Lorelie Cristy B.

Sacyong

Subject: Discourse Analysis

Professor: Dr. William D. Magday, Jr.

CHAPTER 3: DISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICS

CHAPTER OVERVIEW
3.1 What is pragmatics?
3.2 Language, context and discourse
3.3 Speech acts and discourse
3.4 The co-operative principle and
discourse
3.5. Flouting the co-operative principle
3.6 Cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse
3.7 Conversational implicature and
discourse
3.8 Politeness, face and discourse
3.9 Face and politeness across cultures
3.10 Politeness and gender
3.11 Face- threatening acts
3.12 Politeness and cross-cultural
pragmatic failure
3.13 Conclusion
3.14 Discussion questions
3.15 Data analysis projects
3.16 Directions for further reading

3.1 Pragmatics
- studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and
effects of our choice on others (David Crystal).
-It is an indispensable source for discourse analysis---It is impossible to analyze any discourse
without having a solid basic knowledge of pragmatic phenomena and the ways in which they
work and interact (Alba-Juez, 2009:2).
- It assumes that when people communicate with each other they normally follow some kind
of co-operative principle; that is, they have a shared understanding of how they should
cooperate in their communication.

Discourse analysis
- composed of a wide range of sub-disciplines, such as pragmatics, conversational
analysis, speech act theory and ethnography of speaking.

Paltridge (2006)
- Pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to the context in which a person is
speaking or writing. This includes social, situational and textual, and background
knowledge context; that is, what people know about each other and about the world.

3.2 Language, context and discourse

• An understanding of how language functions in context is central to an understanding
of the relationship between what is said and what is understood in spoken and written
discourse.
• The relationship between context, language and discourse consist of: physical context,
background knowledge context, linguistics context and situational context.
3.3 Speech acts and discourse
- This area is mainly based on speech act Theory (Austin1962, Searle 1969). According to these
authors, a human utterance as part of communication represents the simultaneous
performance of multiple acts:
a. locutionary act- prepositional meaning of the sentence
b. Illocutionary act- the force associated with the use of the utterance in a
specific context
c. perlocutionary act (the effect on the recipient of the performed speech act

I. DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS

direct speech act- There is a relationship between a structure and a function
indirect speech act- There is a relationship between a structure and a function
II. FELICITY CONDITIONS AND DISCOURSE
General Conditions for all speech acts:
1. The hearer must hear and understand the language.
2. The speaker must not be pretending or play-acting. (Seriousness)

Conditions specific to declaration and directives:

1. The speaker must believe that it is possible to carry out the action.
2. The speaker is performing the act in the hearer’s best interest.
3. The speaker is sincere about wanting to do it.
4. The words count as the acts.
III. RULES VERSUS PRINCIPLE
• Searle took Austin’s work further by arguing that the felicity conditions of an
utterance are constitutive rules. That is, they are not just something that can go
right or be abused—which was Austin’s view-but something which make up and
define the act itself. That is the are the rules that need to be followed for the
utterance to work. They thus, in Searle’s view, “Constitute” the particular speech
act. In his view the pragmatic use of language is rule governed and these rules can
be precisely stated.
IV. PRESUPPOSITION AND DISCOURSE
- Refers to the common ground that is assumed to exist between language users such
as assumed knowledge of a situation and/or of the world
Types of Presupposition
1. Conventional- less context-dependent than Pragmatic Presuppositions.
- Typically linked to particular linguistic forms
2. Pragmatics- Context-dependent and arise from the use of utterance in
a particular context.

3.4. The co-operative Principle and Discourse

- A principle proposed by the philosopher Paul Grice whereby those involved in
communication assume that both parties will normally seek to cooperate with each other to
establish agreed meaning.
 Grice (1975) based his co-operative principle on four sub-principles (maxims). Consists
of:
a. maxims of quality- people should only say what they believe to be true and what
they have evidence for
b. maxims of quantity- we should make our contribution as informative as is required
for the particular purpose and not make it more informative than is required.
c. maxims of relation- we should make our contribution relevant to the interaction,
or we should indicate in what way it is not.
d. maxims of manner- we should be clear o what we say

3.5. Flouting the co-operative principle

- It is speakers who communicate meaning via implicatures and it is the listeners who
recognize those communicated meaning via inference. The inference 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 is the
conversational implicatures.
I. The differences between flouting and violating maxims, Thomas (1995) and Cutting
(2002):
a. A speaker flouting a maxim- if they don’t observe a maxim but has no
intention of deceiving or misleading the other person.
b. A person is violating- if there is likelihood that they are liable to mislead
another person.
II. Overlaps between Maxims- flouting the maxims of quality and quantity at the same
time.
▪ An utterance may be both unclear and longwinded, flouting the maxims
of quality and quantity at the same time (Cutting 2002). Equally it may
be socially acceptable, and indeed preferred, to flout a maxim (such as
quality) for reasons of tact and politeness.

3.6. Cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse

- The ways in which people perform speech acts, and what they mean by what they say when
they perform them, often varies across cultures. These includes:
a. Communication across cultures
b. Cross-cultural pragmatics
c. Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics
d. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure

3.7 Conversational Implicature and Discourse

Conversational Implicature- refers to the inference a hearer makes about a
speaker’s intended meaning that arises from their use of the literal meaning of what
the speakers said.
Kinds of Conversational Implicature
 1. Conventional- no required context is required in order to derive the implicature
2. particularized conversational implicatures- derived from a particular context, rather
than from the use of the words alone.
3. Scalar implicatures- derived when a person uses a word from a set of words that
express some kind of scale of values.

3.8. Politeness, Face and Discourse

Politeness and face are important for
understanding why people choose to say things in a particular way in spoken and written
discourse. It includes:
a. Involvement and independence in spoken and written discourse
b. Choosing a politeness strategy

3.9. Face and Politeness across cultures

It is important to point out that the specific nature of face and politeness varies from
society to society and from culture to culture.

3.10. Politeness and Gender

- Politeness strategies have also been shown to vary according to gender.
Holmes (1995) – discusses the differences in the use of politeness strategies between
men and women. Her work reveals that the relationship between sex, politeness and
language is a complex one and that while research shows that, overall, women are
more polite than men, it also depends on what we mean by “polite” as well as which
women and men are being compared and what setting or community of practice the
interaction occurs in; that is, the particular local conditions, in which the man or
woman is speaking.

3.11. Face- Threatening acts

- Acts that threaten a person’s face.
mitigation devices (Fraser 1980)- often use in conversations to take the edge of face
threatening acts.
Example:
1. pre-sequence
2. insertion sequence
3. off-record speech act

3.12. Politeness and Cross- Cultural Pragmatic Failure

● Politeness and strategies are not the same across languages and cultures and might
mean different things in different linguistic and cultural contexts. Different views of
pragmatic appropriateness then, can easily lead to misunderstandings and inhibit
effective cross- cultural communication.
 ● In cross- cultural settings, in particular, people need an awareness, as well as an
expectation of sociopragmatic differences, as much as they need an understanding of
how these differences might be expressed linguistically.

3.13. Summary
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics that is focused on the meaning produced in a specific
speaking or writing context. With this, it is a supposition that when pragmatics is already in use,
speakers or writers speak or write adhering to some guiding principles to comply with the rules
and regulations of communication. This is anyway the aim of this study why it needs to be
furthered. It does not only assert the importance of considering the meaning when talking or
writing (pragmatics) in particular situation but is also emphasizing on its application
(communication process) as it is the end result of the need to study language as a whole. This is
backed by Cameron (2001) when he stated that linguistic form and communicative functions
are focal considerations when discussing about pragmatics.
Moreover, proper choice of words contributes to the preciseness of the meaning which
likely helps in the correct understanding of what was meant in the written or spoken discourse.
This is the relationship built by the language used considering the context to successfully
engage in a desired discourse. In short, a successful communication is achieved for the reason
that the process taken observes the elements: language, context, and discourse.
Further, the utterance of a word does not solely entail a meaning meant but must also
rely on the style or act of how a word is said. This emphasizes the importance of pragmatics in
communication, that somehow literal meaning should not be taken seriously at all times as if it
is the actual or intended meaning. In this event, critical comprehension must be observed to
avoid confusion. In a certain scenario where an idea rooted from a directly quoted statement,
the idea is even more factual over an indirectly stated thought. However, it must not be
forgotten though the intended meaning as have been mentioned earlier.
In addition to speech style, the speaker, proper timing, and circumstance adds to the
function or better yet contribution of pragmatics in the success of the communication. In the
same way, cooperation is the basis of successful conversations in which, those involve in
communication assume that both parties will normally seek to cooperate with each other to
stablish agreed meaning. However, in reality, there are some instances that speakers cannot
always speak briefly and truthfully and this leads to violating the cooperative principle resulting
to misinterpretation of words being uttered. Also, there is a great impact on individuals coming
from different societies or communities on the interaction process since speakers talk according
to their own pragmatic norms that may result to a clash of expectations and ultimately
misperceptions happen.
Similarly, Politeness principle gets in when during the course of communication there is
misunderstanding, words of requests, options, and letting the hearer feel good add to the
sentiments of unlucky speakers. This anyway needs to coincide with the appropriate facial
declarations you carry with the language you spoke. Imagine a speaker whose speech seems
funny but his face looks serious. At this instance, the flow of communication is not already
smoothly flowing due to the barriers (contradicting language and facial expressions resulting to
confusion) met along the process.
 Gender plays a vital role in the use of pragmatics. In congruence, politeness varies
according to gender. Many instances show men and women being criticized because of the
differences in cultures- men are more superior than women or women are more superior than
men. This clearly explains that politeness is typically expressed depending on a particular social
and communicative setting, place and time.
On the other hand, there are facts concerned about the use of politeness and cross-
cultural pragmatic. “Politeness strategies are not the same across languages and cultures and
might mean differently in another linguistic and cultural context.” Politeness strategies may
lead to misconceptions due to the differences in particular language context and cultural
affiliation. It varies according to when, where, and who are communicating which are
contributory factors to cross-cultural pragmatic failure. However, to lessen misconceptions,
people must have an awareness and correct assumption of socio-pragmatic differences and an
understanding of how these differences might be expressed linguistically.
From this we see that pragmatics concerns the study of communication on how
language is used between or among individuals upon familiarity of culture, perceptions, and
formality. Thus, speakers should consider pragmatics and discourse in communicating for better
understanding and interpreting the meaning of the words being spoken.

3.14. CONCLUSION
1. There is a paucity of research on the pragmatic aspect of second language learner’s speech.
2. Language learners have difficulties in the area of pragmatics, regardless of their level of
grammatical ability.
3. The development of second language learners’ pragmatic competence remains an important
goal of language learning classrooms.