Pragmatics

Prag

2020
 Table of
contents
Objectives 4

Introduction 5

I - Prerequisites 6

II - Chapter I : Speech Acts 7

1. Definition ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Types of Speech Acts ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. 1. Locutionary Speech Act ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2. 2. Illocutionary Speech Act .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3. 3. Perlocutionary Speech Act ................................................................................................................................................ 8

3. Classes of Speech Acts .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1. Representatives ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2. Expressives .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3. Directives .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.4. Commissives ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.5. Declarations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

III - Chapter II : Cooperative Principle 10

1. Grice's Maxims ........................................................................................................................................... 10

1.1. quantity ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2. quality ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
1.3. Relation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.4. Manner .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

2. Exercice : Which of the four maxims are violated? ................................................................................ 12

3. Exercice ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

4. Exercice ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

5. Breaking Maxims ....................................................................................................................................... 13

5.1. A. Maxims Violation .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.2. B. Maxims Flouting ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

6. Conversational Implicature ....................................................................................................................... 14

IV - activity 15

1. conversational implicature .............................................................................................................................

2.
 According to the Gricean Maxims and conversational implicature, which maxims are violated or

flouted ? Explain what the person really meant to say

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Bibliography 16
Objectives
By the end of the lesson, students will be able to :

1. distinguish the different types of speech acts and classify them

2. interpret implicature

3. identify Grice's maxims in conversation

4
 Introduction

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics, which looks at meanings of utterances in context ; it is often

discussed in contrast with the sub-field of semantics which is the study of meaning as part of the language
system.

According to Yule (1996: 4), pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the
user of those forms. Through this study, one can

talk about people‟s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions
that they are performing when they speak because pragmatics allows humans as the language user into
language analysis. In line with Yule‟s definition, Crystal (in Barron, 2003: 7) defines pragmatics as the study
of language from the point of view of the users, especially the choices they make, the constraints they
encounter in using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on the other
participants in an act of communication.

5
 Prerequisites

Prerequisites
I
Students must have prior knowlege of :

what linguistics is and its different fields and sub-fields

6
 Chapter I : Speech Acts

Chapter I : Speech Acts

II
Definition 7
Types of Speech Acts 7
Classes of Speech Acts 8

1. Definition
The term speech act refers to the action speakers sometimes perform when using language. It is a
concept which is first introduced by Austin (1962) and then developed by Searle (1969). Austin (ibid)
asserts that saying something may mean performing an action. He disagrees with philosophers who
believe that the issue of a statement is always either describing or stating and claims that the concern
of utterances is sometimes to perform actions and not only stating facts. For example, in the statement:
‘I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth' (Austin, 1962, p. 5), the speaker here in appropriate conditions,
according to Austin, neither describes nor informs what s/he is doing; rather s/he is performing the
action of naming the ship.

Speech acts are interactions between speakers and hearers. They are utterances that have a role in
communication. Thus, offering a request, greeting, refusal, apology, etc., means performing a speech
act.

2. Types of Speech Acts

Austin (1962) categorises three acts in the performance of an utterance. “To say something is to do
something, or in saying something we do something, or even by saying something we do something”
(Austin, 1962, p. 109). He names these acts, respectively, the locutionary, illocutionary, and
perlocutionary acts

speech acts

7
2.1. 1. Locutionary Speech Act

Locutionary act is the act of making well-formed utterances and producing meaningful linguistic
expressions. It is the act of saying something (Austin, 1962). In locutionary acts, the focus is on the
literal meaning of words (Yule, 1996).For example, in saying ‘I am sorry!', the locutionary act performed
is the utterance of this sentence. Austin (1962) differentiates three aspects of the locutionary act: A
phonetic act, a phatic act, and a rhetic act. Phonetic acts are acts of pronouncing sounds, e.g., the
sound /s/; phatic acts are acts of uttering words or sentences in accordance with the phonological and
syntactic rules of the language to which they belong, e.g., the word pen; and rhetic acts are acts of
uttering a sentence with sense and more or less definite reference, e.g., the red pen.

2.2. 2. Illocutionary Speech Act

An illocutionary act is a purpose or a function in the speakers' mind. It is the communicative force of an
utterance. One can utter to command, offer, promise, greet, thank, etc. (Yule, 1996 & Prince, 2003).
For example, in saying I am sorry!, the illocutionary act is the act of performing an apology. There are
further examples of illocutionary acts such as: Ordering, requesting, offering, condoling, giving
permission, betting, vowing, proposing, and so on. There are two types of illocutionary acts, linguistic
and nonlinguistic and both are intentional. They can be illustrated through the example of threatening
using a sentence or a gesture. When using a sentence, it is a linguistic illocutionary act; however, when
using a gesture, it is a non-linguistic illocutionary act

2.3. 3. Perlocutionary Speech Act

Perlocutionary act is the effect an utterance leaves on the hearer (Yule, 1996). For example; in saying ‘I
am sorry!', the perlocutionary act is the final effect of the utterance on the listener. This example could
have two different perlocutions: The speaker succeeds in persuading the listener to accept his apology
or fails in doing so.

3. Classes of Speech Acts

Speech acts can be classified according to their illocutionary force. For example, asserting, requesting,
promising, and apologising are different types of speech acts. These types are categorised according
to the speaker's ideas and attitudes which affect the hearer's understanding (Devitt & Hanley, 2003).
Searle (1976) classifies the illocutionary act into five main types: Representatives (or assertives),
directives, commissives, expressives, and

declarations.

3.1. Representatives

Representatives are kinds of speech acts, which state what the speaker believes to be the case or not.

8
 The type includes arguing, asserting, boasting, claiming, complaining, criticizing, denying, describing,
informing, insisting, reporting, suggesting, swearing, etc, for example, “I met your sister yesterday.”
The speaker here does the act of informing by telling the hearer that he/she had met the hearer`s sister
yesterday

3.2. Expressives

Expressives are kinds of speech acts, which state what the speakers feel. The acts are apologizing,
complimenting, condoling, congratulating, deploring, praising, regretting, thanking, etc, for example, “I
like your house very much.” By telling so, the speaker shows his/her appreciation to the hearer`s house

3.3. Directives

Directives are kinds of speech acts, which the speakers use to get someone else to do something. The
acts are ordering, commanding, requesting and suggesting, for example, “Would you like to come to
my tea party?” In this sentence, the speaker asks the hearer to come to his/her party

3.4. Commissives

Commissives are kinds of speech acts, which the speakers use to commit themselves to some future
action. The acts are committing, guaranteeing, offering, promising, refusing, threatening, volunteering,
vowing etc, for example, “I will be there at 5 o‟clock.” In doing the act of commisives, the speaker says
a promise to the hearer to come at five.

3.5. Declarations

Declarations are kinds of speech acts, which change the world via their utterance. The acts of
declaratives are approving, betting, blessing, christening, confirming, cursing, declaring, disapproving,
dismissing, naming, resigning, etc, for example, “I quit from this job.” In this example, the speaker tells
to the hearer that he/she quits the job.

9
 Chapter II : Cooperative Principle

Chapter II :
Cooperative Principle III

Grice's Maxims 10
Exercice : Which of the four maxims are violated? 12
Exercice 12
Exercice 13
Breaking Maxims 13
Conversational Implicature 14

When people are involved in communication, they will cooperate with each other. In most
circumstances, the assumption of cooperation is so pervasive so that it can be stated as a cooperative
principle of conversation. Furthermore, Yule (1996: 37) states that cooperative principle suggests the
speaker makes his/her conversational contribution as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by
the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which s/he engaged.

Grice says that when we communicate we assume, without realising it, that we, and the people we are
talking to, will be conversationally cooperative - we will cooperate to achieve mutual conversational
ends. This conversational cooperation even works when we are not being cooperative socially. So, for
example, we can be arguing with one another angrily and yet we will still cooperate quite a lot
conversationally to achieve the argument. This conversational cooperation manifests itself, according
to Grice, in a number of conversational MAXIMS, as he calls them, which we feel the need to abide
by. These maxims look at first sight like rules, but they appear to be broken more often than
grammatical or phonological rules are, for example, as we will see later, and this is why Grice uses the
term 'maxim' rather than 'rule'. Here are the four maxims (there may well be more) which Grice says
we all try to adhere to in conversation.

1. Grice's Maxims

10
1.1. quantity

In giving information, the speaker must (a) make their contribution as informative as it is required for
the current purposes of the exchange, and (b) not make the contribution more informative than it is
required. All communicants must strike a balance between providing too much and too little information
when they speak or write

11
1.2. quality

In maxim of quality, the speakers must (a) not say what they believe to be false and (b) not say that for
which they lack adequate evidence. It means that the speaker must have adequate evidence.

1.3. Relation

In the maxim of relation, the speaker must “make the contribution be relevant”. It means that the
speaker and the hearer must express something that is relevant to the subject of conversation

1.4. Manner

Both the speaker and hearer in a communication must be perspicacious and specifically: (a) avoid
obscurity, (b) avoid ambiguity, (c) be brief and (d) be orderly. This maxim suggests that in giving
information both the speaker and hearer must avoid ambiguities and obscurities.

2. Exercice : Which of the four maxims are violated?

Mom: What did you think of Junior's childish behavior last night? Dad: Well, boys will be boys

 quantity

 quality

 manner

 relation

3. Exercice
Student A: Do you like Linguistics? Student B: Well, let's just say I don't jump for joy before class.

 quality

 quantity

 manner

 relation

12
 Exercice

4. Exercice
Student: I was absent on Monday - did I miss anything important? Teacher: Oh no, of course not, we never
do anything important in class.

 quantity

 quality

 manner

 relation

5. Breaking Maxims
5.1. A. Maxims Violation

Violation, according to Grice (1975), takes place when speakers intentionally refrain to apply certain
maxims in their conversation to cause misunderstanding on their participants' part or to achieve some
other purposes. The following are examples of violation in the four aforementioned maxims:

• Mother: Did you study all day long?

• Son who has been playing all day long: Yes, I‘ve been studying till know!

In this exchange, the boy is not truthful and violates the maxim of quality. He is lies to avoid unpleasant
consequences such as; punishment or to be forced to study for the rest of the day.

• John: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past three months!

• Mike: I wasn't around. So, what's the big deal?

John poses a question, which he needs to be answered by Mike. What Mike says in return does not
lack the truth, however is still insufficient. This can be due to the fact that Mike prefers to refrain from
providing John with the answer. John's sentence implies that Mike has not been around otherwise he
did not have to search everywhere. John does not say as much as it is necessary to make his
contribution cooperative. Hence, he leaves his listener unsatisfied.

5.2. B. Maxims Flouting

Unlike the violation of maxims, which takes place to cause misunderstanding on the part of the listener,
the flouting of maxims takes place when individuals deliberately cease to apply the maxims to
persuade their listeners to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterances; that is, the speakers employ
implicature (S. C. Levinson, 1983). In the case of flouting (exploitation) of cooperative maxims, the
speaker desires the

greatest understanding in his/her recipient because it is expected that the interlocutor is able to
uncover the hidden meaning behind the utterances. People may flout the maxim of quality so as to

13
 Conversational Implicature

deliver implicitly a sarcastic tone in what they state. As in:

Teacher to a student who arrives late more than ten minutes to the class meeting:

• Wow! You're such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class.

• Student: Sorry sir! It won't happen again.

It is obvious from what the teacher says that he is teasing the student and his purpose is, by no means,
praising him. He exploits the maxim of quality (being truthful) to be sarcastic. Likewise, the student
seems to notice the purpose behind the teacher's compliment and offers an apology in return.
Furthermore, individuals can flout the maxim of quantity to be humorous. As in the most frequently
found expression among Iranian

youngsters:

Majid and Ali are talking on the phone:

• Ali: Where are you, Majid?

• Majid: I'm in my clothes

Majid tells the truth because it is expected that people are always in some clothes, yet he flouts the
maxim of quantity because the information is insufficient for Ali.

6. Conversational Implicature
A conversational implicature is a process in which hearers understand the speakers' intentions even if
they are not explicitly mentioned. It is the suppositions people make in their conversations in order to
protect the meanings that are not clearly conveyed in what is said (Geurts, 2011). Mey (1993, p. 141)
states, “often we may have to disregard the surface form of the verb when trying to determine what
kind of speech act we are confronted with.” That is, speech acts may be insincere because their
surface meanings may be different from the

speaker's intentions. Grice (1975, p. 51) uses the following example to illustrate the conversational
implicature.

A: I am out of petrol.

B: There is a garage round the corner.

In this example, A lacks petrol for his car and wants B to help him to get some . A does not say that he
wants help, but B understands A's intention (can you help me to get some petrol?). Besides, B's
answer was not relevant to A's expectations. B does not give a direct answer for A's question that
provides him by the necessary information to get petrol. On the one hand, when B answers, he thinks
that the garage is open, has petrol to sell, etc. and expects that A is able to understand his intents. A,
on the other hand, was able to grasp B's intended meaning. Therefore, the implicatures are what A and
B believe.

See "conversational implicature"

14
 activity

activity
IV
conversational implicature
According to the Gricean Maxims and conversational implicature, which
maxims are violated or flouted ? Explain what the person really meant to say
15

Objectives

to respond properly to native speakers implicature

1. According to the Gricean Maxims and

conversational implicature, which maxims are
violated or flouted ? Explain what the person really
meant to say
A : What time did John arrive ?

B : Mmm Grey's anatomy was on

A : Ok, so what do you have for me ? Good news or bad news ?

B : It's better if you sit down

A : Do you know Mr Holmes ?

B : Oh my God ! You are taking history now !You are such a nerd ! I've heard he's such a good
teacher though

15
 Bibliography

Bibliography
IV
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Searle, J.R. (1965). What is a speech act?. In Black, M. (Ed.) Philosophy in America. New York:
Cornell University Press, 221-239.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

16