, Everybody knows that John is ill presupposes that
John is ill.

The third type of presupposition is called non-factive presupposition, which

is assumed not to be true. Verbs like dream, imagine and pretend are used with the
presupposition that what follows is not true. e.g. John dreamed that he was rich
presupposes that John was not rich. Moreover, Palmer (1988: 67) uses the word
likely to refer to non-factive presupposition, as in It is likely that John came early,
which presupposes that John might or might not come early.

There are forms which may be treated as the source of lexical presupposition,

such as manage, stop, and start. In this type, the use of one form with its asserted

meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another (non-

asserted) meaning is understood. When one says that someone managed to do

27
something, the asserted meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. But when

one says that someone did not manage, the asserted meaning is that the person did

not succeed. In both cases. However, there is a presupposition (non-asserted) that

the person tried to do that something. So, managed is conventionally interpreted as

asserting 'succeeded' and presupposing 'tried'

In addition to the presuppositions that are associated with the use of certain

words and phrases, there are also structural presuppositions. In this case, certain

sentence structures have been analyzed as conventionally and regularly

presupposing that part of the structure is assumed to be true (Yule,1996). One might

say that speakers can use such structures to treat information as presupposed

(assumed to be true) and hence to be accepted as true by the listeners. For instance,

the wh- forms (i.e. when, where, etc.) can be used in this type, as in When did John

leave? presupposes that John left.

The last type is called a counter-factual presupposition, in which what is

presupposed is not only true, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts.

For example, the sentence: If you were his friend you would have helped him

presupposes that you are not his friend. A conditional structure of this sentence

presupposes that the information in the if-clause is not true of the time of utterance

28
Entailment

Entailment is a term derived from formal logic and now often used as part of

the study of semantics. All the other essential semantic relations like equivalence

and contradiction can be defined in terms of entailment. Crystal (1998,p. 136)

defines it as "a term refers to a relation between a pair of sentences such that the

truth of the second sentence necessarily follows from the truth of the first, e.g. I can

see a dog entails 'I can see an animal'. One cannot both assert the first and deny the

second". Lyons (1977, p.85) points out that entailment is "a relation that holds

between P and Q where P and Q are variables standing for propositions such that if

the truth of Q necessarily follows from the truth of P (and the falsity of Q necessarily

follows from the falsity of P), then P entails Q". Thus, Lyons treats entailment from

a logical point of view. For instance, the sentence John is a bachelor entails three

other sentences as follows:

.a. John is unmarried.

b. John is male.

c. John is adult.

The relations between such words as bachelor and unmarried, male, adult can

be handled in truth-conditional terms. The truth conditions in John is a bachelor are

included in the conditions for John is unmarried, John is male and John is adult.

29
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic concept (i.e., having to do with

the speaker meaning), but it is considered a purely logical concept.

Ordered entailments

According to Yule (2000: 33), there are two types of entailment: background
entailment and foreground entailment. In the example:

Bob chased three rabbits.

The speaker is necessarily committed to the truth of a very large number of

background entailments, only some of them are presented as follows:

a. Someone chased three rabbits

b. Bob did something to three rabbits

c. Bob chased three of something

d. Something happened

On any occasion of the above utterance, the speaker will indicate how these
entailments are to be ordered, i.e., the speaker will communicate which entailment
is assumed to be more important for interpreting the intended meaning, than any
others. For instance, in uttering sentence (a) below, the speaker indicates that the
foreground entailment is that Bob chased a certain number of rabbits:-

a. Bob chased THREE rabbits.

b. BOB chased three rabbits.

In (b), the focus shifts to Bob, and the main assumption is that 'someone

chased rabbits'. Hence, there is a simple pragmatic rule to bear: the background

30
entailments of a sentence are assumed to be not relevant in the context, what is

assumed to be relevant, and thus the "point" of saying the sentence, is whatever

information has to be added to the background to obtain the foreground, i.e., 'Bob

chased three rabbits' The speaker will necessarily produce a very large number of

background entailments but the speaker will indicate how these entailments are to

be ordered. How? by stress, or by using special structures. So, the hearer will

understand which entailment is assumed to be more important for interpreting the

intended meaning.

One of the special structures that are used to foreground specific entailment is

what is referred to as cleft sentence. Cleft sentences are used to help us focus on a

particular part of the sentence and to emphasise what we want to say. Because there

are two parts, they are called cleft (from the verb cleave) which means divided into

two. Cleft sentences are particularly useful in writing where we cannot use

intonation for purposes of focus or emphasis, but they are also frequently used in

speech.

Cleft structures include the reason why, the thing that, the person/people who,

the place where, the day when, and what-clauses which are usually linked to the

clause that we want to focus on with is or was.

31
Examples of cleft sentences:

I've come to discuss my future with you.

The reason why I've come is to discuss my future with you.

Your generosity impresses more than anything else.

The thing that impresses me more than anything else is your generosity.

The jewels are hidden under the floor at 23 Robin Hood Road, Epping.

The place where the jewels are hidden is under the floor at 23 Robin Hood Road,

Epping.

Under the floor at 23 Robin Hood Road is the place where the jewels are hidden.

Exercises

What presuppositions do the following constructions give rise to? List them,
indicate what the presupposition trigger is, and try to categorize the trigger in
one of the categories we have established

a. The burglar realized that he had been filmed on closed-circuit television

b. John forgot to do the washing up

c. It wasn’t John who moved to Spain.

d. Susan discovered that her husband was having an affair

e. John hasn’t driven a car since he had the accident

32
f. Mary started emptying the shopping bags

g. Professor Huang was glad that he had solved one of evolution’s great mysteries

Decide whether in the following examples the second sentence is a

presupposition or an entailment of the first one.

a) John forgot to buy milk. -- John was supposed to buy milk

b) It is John who likes climbing. -- Someone likes climbing.

c) Mary broke the window -- The window broke.

d) What Bill lost wasn’t his wallet – Bill lost something.

e) John managed to give up smoking -- John tried to give up smoking

f) It matters that they lied to us. -- They lied to us

g) The email that Admin sent us said Thursday. -- Admin sent us an email

h) Bill is a better linguist than Mary. – Mary is a linguist.

i) My cousin teaches English and French at the community college. – My cousin

teaches English at the community college.

j) Where is the man with the megaphone? -- There is a man with a megaphone

k) John managed to stop smoking. – John stopped smoking

l) At least three students solved the problem. -- At least two students solved the
problem.

m) The Queen of England attended a cooking workshop. -- There is a queen of

England.

n) My dog Richard was killed in a car accident. -- My dog Richard is dead.

33
o) John didn’t manage to stop in time -- John tried to stop in time

34
 Cooperation and Implicature

It is generally assumed that speakers and listeners involved in a conversation

are cooperating with each other. For instance, in order to accept a speaker's

presuppositions, the listeners necessarily need to assume that a speaker who says

"my wife", is really married. Thus, people having a conversation are generally

assumed to be honest and convey relevant information.

Consider the following scene: In the cafeteria of a university, one student asks

another how she likes the sandwich she just started eating. The addressed student

replies:

A sandwich is a sandwich.

Merely looking at the sentence from a logical perspective reveals that it does

not have a communicative value since it expresses a tautology. Yet, when used in

conversation we assume that the speaker intends to express more than is actually

said. Thus, the student who received the tautologous answer has to assume that her

fellow student is being cooperative and intends to communicate something and then

needs to work out the additional conveyed meaning, called implicature.

Implicatures are one of the primary examples that more is being

communicated than is said. However, in order to interpret implicatures, like in the

35
example above, we must assume that some basic cooperative principle is in

operation.

Grice (1989) states the Cooperative Principle as follows: “Make your

conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the

accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

Furthermore, he develops the classification of maxims into:

• a. Maxim of 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.

• b. Maxim of Quantity:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purposes of exchange).

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

• c. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.

• d. Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous.

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4. Be orderly.

36
 These maxims specify what the participants have to do in order to converse in

a maximally efficient, rational, and cooperative way: they should speak sincerely,

relevantly, and clearly whilst providing sufficient information.

Below is an example of all maxims in one conversation.

• A: Where is Juliet?
• B: She is in her room, I’m sure.

It can be seen that speaker B, according to Grice’s framework, observes all of the

maxims as he answers speaker A’s question clearly (Manner) and truthfully

(Quality). Moreover, speaker B’s contribution is sufficiently provided (Quantity),

and his answer is directly relevant to speaker A’s question (Relation). `

Cooperation can be understood as an essential factor when speakers and

listeners are interacting, in other words, it is the expectation that the listener has

toward the speaker. The speaker is supposed to convey true statements and say

nothing more than what is required.

Grice’s aim was to understand how “speaker’s meaning” rises from “sentence

meaning” ( Speaker meaning = Sentence meaning + What is implicated). His theory

is an attempt at explaining how a hearer gets from what is said to what is meant,

from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning.

37
 Grice proposed that many aspects of “speaker’s meaning” result from the

assumption that the participants in a conversation are cooperating in an attempt to

reach mutual goals – or at least are pretending to do so! However, there are certain

situations in which people fail to observe the maxims; they may intentionally or

unintentionally fail to follow the maxims because of their purpose of interaction. In

the following example, Dexter may appear to be violating the requirements of the

quantity maxim.

• Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.

• Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.

When speakers violate the above maxims, in some situations, conversational

implicature will arise. After hearing Dexter's response, Charlene has to assume that

Dexter is cooperating and not totally unaware of the quantity maxim. But he didn't

mention the cheese. If he had brought the cheese, he would say so, because he would

be adhering to the quantity maxim. He must intend that she infer that what is not

mentioned was not brought. In this case, Dexter has conveyed more than he said via

a conversational implicature. Using the symbol +> for an implicature, we can also

represent the additional conveyed meaning.

Wife: b & c?

Husband: b

(+> NOT c)
38
The following is another example where the maxim of quantity is violated:

• Mum: Did you finish your homework?

• Pat: I finished my algebra.
• Mum: Well, get busy and finish your English, too!

The child did not say that her English homework is not done, nor did she imply it.

Nevertheless, her mother is entitled to draw this conclusion, based on the

combination of what the child actually said and the cooperative principle.

Implicature can be considered as an additional conveyed meaning. It is

attained when a speaker intends to communicate more than just what the words

mean. It is the speaker who communicates something via implicatures, and the

listener recognizes those communicated meanings via inference. The inferences

selected are those which will preserve the assumption of cooperation. But in fact,

the speakers often flout the cooperative principles and are still thought to be

cooperative. What they convey are conversational implicatures.

According to Grice, utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding

messages, but rather involves

(1) taking the meaning of the sentences together with contextual information,

(2) using inference rules

(3) working out what the speaker means on the basis of the assumption that the
utterance conforms to the maxims.

39
The main advantage of this approach from Grice’s point of view is that it provides a

pragmatic explanation for a wide range of phenomena, especially for conversational

implicatures --- a kind of extra meaning that is not literally contained in the utterance.

Grice then makes a distinction between violating a maxim and openly flouting

a maxim. If the speaker flouts a maxim, he has deliberately and openly failed to

observe one or more maxims for (a) communicative purpose(s), which leads to

implicatures in a conversation. Below is an example of flouting a maxim:

• Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy?

• Mary: Let’s go get some coffee. (Yule 1996: 43)

According to Yule, Mary intentionally flouts the maxim of Relevance to make

an implicature in her answer to Leila’s question. There are certain reasons that make

Mary reply to Leila’s question with an unrelated answer and Leila has to make some

inference from Mary (for example, the boss might be nearby) and she understands

why Mary makes an apparently non-relevant remark. The implicature here is that

Mary cannot answer the question in that context.

As it is previously said, people tend to be cooperative and obey CP in

communication. However, there are certain kinds of expressions speaker use to mark

that they may be in danger of not fully adhering to the principles. These kinds of

expressions are called hedges

40
• Hedges on the maxim of quality

I don’t think I have sufficient evidence for this, but...

People say...

As far as I know,…

I may be mistaken, but..

I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring

on her finger.

I’m not sure if this is right, but…

• Hedges on the maxim of quantity

I’m not at liberty to say anymore.

So, to cut a long story short,

As you probably know,

As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs.

I won’t bore you with all the details, but

• Hedges on the maxim of manner

This is a bit confused, but...

I’m not sure if this makes sense, but..

I don’t know if this is clear at all, but

I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing.

• Hedges on the maxim of relation

41
 I know this is irrelevant, but...

Not to change the topic, but...

I don’t know if this is important, but…

This may sound like a dumb question, but…

don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing.

All of these examples of hedges are good indications that the speakers are not only

aware of the maxims, but that they want to show that they are trying to observe them.

Perhaps such forms also communicate the speakers' concern that their listeners judge

them to be cooperative conversational partners (Yule, 1996).

Types of implicatures

Implicatures

Conventional Conversational

Generalized Particularized

Conventional Implicatures are implications based on the conventional

meanings of the words occurring in an utterance,i.e., they are directly attached to the
42
literal meaning of the words being said such as but, yet, therefore, however, and

even.

They are not based on the cooperative principle or its maxims; they are encoded in

the lexicon or grammar; and are not dependent on context for their interpretations.

Examples:
• Joe is poor but happy
The implicature is that not all poor people are happy.

This sentence implies that poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of

this Joe is still happy. The word “but” creates the implicature of a sense of contrast.

• Alfie is a baby, but he is quiet.

The implicature is that babies are not usually quiet.
• John is Englishman but cowardly
The implicature that John is being cowardly is unexpected given his being an
Englishman.
• Michael is Englishman, he is, therefore, brave
The implicature is that John’s being brave is a consequence of his being an
Englishman.
Other examples are the following:
George is short but brave. (contrast)
Sue and Bill are divorced (conjunction)
He jumped on his horse and rode away. (sequence)
I dropped the camera, and it broke (consequence)

43
Conversational implicatures
The most common conversational implicatures only happen in specific contexts

and are called particularized. Many of the examples we have looked at so far require

some kind of context; this makes them particularized implicatures. Other

conversational implicatures can be inferred without reference to a special context

and these are called generalized. Conversational implicatures, therefore, are all

inferred via the cooperative principle or the four maxims (observed, violated, or

flouted)

Ex:
• A: I am out of petrol.
• B: There is a garage on the corner.
As we saw above, conversational implicatures can be divided into

"generalized" and "particularized" conversational implicatures.

Generalized" conversational implicatures are ones that don't depend on context.

Ex.: Indefinites
• A car collided with John’s foot. (+˃ not John’s car / not the speaker’s car)
The speaker is assumed to follow the maxim of quantity. If he wanted to be more

specific/informative, he would have said my car or John’s car. Examples like the one

just mentioned are interpreted according to the generalized conversational

implicature that an X +˃ not the speaker’s X

• John walked into a house yesterday.

44
+˃ that the house was not John’s house
• Yesterday there was a naughty boy throwing my windows with stones.
A number of other generalized conversational implicatures are commonly

communicated on the basis of a scale of values and are consequently known as scalar

implicatures.

Scalar implicatures
Scalar implicatures are based on linguistic expressions like some, or, must,

etc. Such expressions are part of a scale organized by informativity. Examples of

such scales are: All/many/some, Must/should/may, Always/often/sometimes. Scalar

implicatures are communicated by choosing a word expressing a value from a scale

(quantity, frequency, etc.), e.g.

• I’m studying linguistics and I’ve completed some of the required courses (not

all)

If the scale is all, most, many, some, few...., the use of some implicates that all the

higher items in the scale are to be considered negative. In other words, by using some

of the required courses the speaker creates the implicatures +˃ not all, not most, and

not many.

• They are sometimes really interesting.

45
By using sometimes, the speaker communicates, via implicature the negative of

forms higher on the scale of frequency ( +˃ not always, +˃ not often)

• Bill has got some of Chomsky’s papers.

+˃ Bill does not have all of Chomsky’s papers.

• There will be five of us for dinner tonight.

+˃ There will not be more than five of us for dinner tonight.

Particularized conversational implicatures are inferred only due to a special

context.

• A: Can you tell me the time?

B: Well, the milkman is here.
It must be the time when the milkman comes
• A: Where does Dave live?
B: Somewhere in the South of France
• A: Will you come out on a dinner date with me?
B: Hasn’t the weather been lovely recently?
Properties of conversational implicatures
Grice attributed various properties to conversational implicatures.
Cancelability: They are Defeasible (cancellable)
This means the implicature can be cancelled by further information or context.
Look at the following examples
• 'Those cookies look good! ' (I would like one or more)

46
Now compare it with:
• 'Those cookies look good, but I'm on a diet.' (implicature defeated; i.e., 'I
won't have any.')
And compare this:
• C: I need to get some breakfast.
• D: There's a baker's just around the corner. (You can get what you need
there)
With
• C: I need to get some breakfast.
• D: There's a baker's just around the corner. But they won't be open
yet. (implicature defeated)
They are re-inforceable
• I need to buy gas. —There’s a station around the corner.
• It sells gas and is open.
• The soup is warm +˃ The soup is not hot.
• The soup is warm, but not hot
• You have won $5. (+˃ only five) (q = ‘only 5, and no more)
• You have won $5, that’s four more than one.
They can be suspended
• You have won at least $5. (q suspended: ‘I’m not committed to the truth of
q’)
• A: Does this job candidate speak Spanish?
• 1. B: He speaks Portuguese. +> He does not speak Spanish.
• 2. B: I know he speaks Portuguese. +> B does not know whether he speaks
Spanish.
• b. A: How did the students do in the exam?
• 1. B: Some students passed. +> Not many passed.
• 2. B: I know that some students passed. +> B does not know whether many
passed.
Calculability: they can be calculated

47
Hearers work out implicature rationally based on conventional meaning, CP and
its maxims, context, etc.
Exercises
In each of the following exchanges, mention which of the four maxims of
Cooperation is flouted and what the generated implicature can be:

• A. I got an A on that exam.

B. And I’m Queen Marie of Rumania.

• A. Where did you go?

B. Out.

• A: Where does Arnold live?

B: Somewhere in southern California.

• A: The capital of Morocco is Casablanca

B: Yes, and the capital of the U.K. is Moscow

• Father to daughter at family dinner: Any news about the SAT results?
Daughter: Ice-cream anyone?

• Supervisor: Did you read the articles and write up the review of the literature?
Supervisee: I certainly read the articles. Weren’t they captivating!
• A: Did you like my presentation?
B: The attendance was impressive, wasn’t it?
• Rick: Hey, coming to the party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting.
• Ann: Where are you going with the dog?
Sam: To the V.E.T
• Bert: Do you like ice cream?

48
Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?
• A: Do you know where Salwa is?

B: I was supposed to have lunch with her, but she didn’t come.

• A: Who was that man I saw you with yesterday?

B: That was the father of my children.

• Diane: Don’t you think John is a wonderful guy?

Susan: Yeah, he’s about as sensitive as a soldier.

• Wife: What are you reading?

Husband: A book.

• Reem: I am the top of my class.

Sara: Yeah, and I am the queen of England!

• A: What time is it?

B: Well, the paper has been delivered.

• A: Do you want to go to the movies tonight?

B: My little sister is coming for a visit.

• A: Where are you going?

B: Out.

• A: Are you going to wear that outfit?

B: No, I thought I’d go naked today.

• A: Am I in time for supper?

49
 B: I’ve cleared the table.

• A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?

B: I’ve cleared the table.

• A: Don’t you think that Bill is a pain in the neck?

• B: I like your tie.

• Speaker A: Do you like Rosie?

Speaker B: Well, she has a nice husband.

• Speaker A: Are your parents coming to visit?

Speaker B: My mother is.

• Speaker A: What’s the weather prediction?

Speaker B: Bring your coat.

• Speaker A: It’s cold in here.

Speaker B: I’ll turn the heat up.

• A: Do you love me?

B: I am quite fond of you.
• A: Is Paris in Spain, teacher?
B: And Cairo is in France, I suppose.
• A: The steak is delicious. Try it.
B: I am vegetarian.
• A: Let's get the kids something.
B: Ok, but not I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S

50
 Speech Acts
Speech act theory is a subfield of pragmatics that studies how words are used

not only to present information but also to carry out actions. The speech act theory

was introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in How to Do Things with Words

and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. Speech acts include

functions such as requests, apologies, suggestions, commands, offers, and

appropriate responses to those acts. Of course, speakers of these acts are not truly

successful until the intended meaning they convey is understood by listeners.

Yule (1996) tries to explain what is meant by speech acts saying that when

people attempt to express themselves, they do not only produce utterances

containing grammatical structures and words, but they also perform actions via those

utterances. For example:

If you work in a situation where a boss has a great deal of power, then the boss's

utterance of the expression in [1] is more than just a statement.

[1] You're fired.

The utterance in [1] can be used to perform the act of ending your employment.

Speech event

People use language with communicative intentions. Communicative

intentions and speech acts are related to the fact that an individual states a sentence,

51
but that sentence has 2 or more several different meanings. The way the sentence is

delivered, the tone used to deliver it and the entire body language is related to the

interpretation of speech acts. The speaker normally expects that his or her

communicative intention will be recognized by the hearer. Both speaker and hearer

are usually helped in this process by the circumstances surrounding the utterance.

These circumstances, including other utterances, are called the speech event.

• This tea is really cold!

The above utterance, for example, can be interpreted as two different speech acts

according to the circumstances in which it is uttered:

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. The utterance in this

situation is likely to be interpreted as a complaint.

Situation B: On a really hot summer's day with the speaker being given a glass of

iced tea by the hearer, taking a sip and producing the utterance, it is likely in this

case to be interpreted as praise.

If the same utterance can be interpreted as two different kinds of speech acts, then

obviously no simple one-utterance-to-one-action correspondence will be possible.

Can you identify each of the following speech acts intends to convey: a request,

an apology, a suggestion, a command, an offer, a rebuke, or an invitation?

52
 Speaker / Listener Speech Act

mother to daughter "Your room is a mess."

incoming traveler to hotel clerk "Can I have a room on the top floor?"

one student to another "You can use my eraser. Yours is almost gone."

student 1 to student 2, just after 1 tells 2 she

"Do you want to study together for the next test?"
failed the exam

student 2 to student 1, just after 1 tells 2 she

"Do you want to study together for the next test?"
failed the exam

"You know, they have a sale on diamond rings at the mall

a young woman to her boyfriend
this weekend."

Austin proposed a three-way taxonomy of speech acts: (1) a locutionary act

refers to the act of saying something meaningful, that is, the act of uttering a

fragment or a sentence in the literal sense (referring and predicating); (2) an

illocutionary act is performed by saying something that has a conventional force

such as informing, ordering, warning, complaining, requesting, or refusing; and (3)

a perlocutionary act refers to what we achieve ‘by saying something, such as

convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading’ (1962:

109) Speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the

illocutionary force of an utterance. The illocutionary force of an utterance is what it

'counts as'. The same locutionary act can count as different illocutionary acts.

• I'll see you later.

53
Can be a prediction, a promise, or a warning. The same utterance can potentially

have quite different illocutionary forces depending on the situation where it occurs.

How can speakers assume that the intended illocutionary force of a specific speech

act will be recognized by the hearer?

Illocutionary force indicating devices

There are different devices used to indicate how an illocutionary force must

be interpreted. For example, 'Open the door' and 'Could you open the door' have the

same propositional content (open the door), but they represent different illocutionary

acts—an order and a request respectively. These devices that aid the hearer in

identifying the illocutionary force of the utterance are referred to as the illocutionary

force indicating devices or IFIDs [also called illocutionary force markers].

Performative verbs, mood, word order, intonation, stress are examples of IFIDs.

I may indicate the kind of illocutionary act I am performing by beginning the

sentence with 'I apologize,' 'I warn,' 'I state,' etc. Verbs that explicitly name the

illocutionary act being performed are called performative verbs and, if stated,

would be very clear IFIDs. Often, in actual speech situations, the context will make

it clear what the illocutionary force of the utterance is, without its being necessary

to invoke the appropriate explicit illocutionary force indicator.

54
Not every speech act, however, has its own explicit performative verb.

Performative Utterances

There are certain things one can do just by saying that one is doing them. One

can apologize by saying "I apologize," promise by saying "I promise," and thank

someone by saying "Thank you." These are examples of explicit performative

utterances, statements in form but not in fact. Performatives are utterances whereby

we make explicit what we are doing.

Implicit performatives
55
 Implicit performatives are performative utterances with performative verbs

but they are not explicitly stated. With an implicit performative, the sentence does

not have an explicit performative verb, but it has illocutionary force which is known

from the context.

For example:

• Clean up this mess

The above utterance is an implicit performative where no performative verb is

present. How can one define its communicative intention, i.e., what kind of speech

act is it? To make the point clearer, consider the difference between the following

two utterances:

• a. I order you to leave.

• b. Will you leave?

In the first example, the speaker utters a sentence with an imperative proposition and

with the purpose to make the hearer leave. The speaker uses a performative verb and

thus completely avoids any possible misunderstanding. The message is clear here.

The second utterance (b) is rather ambiguous without an appropriate context. It can

be understood in two different ways: it can be either taken literally, as a yes/no

question, or non-literally as an indirect request or even command to leave. The hearer

56
can become confused and he does not always have to decode the speaker’s intention

successfully. (b) is an implicit or primary performative.

Also, consider the difference between the following two utterances

1. “primary performative: ‘I shall be there.’

2. explicit performative: ‘I promise that I shall be there.’” (Austin 1976:69).

The first example does not make use of a performative verb, whereas the second

does. Still, both examples have similar implications, i.e. they both are promises, but

only in the second example, the promise is made explicit.

The performative hypothesis

The performative hypothesis is the hypothesis (proposed in Ross 1970), that every

sentence is associated with an explicit illocutionary act, i.e., is derived from a deep

structure containing a performative verb. The performative hypothesis is the

interpretation given by Austen for how implicit performatives work as speech acts

with various communicative functions..

Example

Sentence (a) is derived from (b), or perhaps (c):

• a. I'll write you next week

b. I claim I'll write you next week

57
 c. I promise I'll write you next week

Felicity conditions

As Yule (Yule, 1996: 50) observes, felicity conditions cover expected or

appropriate circumstances for the performance of a speech act to be recognized as

intended. He then, working on originally Searle’s assumptions, proposes a further

classification of felicity conditions into five classes: general conditions, content

conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, and essential

conditions. According to Yule (Yule,1996:50), general conditions presuppose the

participants’ knowledge of the language being used and their non-playacting.

Content conditions concern the appropriate content of an utterance.

Preparatory conditions do not define the speech act, but are necessary in the

sense that if they do not hold, the act has not been carried out (it is said to have

misfired). In the case of declarative speech acts, the person performing the act must

have the authority to do it and must do it in appropriate circumstances and with

appropriate actions. For instance, it is not enough for someone to break a bottle of

champagne on the bows of a ship, and say I name this ship Venus, for the ship either

to acquire an official name or to change its name. A proper ceremony must be

enacted, with officially recognized participants. The same is true of christening a

baby. Even in the case of resigning from a job or position, just saying the words/

58
resign, at breakfast, say, does not constitute a resignation: there are proper ways of

resigning and channels for communicating such a decision.

For sincerity conditions to be fulfilled, the person performing the act must

have appropriate beliefs or feelings. For instance, in performing an act of asserting,

the speaker must believe the proposition they are expressing; when thanking

someone, one ought to have feelings of gratitude; when making a promise, one

should sincerely intend to carry it out, and so on. If the sincerity conditions are not

met, the act is actually performed, but there is said to be an abuse.

Essential conditions basically define the act being carried out. Thus, for a

promise, the speaker must intend his utterance to put him under an obligation to

carry out the act which corresponds to its propositional content. For a request, the

speaker must intend that the utterance counts as an attempt to get the hearer to do

what is requested; for a statement, the hearer must intend that the utterance counts

as a guarantee of the truth of the statement; for a question, the hearer must intend

that the utterance count as an attempt to elicit the appropriate answer from the hearer,

and so on. If the essential conditions are not met, the act has not really been carried

out.

59
For example, for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance must be

about a future event. A further content condition for a promise requires that the future

event will be a future act of the speaker.

The preparatory conditions for a promise are significantly different from those for a

warning. When I promise to do something, there are two preparatory conditions:

first, the event will not happen by itself, and second, the event will have a beneficial

effect. When I utter a warning, there are the following preparatory conditions: it isn't

clear that the hearer knows the event will occur, the sneaker does think the event will

occur, and the event will not have a beneficial effect.

The sincerity condition that, for a promise, the speaker genuinely intends to carry

out the future action, and, for a warning, the speaker genuinely believes that the

future event will not have a beneficial effect.

The essential condition for a promise covers the fact that by the act of uttering a

promise, I thereby intend to create an obligation to carry out the action as promised.

In other words, the utterance changes my state from non-obligation to obligation.

Similarly, with a warning, under the essential condition, the utterance changes my

state from non-informing of a bad future event to informing.

60
Speech act classification

One general classification system lists five types of general functions performed by

speech acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives.

Representatives are those kinds of 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 or she believes it is.

• a. The earth is flat.

• b. Chomsky didn't write about peanuts.

• c. It was a warm sunny day.

In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the world (of belief).

Declarations are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their utterance.

The speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform

a declaration appropriately.

• a. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

• b. Referee: You're out!

• c. Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty.

In using a declaration, the speaker changes the world via words.

Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They

express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or

61
sorrow. They can be caused by something the speaker does or the hearer does, but they are

about the speaker's experience.

• a. I'm really sorry!

• b. Congratulations!

• c Oh, yes, great, mmmm, ssahh!

In using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling).

Directives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do

something. They express what the speaker wants. They are commands, orders, requests,

and suggestions, and they can be positive or negative.

• a. Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black.

• b. Could you lend me a pen, please?

• c. Don't touch that.

In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the hearer).

Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit

themselves to some future action. They express what the speaker intends. They are

promises, threats, refusals, and pledges, and they can be performed by the speaker

alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group.

• a. I'll be back.

• b. I'm going to get it right next time.

62
 • c. We will not do that.

In using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via

the speaker).

Direct and indirect speech acts

Apart from distinguishing speech acts according to their general function,

they can also be distinguished with regard to their structure. Austin argued that

what is said (the locutionary act) does not determine the illocutionary act(s)

being performed. Thus, we can perform a speech act directly or indirectly, by

way of performing another speech act. For example, we can make a request or

give permission by way of making a statement (e.g. by uttering I am getting thirsty

or It doesn't matter to me), and we can make a statement or give an order by

way of asking a question (e.g. such as Will the sun rise tomorrow? Or Can

you clean up your room?

There is an easily recognized relationship between the three structural forms

(declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative

functions (statement, question, command/request).

In direct speech act, there is a direct relationship between a structure and a

function. Thus, a declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act.

63
 • It’s cold outside.

• I hereby tell you about the weather

In indirect speech act, there is an indirect relationship between a structure and

a function.

• E.g. we use a declarative sentence in order to make a request.

• It’s cold outside

• I hereby request of you that you close the door.

Different structures can be used to accomplish the same basic function, as in

the following example, where the speaker wants the addressee not to stand in front

of the TV. The basic function of all the utterances is a command/request, but only

the imperative structure in [a.] represents a direct speech act. The interrogative

structure in [b.] is not being used only as a question, hence it is an indirect speech

act. The declarative structures in [c] and [d.] are also indirect requests.

• a. Move out of the way!

• b. Do you have to stand in front of the TV?

• c. You're standing in front of the TV.

• d. You'd make a better door than a window.

One of the most common types of indirect speech acts in English, as shown in

[a and b] below, has the form of an interrogative, but is not typically used to ask a

64
question (i.e. we don't expect only an answer, we expect action). The examples in [

a and b] are normally understood as requests.

• a. Could you pass the salt?

• b. Would you open this?

Indeed, 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. Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater

politeness in English than direct speech acts.

Exercises on Speech Acts

1. Identify the Illocutionary Acts involved in the following utterances.

A friend says to another friend, “Why don’t you like to ski?”

A fathers says to his child, “Why don’t you spend less time watching TV?”

A child says to her playmate, “Yippee–cookies!!.”

A doctor says to a patient, “I advise you to stop smoking.”

One secretary says to another, “My daughter’s getting married in August.”

A priest says over an infant, “I baptize you in the name of . . .”

A mother says to her daughter, “Who washed the dishes?”

A passerby says to a motorist with a flat tire, “Let me help you with that.”

65
A woman says to someone next to her at the grocery store, “It’s going to be a very

windy day.”

A police officer says to a young man who was speeding, “You’re under arrest”

A coach says to a team member, “Way to go!”

A teenage boy says to another teenage boy, “Go ahead–Make me!”

An umpire says, “Strike Three!”

One friend says to another, “I swear I won’t see Martha again.”

A parent says to her child, “I forbid you to leave your room.”

A man says to a friend, “What time is it?”

A buyer says to a seller, “I agree with your terms”

2. For each of the utterances below

1) name the speech act performed
2) describe two of its felicity conditions
3) decide whether the speech act is direct or indirect and explain in terms of
sentence structure
a) Can you make your bed?

b) Have a safe journey.

c) Where do you live?

d) I wonder what happened to Mary.

e) I hear there's a fire in the next building.

f) Enjoy yourself

66
g) Can you people at the back hear me?

h) Is this the new dress you bought yesterday for 5000 SR?

i) Where is your book?

3. For each of the following speech acts, indicate (1) the type of speech act, (2)
its sincerity condition (expressed psychological state), and (3) the direction of
fit.

a. I'll help you with your paper tomorrow

b. I will turn my paper in on Friday. (said by student to instructor)
c. May I have an extension on the due date for my paper? (asked by student of
instructor)
d. I assign this paper a grade of A. (said by the instructor)

e. The teacher is supposed to return our papers today.

f. If you don't start on your papers early, you won't have enough time. (said by the

instructor to the student)

g. Congratulations on passing the course. (said by the instructor to the student)

h. Your papers will be marked down for each day that they are late. (said by the

instructor to the students)

i. Your papers are due on Friday. (said by the instructor to the students)

j. Your paper was handed in too late to be considered. (said by the instructor to the

student)

67
 Politeness

Politeness theory is an important branch of pragmatics developed by Penelope

Brown and Stephen Levinson in the 1970s. The theory draws heavily upon Erving

Goffman's concept of face theory and has advanced this concept with a particular

focus on how and why we are polite to others.

The concept of face

Goffman (1955) defines face in the concept of face theory as "The positive

public image [we] seek to establish in social interactions." It's also helpful to think

of face as 'self-image'. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that

everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Naturally, most of us want to

protect our self-image and wish to portray a positive image of ourselves to others.

Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to

show awareness of another person's face. In this sense, politeness can be

accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness. Showing awareness for

another person's face when that other seems socially distant is often described in

terms of respect or deference. Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is

socially close is often described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or

solidarity. The first type might be found in a student's question to his teacher, shown

as [a.], and the second type in the friend's question to the same individual, as in [b.].

• Excuse me, Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute?

68
 • b. Hey, Bucky, got a minute?

Brown and Levinson's politeness theory

Politeness theory works on the assumption that we have two different types of

'face': Positive face and Negative face.

• Positive face is an individual's desire to be liked and appreciated by others. Think

of this as a person's self-esteem.

• Negative face is an individual's desire to protect their personal rights, such as

their freedom of speech and action.

When we are polite to people, we are appealing to one of these two types.

Positive politeness: Appealing to a person's Positive Face can mean making the

individual feel good about themselves.

Negative politeness: Appealing to a person's negative face can mean making the

other person feel like they haven't been imposed upon or taken advantage of.

Within their everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their

expectations concerning their public self-image, or their face wants, will be

respected. Brown and Levinson suggest that when we are rude to people or impede

their personal freedoms, we commit face-threatening acts (these are directed at

the person we are talking to). When we admit and apologize for our shortcomings,

we commit face-threatening acts (which are directed at ourselves). They also

69
suggest that cooperation is needed between speakers during social interaction. This

is to maintain the face of both your own and of the person you are speaking to.

Politeness and face theory

Now that we have a basic understanding of politeness theory and the concept of

face, let's take a closer look at the differences between positive and negative 'face'.

Positive face/positive politeness

Brown and Levinson defined positive face as an individual's desire to be liked,

admired, ratified, and related to positively. According to Yule(1996), positive face

is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the

same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others. Maintaining a

positive face means maintaining and exhibiting a positive self-image to the rest of

society. When we are appealing to someone's positive face, we want to increase their

self-esteem and make them feel good about themselves. For example, we might

compliment someone's outfit, congratulate someone on their achievements, or agree

with something they say. When we wish to protect someone's positive face, we avoid

criticisms, insults, and disagreements.

Let's look at ways of appealing to someone's positive face.

• “You always wear such lovely clothes! I'd love to borrow something one

day."

70
Here, the speaker makes the listener feel good about themselves by complimenting

them and confirming their choice of clothes.

• “This piece of work is really fantastic. Well done! "

Here the speaker is congratulating the listener on their work and recognizing their

achievements.

The speaker can also protect his/her positive face. We do this by concealing

actions that may be damaging to our self-image. In the world of Sociology, this is

referred to as 'saving face'. Saving face is a strategy for avoiding humiliation or

embarrassment, maintaining dignity or preserving one's reputation.

Negative face/ negative politeness

The concept of negative face is a little trickier to grasp. Brown and Levinson

define negative face as an individual's desire not to have their basic rights and

freedoms impeded by others. And to Yule, it is the need to be independent, to have

freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. Whereas positive face

involves a desire to be connected to others, negative face desires autonomy (a

person's ability to act on their own interests).

When we appeal to a person's negative face, we want to make them feel like they

haven't been taken advantage of.

71
 • "I know it's a real pain, and I hope you don't mind, but could you please

print these off for me?"

Here the speaker has appealed to the listener's negative face by using what Brown

and Levinson call Negative Politeness. Here the speaker has used negative politeness

strategies, like hedging and indirectness, to avoid feelings of imposition on the

listener. Imposition is a situation in which someone expects another person to do

something that they do not want to do or that is not convenient.

What are face-threatening acts?

A face-threatening act is when communication can damage a person's sense

of face or affect the needs and desires of someone's positive or negative face. Face-

threatening acts can be verbal (using words or language), paraverbal (conveyed in

the characteristics of speech such as tone or inflexion), or non-verbal (facial

expressions or body language). According to Brown and Levinson, face-threatening

acts may threaten either the speaker's or the listener's face (either positive or

negative).

Positive face-threatening acts damaging to the listener

Acts that threaten the listener's positive face and self-image include expressions of

disapproval, accusations, criticism, and disagreements. Face-threatening acts can

also be expressions that show that the speaker does not care about the listener's

72
positive face, for example mentioning taboo or emotional topics, interruptions, and

expressions of violent emotions.

Let's take a look at some face-threatening acts (positive face).

• "I don't like that outfit at all."

• "You ate all my cheese, didn't you?!"

• "I'm definitely better at math than you."

• "Didn't your last partner cheat on you all the time?"

Positive face-threatening acts are damaging to the speaker

Acts that threaten the speaker's positive face and self-image include

apologies (an acceptance of being wrong), confessions, and a loss of emotional

control.

• "I'm all over the place right now and haven't done any housework in weeks!"

Negative face-threatening acts are damaging to the listener

Acts that threaten the listener's negative face and restrict their personal freedoms

include utterances that pressurize the listener into doing something in the future,

such as giving an order, making a request, giving a reminder, or making a threat.

Alternatively, face-threatening acts can involve the speaker expressing a strong

emotion towards the listener that typically requires some form of positive reaction.

For example, paying a compliment and expecting a compliment in return.

73
Let's take a look at some face-threatening acts that threaten the listener's negative

face.

• "Pick that up for me."

• "If you don't apologize, I won't speak to you again."

Negative face-threatening acts damaging to the speaker

Acts that threaten the speaker's negative face and impede on their personal

freedoms include speech acts they feel obliged to perform, such as apologies,

excuses, acceptance of compliments or gratitude.

• "Thanks, I like your outfit too."

What are the four politeness strategies?

According to Brown and Levinson, there are four main strategies we can use

to limit the threat to the listener's face when face-threatening acts are inevitable. We

usually use these strategies to avoid embarrassing someone or making them feel

uncomfortable. Brown and Levinson propose four politeness strategies: Bald on-

record, Positive politeness, Negative politeness, and Off-record (indirect).

Let's take a closer look at each of these.

Bald on-record

74
 The Bald on-record strategy does not attempt to limit the threat to the listener's

face. We usually use this strategy when there is a sense of urgency if we know the

listener well, or if there is a low risk of threat to the listener's face. When we use this

strategy, we get straight to the point and do not use any additional language to help

soften our message.

• "Watch out!" - Sense of urgency.

• "Your headlights are on!" - In the interest of the listener.

• "Eat up!" - This command would likely be face-threatening if the speaker

and listener did not know each other. However, if the speaker and listener

know each other well, this would be deemed acceptable.

The positives of this strategy include getting recognition for being honest; avoiding

confusion by not using unnecessary language; and putting public pressure on the

listener when needed.

Positive politeness

Positive politeness strategies aim to reduce the threat to the listener's positive

face. Positive politeness strategies include: finding common ground; juxtaposing

criticism with compliments; telling jokes; and using statements of friendship (think

about nicknames, slang or insider jokes that only you and your friends use). These

75
strategies make the listener feel good about themselves and avoid conflict or offence

by emphasising friendliness and politeness.

• "Hey mate, can I borrow a fiver?" - Using friendly language.

• “I love your shoes, and your hair looks great. I'm not sure about that top,

though...”- Juxtaposing a criticism with compliments.

• "Oh, you played this word wrong. Don't worry, I spell things wrong all the

time! " - Finding common ground.

The positives of this strategy include: an increased sense of solidarity between the

speaker and the listener; decreased social distance.

Negative politeness

Negative politeness strategies are aimed at the listener's negative face and are

meant to avoid any imposition on the listener. We use negative politeness strategies

when we presume that our speech will impose on the listener in some way and wish

to avoid feelings of awkwardness or embarrassment. Such strategies include hedging

(a word or phrase that makes a statement less forceful or assertive), minimizing the

imposition, apologizing, being indirect, and using questions rather than commands.

• "I don't suppose you know where the toilets are, do you? " - Being indirect

and hedging.

76
 • “Could you print this off for me? It's only a few pages and won't take long! "

- Minimizing the imposition.

• "I'm so sorry, but could you help me?" - Being apologetic.

Off-record (indirect)

Brown and Levinson's final politeness strategy is the off-record or indirect

strategy. This strategy involves some serious indirectness; the speaker typically

avoids saying the potentially face-threatening act altogether.

Instead, the speakers' intentions are implied, and it is up to the listener to interpret

them. In this situation, the speaker can get credit for not imposing on the listener,

and the listener is given a chance to present themselves as helpful or

generous. However, this strategy relies heavily on pragmatics to convey the

intended meaning.

• Speaker: "Is there a free chair over there?"

Listener: "Yes, here you go." (They give the speaker a chair).

• Speaker: "I have a headache."

Listener “Oh dear. Here, take some of my painkillers."

In both situations, the speaker never actually asks for anything and therefore the

imposition on the listener is reduced.

77
The positives of this strategy include: getting credit for being tactful and avoiding

responsibility for a potentially face-threatening act.

Sociological variables

Brown and Levinson list three sociological variables which determine the degree

of politeness to use. These variables are: the social distance between speaker and

listener; the relative power difference between the speaker and listener; and the

level of the seriousness of the potential face threat.

Generally speaking, degrees of politeness can vary in the following three

situations:

• The greater the social distance between the speaker and the listener, the

more politeness is expected.

• The greater the listener's perceived relative power over the speaker, the more

politeness is recommended.

• The greater the imposition on the listener, the higher level of politeness is

required.

Examples of politeness theory in practice

Let's compare two sentences that have the same meaning but use different politeness

strategies.

78
 • 1. "Stop talking"

compared with,

• 2. "I'm sorry, but I don't suppose you'd mind being a bit quieter?"

Here the intended meaning is pretty clear; the speaker wants the listener to be

quiet! However, in the second example, the speaker has implemented several

negative politeness strategies to minimize the face-threatening act. In the second

sentence, the speaker apologizes, uses indirect language, and turns a command into

a question.

Take a look at the following example. What strategies do you think the speaker has

used in the second sentence to minimize a potentially face-threatening act?

• 1. "I need to borrow some money."

Compared with

• 2. “Hi mate! You look well. Hey, would it be okay if I borrowed some

money? "

Answer: The speaker has used the positive politeness strategies of giving a

compliment and using statements of friendship.

79
 References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290521992_A_Brief_Sketch_on_the_Ori

gin_and_Development_of_Pragmatics

https://www.thoughtco.com/pragmatics-language-1691654

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/stylistics/topic8/indicators/10indicators3.

htm

https://uhn.ac.id/files/akademik_files/1712070152_2014_The%20Episteme%20Jo

urnal%20of%20Linguistics%20and%20Literature%20Vol%201%20No%201_5-

An%20Analysis%20Of%20Deixis%20Used%20In%20John.pdf

https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/pragmatics/deixis/

https://uhn.ac.id/files/akademik_files/1712070152_2014_The%20Episteme%20Jo

urnal%20of%20Linguistics%20and%20Literature%20Vol%201%20No%201_5-

An%20Analysis%20Of%20Deixis%20Used%20In%20John.pdf

http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Pragmatics/ReferentialAttributiveUses

https://www.facebook.com/1604593269816182/posts/reference-and-inference-

within-pragmatics-and-semantics-the-chain-of-communicati/2458565531085614/

https://cdnx.uobabylon.edu.iq/research/Entailment%20&%20Presupposition.pdf

80
http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Pragmatics/PragmaticsCooperationAndImplicatur

es

https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/166554-EN-the-cooperative-principle-

is-grices-theo.pdf

https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/pragmatics/01/speech.php

https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/speechacts/index.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/illocutionary-force-speech-1691147

https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/pragmatics/politeness-theory/

81
82
 ‫جامعة المنيا‬ ‫كلية األلسن‬

‫‪English Department‬‬ ‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬

‫توصيف مقرر دراسي‬

‫المنيا‬ ‫جامعة‪:‬‬
‫األلسن‬ ‫كلية‪:‬‬
‫اللغة اإلنجليزية‬ ‫قسم‪:‬‬

‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬
‫رئيس ًيا‬
‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬
‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬
‫موصفات المقرر‬
‫َ‬
‫البرنامج أو البرامج التي يُقدَّم من خاللها المقرر‪:‬‬
‫المقرر يمثل عنصرا رئيسيا أو ثانويا بالنسبة للبرامج‪:‬‬
‫القسم العلمي المسئول عن البرنامج‪:‬‬
‫القسم العلمي المسئول عن تدريس المقرر‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬بيانات المقرر‬
‫الدراسات اللغوية (التداولية‬ ‫اسم المقرر‪:‬‬ ‫‪EN3203‬‬ ‫الرمز الكودي‪:‬‬
‫‪)Pragmatics‬‬
‫الثالثة‬ ‫السنة الدراسية (الفرقة)‪:‬‬ ‫المجموع‬ ‫عملي‪/‬تطبيقي‬ ‫نظري‬
‫عدد الساعات الدراسية (أسبوعيا)‪:‬‬
‫الثاني‬ ‫الفصل الدراسي‪:‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪56‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫عدد الساعات الدراسية للمقرر‪:‬‬

‫‪ -2‬الهدف العام للمقرر‬

‫يُكسب هذا المقرر الطالب المعارف والمهارات واالتجاهات اإليجابية حول مستويات المعنى المتنوعة وتحليلها من خالل السياقين‬
‫اللغوي وغير اللغوي‪ ،‬وكيفية اإلفادة من هذه المعارف في استنتاج المعنى الدقيق في النص المكتوب أو المنطوق أو في ترجمة نص‬
‫من النصوص بفاعلية‪.‬‬

‫‪ -3‬النتائج التعليمية المستهدفة للمقرر ‪:ILOS‬‬

‫بنهاية دراسة هذا المقرر يكون الطالب قادراً على أن‪:‬‬
‫أ‪ .1‬يميز بين مستويات المعنى المقصودة فى التفاعل‪.‬‬
‫أ‪ .2‬يفسر الدور الذى يلعبه مبدأ التأدب ومبدأ التعاون في فهم الحوار‪.‬‬
‫أ‪ .3‬يسمي أنواع أفعال الكالم المختلفة والمعنى الذى تعكسه فى المواقف المختلفة‪.‬‬
‫أ‪ -‬المعرفة والفهم‪:‬‬
‫أ‪ . 4‬يصف أنواع االستدالل‪( :‬االستدالل المنطقى‪ ،‬االستدالل اللفظى‪ ،‬االفتراضات المسبقة)‪.‬‬
‫ُعرف المصطلحات المتخصصة فى مجال علم التداولية‪.‬‬ ‫أ‪ .5‬ي ِّ‬
‫‪ 6‬أ‪ .‬يفسر كيفية اإلشارة فى اللغة اإلنجليزية والفرق بين اإلشارة فى اللغتين العربية واإلنجليزية‪.‬‬
‫ب‪ .1‬يستنتج المعنى المقصود بطريقة غير مباشرة فى المواقف المختلفة‪.‬‬
‫ب‪ .2‬يفرق بين معنى ما يُقال (معنى الجملة) وغرض المتحدث (المعنى السياقي‪ ،‬وهو ما يُس َّمى بمعنى‬
‫المعنى)‪.‬‬ ‫ب‪-‬المهارات الذهنية‪:‬‬
‫ب‪ .3‬يميزاالتجاهات البرجماتية‪/‬التداولية للتأدب‪.‬‬
‫ب‪ .4‬يميز بين أنواع االستدالل المختلفة‪.‬‬
‫ب‪ .5‬يميز بين اإلشارة فى اللغتين العربية اإلنجليزية‪.‬‬

‫صفحة رقم ‪ 1‬من‪3‬‬

 ‫جامعة المنيا‬ ‫كلية األلسن‬

‫‪English Department‬‬ ‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬

‫ج‪ .1‬يفسر التفاعالت اليومية في إطار ما تعلمه عن مستويات المعنى‪.‬‬

‫ج‪ .2‬يستخدم التكنولوجيا الحديثة فى البحث فى مجاالت التخصص‪.‬‬ ‫ج‪-‬المهارات المهنية والعملية‪:‬‬
‫‪3‬ج‪ .‬يصيغ األفكار ويعرضها بأسلوب لغوى سليم‪.‬‬
‫د‪ .1‬يستخدم اإلنترنت فى البحث عن المعلومات‪.‬‬
‫د‪ .2‬يدير الوقت بكفاءة‪.‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬
‫د‪ .3‬يفهم ما يدور حوله من محادثات ويجرى نقاشا موضوعيا‪ ،‬مستندا على أدلة وبراهين‪.‬‬ ‫د‪-‬المهارات العامة والمنقولة‪:‬‬
‫د‪ .4‬يعبر عن وجهة نظره ويعرض الحجج بطريقة منطقية‪.‬‬
‫د‪ .5‬يلتزم باألمانة العلمية وأخالقيات البحث العلمى‪.‬‬
‫د‪ .6‬يحلل المواقف والنصوص‪.‬‬
‫‪Introduction to pragmatics‬‬ ‫‪ -4‬محتوى المقرر‬
‫;‪Differences between syntax, semantics and pragmatics‬‬
‫‪concepts of the pragmatic basket‬‬
‫‪Deixis and language uses (personal deixis, spatial deixis, and‬‬
‫) ‪temporal deixis‬‬
‫‪Reference, inference and the role of the context in inference‬‬
‫‪Refernce in nouns and pronouns‬‬
‫‪Presupposition and it types‬‬
‫‪Entailment and its role in clarifying the meaning‬‬
‫‪Conversational implicature and its maxims‬‬
‫‪Introduction to speech acts+ Midterm exam‬‬
‫‪Types of speech direct and indirect acts‬‬
‫‪Politeness and its role in communication: positive face and‬‬
‫‪negative face‬‬
‫‪Schemata and their role in pragmatics‬‬

‫‪ -5‬أساليب التعليم والتعلم‬

‫محاضرات نظرية‬ ‫‪1-5‬‬

‫مناقشات شفهية‬ ‫‪2-5‬‬

‫تعلم تعاوني‬ ‫‪3-5‬‬

‫تعلم ذاتي‬ ‫‪4-5‬‬

‫محاضرات إلكترونية عن بعد (نظام التعليم الهجين)‬ ‫‪5-5‬‬

‫‪ -6‬أساليب التعليم والتعلم لذوي القدرات المحدودة‬

‫التواصل معهم في قاعة الدرس وأثناء الساعات المكتبية وعلى شبكات التواصل االجتماعي‬

‫‪ -7‬تقويم الطالب‬
‫‪ %20‬أعمال سنة‬ ‫‪ %80‬تحريري‬ ‫األسلوب‪-‬التوقيت‪-‬الدرجة‬

‫امتحان نصف الفصل الدراسي‬ ‫‪-2-7‬‬ ‫امتحان نهاية الفصل‬ ‫‪-1-7‬‬

‫الدراسي‬

‫تكليفات (واجبات منزلية‪ ،‬اختبارات قصيرة‪)... ،‬‬ ‫‪-3-7‬‬ ‫االمتحانات اإللكترونية‬

‫أ‪ -‬األساليب المستخدمة‬

‫صفحة رقم ‪ 2‬من‪3‬‬

 ‫جامعة المنيا‬ ‫كلية األلسن‬

‫‪English Department‬‬ ‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬

‫األسبوع ‪9‬‬ ‫‪-2-7‬‬ ‫وفقا لجدول امتحانات‬ ‫‪-1-7‬‬

‫الفصل الدراسي‬
‫أسبوعيا ً‬ ‫‪-3-7‬‬ ‫ب‪ -‬التوقيت‬

‫‪%10‬‬ ‫‪-2-7‬‬ ‫‪%80‬‬ ‫‪-1-7‬‬

‫‪%10‬‬ ‫‪-3-7‬‬ ‫ج‪-‬توزيع الدرجات‬

‫‪%100‬‬ ‫المجموع‬

‫‪ -8‬قائمة الكتب الدراسية والمراجع‪:‬‬

‫أ‪ -‬مذكرات‪:‬‬
‫‪Yul Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford UP.‬‬ ‫ب‪ -‬كتب ملزمة‬
‫‪Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford UP .‬‬

‫‪Cruse, A. (2006). A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.‬‬ ‫ج‪-‬كتب مقترحة‪:‬‬
‫‪Birner, B. J. (2012). Introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.‬‬
‫د‪-‬مجالت دورية‪:‬‬
‫ه‪-‬مواقع إنترنت‪:‬‬
‫‪ -9‬التسهيالت واإلمكانات الالزمة للتعليم والتعلم‪:‬‬
‫مكان تدريس مالئم مثل معمل لغة يضم أدوات مساعدة للتدريس (سبورة وجهاز عارض ضوئي (بروجيكتور)‪ ،‬وجهاز حاسب آلي‪،‬‬
‫وإنترنت)‪.‬‬

‫التوقيع‪:‬‬ ‫القائم بالتدريس‪ :‬د‪ .‬نجالء أحمد عوني‬

‫التوقيع‪:‬‬ ‫منسق المقرر‪ :‬د‪ .‬نجالء أحمد عوني‬

‫التوقيع‪:‬‬ ‫منسق البرنامج‪ :‬د‪ .‬نجالء أحمد عوني‬

‫التوقيع‪:‬‬ ‫رئيس القسم العلمي‪ :‬أ‪.‬م‪.‬د‪ .‬هاني عبد الفتاح‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫تاريخ اعتماد مجلس الكلية‪2020/10/19 :‬‬

‫‪ 1‬كان قد تم اعتماد تحديث توصيف مقررات البرنامج من مجلس القسم العلمي بتاريخ ‪ 3‬يونيو ‪ ،2020‬وبنا ًء على توجيهات وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث‬
‫العلمي بتطوير التعليم الجامعي تم تحديث توصيف المقرر بإضافة نظام التعليم الهجين ألساليب التعليم والتعلم واعتماد تحديث توصيف المقرر من مجلس‬
‫الكلية بتاريخ ‪ 19‬أكتوبر ‪2020‬‬

‫صفحة رقم ‪ 3‬من‪3‬‬

 ‫جامعة المنيا‬ ‫كلية األلسن‬
‫‪Minia University‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Al-Alsun‬‬

‫قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية ‪English Department‬‬

‫نموذج رقم ‪-11‬أ‬

‫الدراسات اللغوية (التداولية‬ ‫مسمى المقرر‬
‫‪)Pragmatics‬‬ ‫مصفوفة مقرر دراسي‬
‫‪EN3203‬‬ ‫كود المقرر‬
‫جامعة‪ :‬المنيا‬
‫كلية‪ :‬األلسن‬
‫قسم‪ :‬اللغة اإلنجليزية‬

‫(أ) مصفوفة المعارف والمهارات المستهدفة من المقرر الدراسي‬

‫مهارات عامة‬ ‫مهارات مهنية‬ ‫مهارات ذهنية‬ ‫المعارف الرئيسة‬ ‫أسبوع الدراسة‬ ‫المحتويات للمقرر‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪3‬‬ ‫ج‪ ،1‬ج‪3‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬أ‪،2‬أ‪3‬‬ ‫األول‬ ‫‪Introduction to pragmatics‬‬
‫أ‪،1‬أ ‪3‬‬ ‫‪Differences between syntax, semantics and pragmatics; concepts‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫الثاني‬
‫‪of the pragmatic basket‬‬
‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ‪3‬‬ ‫‪Deixis and language use (personal deixis, spatial deixis, and‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫الثالث‬
‫)‪temporal deixis‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا ‪2‬‬ ‫الرابع‬ ‫‪Reference, inference and the role of the context in inference‬‬
‫د‪ ،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪ ،1‬ج‪ ،2‬ج‪3‬‬ ‫ب‪ ،1‬ب‪ ،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ‪3‬‬ ‫الخامس‬ ‫‪Reference in nouns and pronouns‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪،3‬د‪،4‬د‪5‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬أ ‪3‬‬ ‫السادس‬ ‫‪Presupposition and its types‬‬

‫د‪،1‬د‪،2‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا ‪2‬‬ ‫السابع‬ ‫‪Revision‬‬

‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪ ،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ ‪،3‬أ‪4‬‬ ‫الثامن‬ ‫‪Entailment and its role in clarifying the meaning‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪،3‬د‪،4‬د‪5‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ‪3‬‬ ‫التاسع‬ ‫‪Conversational implicature and its maxims‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا ‪2‬‬ ‫العاشر‬ ‫‪Introduction to speech acts: Midterm exam‬‬
‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬‬ ‫الحادي عشر‬ ‫‪Types of speech direct and indirect acts‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ ‪،3‬أ‪4‬‬
‫ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬
‫الثاني عشر‬ ‫‪Politeness and its role in communication: positive face and‬‬
‫‪،‬د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا ‪2‬‬ ‫‪negative face‬‬

‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬‬ ‫الثالث عشر‬ ‫‪Schemata and their role in pragmatics‬‬

‫د‪،1‬د‪4‬‬ ‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا ‪3‬‬
‫ج‪،3‬ج‪4‬‬
‫ب‪،1‬ب‪،2‬ب‪3‬‬ ‫أ‪،1‬ا‪،2‬أ ‪،3‬أ‪4‬‬ ‫الرابع عشر‬ ‫‪Final revision‬‬
‫د‪،1‬د‪،3‬د‪،4‬د‪،5‬د‪6‬‬ ‫ج‪،1‬ج‪،2‬ج‪،3‬ج‪،4‬‬

‫رئيس مجلس القسم العلمي‪ :‬أ‪ .‬م‪ .‬د‪ .‬هاني عبد الفتاح‬ ‫منسق البرنامج‪ :‬د‪ .‬نجالء أحمد عوني‬ ‫أستاذ المقرر‪ :‬د‪ .‬نجالء أحمد عوني‬