Pragmatics and Semantics: Understanding Meaning through Complementary Lenses, Appunti di Linguistica Inglese

Scarica Pragmatics and Semantics: Understanding Meaning through Complementary Lenses e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity! PRAGMATICS Two main schools of thought: e THE ANGLO-AMERICAN VIEW of pragmatics comes from the philosophy of language and it defines pragmatics as the systematic study of meaning dependent on language use, because they consider pragmatics as a branch of linguistics, just like phonetics, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Pragmatics includes: — implicature, — deixis, — speechacts — presupposition (no study) The narrower Anglo-American component view of pragmatics delimits the scope of the discipline to the systematic study of meaning dependent on language use and focuses on implicature, speech acts and deixis (we will study this). e THE EUROPEAN VIEW of pragmatics is a functional approach and we will study multimodality as a functional perspective on discourse. Other branches that are part of the European approach are sociolinguistics and psycholinguistic. According to Vershueren (1999) pragmatics constitutes a general functional perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in the form of behaviour (another definition) > Semantics and pragmatics are two disciplines of linguistics which are complementary in the study of meaning. > Some linguistic phenomena are uncontroversial semantic, for example entailment; some are uncontroversial pragmatic such as implicature (pragmatic phenomena) The distinctions between semantics and pragmatics is explained through DICHOTOMIES, such as: — truth conditional VS non truth conditional meaning; — conventional VS non conventional meaning; — context independence VS context dependence. Another definition of pragmatics: pragmatics constitutes a general functional perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in the form of behaviour. Grice, Searle, and Wittgenstein, developed the theory of speech acts and the theory of implicature. Linguistic underdeterminacy>The linguistic meaning of a sentence underdetermines the proposition that speakers express when they utter (pronunciano) that sentence. Sometimes | can utter a sentence and | can be misunderstood, because the meaning of the words can be ambiguous; sometimes | can use an anaphoric element, like pronominal, it is not always easy to understand the reference and sometimes it needs a physical context or a specification of the reference. Pragmatics can solve or fill the gap created by linguistic under-determinacy. Ex. You and you, but not you stand up! + The pronoun you, which is a deictic expression, can be interpreted appropriately only by the physical context (extralinguistic), like selecting gesture or eye contact, of the speech event. Ex. Covid-19 has brought international travel to a standsstill. It will recover and may even become a better experience it is a case of anaphoric reference, because the anaphoric pronoun it depends on our background assumption about what would “recover” and “become a better experience”. IThis extra- linguistic information is responsible for choosing between two possible interpretations: it referring to either Covid19 or referring to international travel. Ex. John is looking for his glasses+> case of lexical ambiguity where the word glasses could mean either spectacles or drinking glasses. Ex. They are cooking apples>case of syntactic ambiguity where cooking could be either a verb or an adjective. SENTENCE A sentence is a well-formed string of words that follows the grammatical rules of a language. A sentence is a unit of the language system and it is an abstract construct (entity) defined by a theory of grammar. Sentences, which doesn't follow the grammatical rules are non-grammatical sentences. Ex. ‘Wolfgat’ won the World Restaurant Award in 1999 = grammatical sentence Ex. McDonald won the international restaurant award two years ago = grammatical sentence Ex. International restaurant award the McDonald two years ago won = non-grammatical sentence Sentence meaning is assigned to a sentence in the abstract, that is a sentence independent of its realization in any concrete form. The study of sentence meaning belongs to semantics (semantics does not consider in the context or the intention of the speaker, but only in the abstract) UTTERANCE Un utterance is the use of a piece of language. It could be a word, a sentence, a phrase, a sequence of sentences uttered by a specific speaker on a specific occasion (the utterance considers the contest and the speaker). Ex. Hello (word) Ex. A cappuccino please (sentence) Ex. ‘Wolfgat’ won the World Restaurant Award in 1999 (phrase) instantiation of the sentence ‘Wolfgat’ won the World Restaurant Award in 1999. Instantiation is a concrete realisation in a specific context from a specific speaker delivered in a specific time. It is a pairing of that sentence with a specific context. A context is a specific situation in which the sentence is uttered Ex.Some common synonyms of ascribe are assign, attribute, credit, and impute. While all these words mean ‘to lay something to the account of a person or thing,’ ascribe suggests an inferring or conjecturing of cause, quality, authorship (sequence of sentences) Utterance meaning, is also known as speaker-meaning, and it is what a speaker intends to convey by making an utterance The study of utterance meaning belongs to pragmatics. What is the difference between sentence and utterance? The difference is that the sentence is an abstract construction and its meaning doesn't take in consideration the context, the speaker, ... While an utterance is the use of a piece of language used by a specific speaker on a specific occasion. The meaning of the utterance is also known as speakermeaning and it refers to the speaker's intentions, message. A theory of linguistic meaning of utterances, in which he highlighted the conceptual relation between the meaning in the external world and the linguistic meaning in terms of the speaker’s intentions (we take into consideration the linguistic meaning and the speaker's intention). The speaker intends: the audience to think a specific meaning, the audience to recognize that the speaker intends that meaning, the audience’s recognition of the speaker's intention as the reason why the audience thinks that meaning. We can also look at the sender’s intention through different communicative contexts: for example in face to face exchanges, the speaker can monitor the listener’s reaction and judge if the sending intention has been guessed correctly. Then the speaker elaborates on what he said to cancel misunderstandings. These possibilities of interaction and readjustment of communication are reduced in the context of internet chat exchanges and in conversations over the phone. A theory of conversational implicature, that is formed by the cooperative principle and its maxims. THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE: according to Grice it determines the way in which language is used with efficiency and efficacy and it is fundamental for achieving a rational interaction in communication. Grice subdivided this principle into four categories of principles: QUALITY, QUANTITY, MANNER, and RELATION (names from Kant). Grice suggests that there is a general agreement of cooperation between participants in conversation and this means that each participant in the conversation can expect the other to conform to certain conventions in speaking. These conventions have to do with informativeness (explained by quantity), truthfulness (explained by quality), clearness (explained by manner) and relevance of conversational contributions. The cooperative principle and its component maxims ensure that in a conversational exchange the right amount of information is provided by the speakers and that the interaction is conducted ina truthful, relevant, and clear manner (The original version of the cooperative principle is: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged). THE MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION (9): 1) Category of QUALITYTry to make your contribution one that is true. The maxims are: Y_ Do not say what you believe is false Y. Donotsaythat for which you lack adequate evidence. 2) Category of QUANTITY?The maxims are: Make your contribution as informative as is required Do not make your contribution more informative than is required 3) Category of MANNER>Be perspicuous. The maxims are: Y Avoid obscurity Y Avoid ambiguity v Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) Y Beorderly *Perspicuous= "to see through," so that which is perspicuous is clear and understandable. 4) Category of RELATION>The maxims is: v Be relevant. What can speakers do in relation to the Maxims? > OBSERVE the maxims > VIOLATE the maxims. Ex. the first submaxim of quality can be breached by telling a lie Violation takes place when speakers intentionally does not apply a maxim in their conversation to cause misunderstanding on their participants’ part or to achieve some other purposes. Ex. Boss: Did you work on that project all day long? Employee who has been chatting online all day long: Yes, l’ve been working on it till now! >In this exchange, the employee is not truthful and violates the first maxim of quality. He lies to avoid unpleasant consequences such as being fired or to be forced to work for the rest of the day. Ex. Sara: Did you enjoy the party last night? Anna: There was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all over the place, people hanging around chatting with each other...-+Sara asked a very simple question, however what she receives from Anna is a protracted description of what was going on in the party. In addition, the example can also be a case of a multiple violation, that occurs when the speaker violates more than one maxim simultaneously: here Anna is not only ambiguous (violating the maxim of manner) but also verbose (violating the maxim of quantity) atthe same time. Ex. husband: How much did that new dress cost, darling? Wife sees the tag-100 pounds, but says: | know, let's go out tonight. Now, where would you like to go? >iIn this case the wife answered her husband's question by violating the maxim of relation, in order to distract him and change the topic. Ex. Tom: Susan, have you talked to Lynette? Susan: Um, no. Have you tried her cell?" Tom: Yeah, she isn't picking up. Do you know where she is? Susan: Uh, no, I'm sorry. Tom: Susan, | think you do. Susan: | really don't, Tom. Is everything okay? > In the exchange between Tom and Susan, Susan violates the maxim of quality because she tells Tom that she does not know where Lynette is. She also violates the quantity maxim by giving too short, uninformative information (When Tom asked Susan where Lynette was, Susan was uninformative). She also violated maxim of relevance by changing the topic of the conversation multiple times: She tried to change the topic of the conversation by asking Tom whether he had tried Lynette’s cell phone. Finally she avoided talking about it when she asked “Is everything okay?”. The criteria of violation of maxims — Quantity If the speaker is uninformative If the speaker talks too short If the speaker talks too much Excessive repetition - Quality If the speaker lies or says something that is believed to be false If the speaker does irony or makes ironic and sarcastic statement If the speaker denies something If the speaker distorts information — Relevance Ifthe speaker makes the conversation unmatched with the topic If the speaker changes conversation topic abruptly If the speaker avoids talking about something If the speaker hides something or hides a fact — Manner If the speaker’s contribution is ambiguous If the speakers voice is not loud enough If the speaker uses language that listeners do not understand If the speaker exaggerates thing OPT out of a maxim. Ex. by not saying anything or by hedging (tergiversare) or by not saying anything. o Opting out the manner maxim by using hedges. Ex. | am not sure if this is clear, but...; | don't know if this makes sense, but... ; this is a little bit confused o Opting out the relation maxim by using hedges. Ex. By the way..; | do not want to change the subject, but..; Maybe this is not relevant, but.. o Opting out the quality maxim: Ex. As far as | know; | maybe wrong, but..; People say.. o Opting out the quantity maxim: Ex. As you probably already know..; | probably do not need to say this, but... FLOUT (openly disregard ) or exploitthe maxims. When the speaker flouts a maxim, the addressee has two options: — the Cooperative principle has been abandoned; — despite the speaker’s apparent failure of cooperation, the maxim has been exploited in a way that makes the infringement recognizable, and therefore the speaker is trying to convey an extra message. The deliberate flouting of a maxim may result in conveying a conversational implicature, that is adding meaning to the literal meaning of an utterance o Flouting the maxim of relevance Ex. A: | am outof petrol; B:There is a garage round the corner >iIn this conversational exchange, B would infringe the maxim ‘be relevant’ if he was only stating the fact that there is a garage round the corner as the literal meaning of the utterance suggests. The implicature is that the garage is in the area, it is open and sells petrol. Moreover, A’s remark is not only a description of the fact that he is out of petrol but that he is requesting some help. o Flouting the maxim of quality with the purpose of conveying an extra message: Ex. Time is a great doctor Time is NOT a doctor, therefore the statement is openly false, but the speaker could mean people need time to heal their hurt feelings. Metaphors, irony and hyperbole are flouting the quality maxims. o Flouting the maxim of quantity with the purpose of conveying an extra message: Ex. War is war> This is a tautology (repetition) and therefore it is not informative. before always. Then the potential implicature ‘his brother is NOT always complaining' is CANCELLED -— Realworld knowledge (assumptions) Ex. John and Mary bought an apartment closed to the University in Verona +The implicature is that they bought it together and not one each. Ex. of inconsistency: The Americans and the Russians tested an atomic bomb in 1962>This utterance does not implicate that they did it together. The real world knowledge allows us to assume that it is impossible that, USA and USSR tested a nuclear bomb together, because in 1962 they were enemies. Therefore the original implicature disappears. Ex. Jane: This Iphone case is 15 euros and | have no money on me; Mary: Don't worry l’ve got 15 euros+Mary's reply does not conversationally implicate that Mary has ONLY 15 euros. The implicature would arise in a different context where for example Mary announced that she had 15 euros with her. The linguistic context of utterance may cancel or annul the implicature. — Contexts and/or priority implicature Another property of the implicature is the fact that the use of synonyms does not change the implicature. The implicatures are attached to the content of an utterance and not to the exact wording of the sentence. Ex. The film almost won an Oscar; The film came close to win an Oscar; The implicature is in both cases that the film did not win an Oscar The next property of implicatures is that they can be transparently derived from the cooperative principle and its component maxims. Implicatures are not coded in the text, meaning that they are not part of what is said and they are associated with the speaker. Then we have the property that implicatures can be made explicit without creating redundancy: ex. It was a warm day (conversationally implicating that it was not hot that day) > it can be made explicit in ‘It was warm that day, but not hot’ Conversationalimplicatures tend to be motivated rather than determined by chance. Some linguists believe that implicatures are similar in many languages, but there are exceptions, for example Malagasy-speaker culture of Madagascar where the maxim of quantity does not apply. An example of similarity among languages is that if a language has ‘all’ and ‘some’ the use of ‘some’ will carry the implicature ‘not all’. Here, a counterexample to the claim of universality from a Navajo novel: “Last time you were with the FBI man, - asking about the one who got killed, she said, respecting the Navajo taboo of not speaking the name of the dead, did you find out who killed that man?” We could wonder why she refers to her father with the expression ‘the one who got killed’, and we could think that this could be an example that the quantity maxim does not apply to the Navajo culture. However, the Navajo taboo of not speaking the name of the dead is the reason why her statement is not to be considered too informative nor too long. The passage is not a counterexample to Grice’s cooperative principle, but it shows that maxims can be overridden by a sociolinguistic rule. CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURE A conventional implicature is an inference which arises only because of conventional features attached to some lexical items and to some linguistic constructions Ex. John is poor but honest; Our sales have gone up but theirs have gone down> There is a conventional implicature of contrast between the information of the first part of the sentence and the second part. 10 Ex. Even his wife did not think that John would win the elections+’Even’ conventionally implicates unlikeness (or surprise) making reference to the degree of likelihood- Ex. Sally can read German. Moreover, she can write poems in the language The use of ‘moreover’ conventionally implicates that the statement that follows ‘moreover’ is additional to the statement in the previous sentence. Ex. Mary is taking French lessons. So her mother has bought her a subscription to a French magazine>The use of ‘so’ conventionally implicates that the fact stated in the previous sentence explains why Mary's mother bought her a subscription to a French magazine. Similarity with conversational implicatures: they both are associated to the speaker's meaning and not the propositional meaning or the sentence meaning. Difference with conversational implicatures: Conventional implicatures are not derived from the cooperative principle. They are attached to the meaning of some lexical items or linguistic constructions. Conventional implicature are conventions and by contrast conversational implicatures can be derived from background assumptions, pragmatic principles and contextual knowledge Conventional implicatures cannot be cancelled, but conversational implicatures are cancellable Conventional implicatures depend on the specific lexical item used and conversational implicatures are attached to the content. Conventional implicatures are not universal and conversational implicatures tend to be found in most of the languages (considering that they can be overridden by specific sociolinguistic rules) DO WE NEED ALL THE GRICEAN MAXIMS? It seems that there are some overlaps among them. e Maximof Quality (try to be truthful): A false statement is a violation of the quality maxim but this quality failure could be irrelevant for understanding what is going on in communication. e Maximof Manner (try to be clear) We could also regard utterances uttered in an unhelpful manner, such as those which are unclear or ambiguous, or too cluttered and therefore obscure, as at risk of not working because their relevance cannot be grasped by the hearer or reader. e Maximof Quantity (give the appropriate amount of information): Relevance may incorporate the maxim of quantity because too little information could be not enough to ensure the relevance of what has been said, and too much information could be judged as too distracting to get the point. *We know from the study of the Gricean Maxims that a speaker's contribution to a conversational exchange (or email exchange, or texts messages) should be relevant at the specific point where it occurs. In a text, for example, the topic information in a sentence creates the linguistic context for what follows (which is called ‘the comment’). Addressees will expect the ‘comment’ to be relevant to the topic and will use their knowledge of the world to interpret the complete sentence. * It seems reasonable to wonder whether relevance might not include all the other maxims. Starting from this idea new theories have been proposed, like the ‘RELEVANCE THEORY” by Sperber and Wilson, who propose one system to cover all kinds of implicatures. It is considered a development of the classical Gricean pragmatic theory. The central idea is that the human cognitive system tends to maximise relevance with respect to communication. The communicative principle of relevance is responsible for the recovery of both explicit and implicit content of utterances. So, according to relevance theory, relevance is not a maxim. Sperber and Wilson explore the mental process that goes into maximising the useful information we get from utterances and at the same time minimising the interpretative effort. The only cri im levelled against relevance theory is 11 that it fails to provide an explanation of how to measure contextual effects and processing efforts in an objective way. In relevance theory inferential communication is called OSTENSIVE-INFERENTIAL COMMUNICATION. This is because inferential communication, according to Sperber and Wilson, involves both informative intention and communicative intention. Other ways that they refer to this intention is ostensive communication, that is an intention to inform an audience of something (informative intention) and an intention of informing the audience of the speakers informative intention (communicative intention). In Relevance theory we can find also the notion of EXPLICATURE. We know that according to the Gricean Maxim the speakers meaning is divided into what is said, so the meaning of the sentence with the exclusion of any conventional implicature, and what is implicated, so what is conversationally implicated, that is in contrast with what is said. It is an extra message. But to work out what is said we need to solve reference (the anaphoric reference: in John told Bill that he wanted to date his sister), deixis (I do not want to talk to her, | want to talk to her), disambiguation of expressions (Flying planes can be dangerous). According to Sperber and Wilson pragmatics contributes to what is said which their call the explicit content or explicature: ‘An explicature is an inferential development of an incomplete logical form or representations encoded in the utterance’ In other words, an explicature provides more information and make more complete an utterance that presents incomplete logical form. It serves to complete and enrich logical forms or conceptual representations in 5 areas: 1) DISAMBIGUATION= the selection of one sense out of various potential senses provided by the linguistic system. Ex. Bill and John pass the port in the evening>Explicature: Port means harbor and not the wine. In this sentence the reader relies on context to select the correct interpretation of the lexical item ‘port’. 2) REFERENCE RESOLUTION= assigning an appropriate contextual value to the relevant anaphoric expression. Ex. John walked into a music room. The piano was made in the 19th century >Explicature: There was a piano in the music room. There is an antecedent reference or cross-bridge association between the music room and the piano. 3) SATURATION= Incomplete logical forms of sentences. Here the explicature. Ex. John works too hard For what? It is incomplete. Ex. That program is less promising> Less promising than what? Ex. This notion is different From what is it different? 4) FREE ENRICHMENTà= lexical item narrowing its meaning or by specifying it. Ex. there is nothing on TV tonight>We can solve the vagueness of the expression ‘There is nothing on TV tonight’ by specifying the word ‘nothing’. The noun phrase ‘nothing worth watching’ makes the original utterance clear. Ex. Everyone wore a new cardigan> In this sentence the meaning of ‘everyone’ can be narrowed by making reference to the context (everyone at Mary's party). In these cases the explicature serves the purpose to focus on narrowing or specifying the lexical meaning of specific words according to the context FREE ENRICHMENT= adjustment of meaning. Ex. John has a brain>This is a truism because all humans have a brain, but we can narrow the meaning of the word brain by saying John has a scientific brain”. 12 — Ideational metafunction (=reference function by Cope): the function of conveying information about reality. Ex. the use of a word but also the use of an icon or a photo. — Interpersonal metafunction (=agency function): the function of engaging the attention of the receiver, thus establishing a relation between the sender and the receiver — Textual metafunctions (=structure function): the function of structuring coherent compositions. Hallidays work has been “extended to most semiotic resources”, so the SEMIOTIC FORMS allow the analysis of printed texts, online texts and contents, videos and images, websites and even 3D platforms. Van Leeuwen analyses “the ways in which different aspects of modern society combine to create meaning”, therefore his analysis applied to anything that can be done or made and can carry social and cultural meanings. These are instantiated through semiotic forms and he defines them as “actions and artefacts we use to communicate” and are intended as signifiers. He explores the meaning forms, such as the written form of the language, the spoken form of the language, images (static and dynamic, but also typography and colour), bodily resources (gesture, posture, appearance), space (layout, organization of objects in a page or in the real space), objects (food, clothing, and everyday objects/artifacts of cultural value or significance), sound (music, songs, voice timbre, volume, and tone). According to Jewitt, the terms semiotic mode or semiotic form “refer to a set of socially and culturally shaped resources for making meaning”, something that is “a recognized/usable system of communication within a community”, and includes for example written text, speech, images, bodily movemnts (gesture, gaze, posture), sounds, objects ® CONTEXT e INTEREST (the purpose of the composition). Why is multimodality useful when we analyse the Gricean maxims in a website or a promotional text? Multimodal studies analyse new media. Ex. computer animation, digital films, photography, graphs, diagrams, illustrations, web portals and sites, social media, promotional material. The basic idea is that compositions achieve meaning through the co-deployment of multiple simultaneous semiotic forms When we write a text or create an advert that aims at attracting the attention of the reader or the public, we are technically exploiting the reference (ideational) function of meaning, the agency or interpersonal function of meaning, and structure or textual function of meaning and of course we make reference to context (physical context, social, cultural assumptions, discourse, implicatures, deixis), and we consider the intention of the sender (speaker's meaning) and the acceptance on the part of the addresses. Ex. AIRBNB website is supported by the multimodal and pragmatic construction. It relies on: — Overall minimalist design (function: structure), form image: A clear typeface (clean, thin, round, easy to read); Low saturated colours, icons function> representation of place and tourists (forms: image, body); frames are used to cluster information (function: structure, form: space); Hyperlinks allow for insights (form: text, function: action) 3they make the reading relevant to the needs of the reader. The design and referential functions are observing the Maxim of manner. The repetition of the same information through 2 forms, image and text, avoids the violation of quantity). 15 — Core/leading discourse: sharing economy, (and values related to sharing economy ) — Other discourses are of commercial, trading value are trust and transparency. Social practices related to the discourse of trust and transparency are exclusion of anonymity, portrait and profile of both guests and hosts are provided. Limited length of descriptions fulfill relevance and quantity maxims. Icons organize the information by clusters. The discourse of transparency and the maxim of manner>clarity (and brevity) is achieved through: Personalization of reviews (no anonymity); profile of the reviewer is accessible (no anonymity); brevity of messages; use of reduced photo portraits; stars summarize the number of positive rates; price per person; availability (dates) Vetting is linked to the quality maxim and the discourse of transparency > multimodally we need to consider Icons indicating the vetted quality of service, and verified photographs posted by hosts Maxim of relevance >links/ hyperlinks to only relevant information -— Tourism related themes and related discourses are: authenticity, experience (also adventure), target segmentation (family, work travel), customization Tourism related discourses: authenticity, experiences of new cultures or destinations, and local itineraries, but also adventure and sustainable tourism, target segmentation (family, work travel), holidays customization, hospitality... SPEECH ACT THEORY (AUSTIN) The philosopher of language who founded the modern study of speech acts is J. L Austin. John Searle, a pupil of Austin, later on systematized the theory. The central idea of speech act theory is that the uttering of a sentence is an action within the framework of social institutions and conventions and all started with philosophy. According to the philosophy of logical positivism, the only interesting function of language is that of making true or false statements. So, unless a sentence can be verified, or tested for its truth or falsity, it was considered meaningless. Ex. Screaming at your employees is wrong This sentence is meaningless because it is not used to make a verifiable or falsifiable proposition. It express a subjective judgment. Ex. Johanne is more beautiful than Mary This sentence too has not been verified and express a subjective judgment. Austin, on the background of this verificationist theory, developed his theory of speech acts and he made two important observations: he noted that some ordinary language sentences are not employed to make a statement, and therefore they cannot be said to be true or false Ex. Good Morning!, Is she a vegetarian? Put the car in the garage, please. He affirmed that there are ordinary language declarative sentences that resist a truth conditional analysis. The point in uttering those sentences is not only to say something but actively do things. Those sentences have both a descriptive and an effective aspect and they are called PERFORMATIVES, so utterances that are used to do things or perform acts. Ex. | name this ship the Princess; | now pronounce you husband and wife; | sentence you to ten months in prison; | command you to surrender; | apologize for being late; | promise to come to the meeting tomorrow; The use of these sentences is part of an action (the action of naming a ship, of pronouncing a couple married, of sentencing a convicted criminal, of ordering, of apologizing, of promising). 16 The performative sentences that Austin analysed were actually part of ritual behaviour supported by institutional facts (Christening a ship or a Wedding ceremony) or they are part of an institutionalized procedure that has strong consequences (sentencing a criminal, commandinga country to surrender) or they are part of conventional behaviour (promising or apologizing). The performative verb, that names the action, is essential and cannot be omitted, but the performative verb can be omitted in statements Ex. | will come to the meeting tomorrow we don't have to say ‘l promise that..’ in this sentence. Performatives can be: e Explicit= performative utterances which contain a performative verb that makes explicit what kind of act is being performed. Ex. I name this ship the Princess Austin defined the SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES of explicit performatives in English: They have a performative verb Y The adverb hereby can reinforce the performative nature of the performative verb They occur in sentences with 1st person singular subject of a verb in the simple present tense, indicative mood, active voice (I hereby assert) However some performatives do not have the three properties Ex. We suggest that you go to the embassy and apply for your visa in person Ex. You are hereby warned that legal action will be taken Ex. Passengers are hereby requested to wear a seat belt Ex. Notice is hereby given that the Annual General meeting of AGM will be held at the Hexagon, Reading, Berkshire, on Wednesday, 27 July 2021, at 11 AM. Ex. The Management hereby warns customers that mistakes in change cannot be rectified once the customer has left the counter Ex. It isherewith disclosed that the value of the estate left by Marcus Bloom was 5,000,000 dollars. e Implicit= performative utterances in which there is no explicit performative verb. Ex. | will come to the meeting tomorrow; Surrender immediately; How about going to London on Sunday?; Leave me alone, or l’Il callthe police. Sometimes performative verbs may be used as non-performatives verbs when they are used in a descriptive way Ex. You are always promising that you do your homework but you never do it; Those clouds are promising rain; | baptized John's baby last Sunday; It isthe manager who authorized him to use your desktop computer FELICITY CONDITION (AUSTIN) Austin noticed that for a performative to be successful it must meet certain conditions, that are called ‘felicity conditions’, under which words can be used properly to perform actions. For example: The felicity condition for the speech act of naming is that the speaker has the authority to perform the act of naming; The felicity condition for the speech act of ordering is that you can order or command someone only if you, as a speaker, have authority over the addressee. 17 Proof of that can be found in the fact that they can be separately negated Ex. | tell you the ball wasn't in; it was out+negated propositional content Ex. l’m not telling you the ball was in; l’m asking you whether it was>negated illocutionary point: assertion, not question (assertions and questions are two different speech acts). The propositional content is involved with the illocutionary point in some speech acts: Statement (a report about new info): Ex. someone won two gold medals Question (about the identity of the winner): Ex.Who won two gold medals?; mother's praise: Who won two gold medals?; champion’s boast: Who won two gold medals?;athlete coach’s order: Be the one who wins two gold medals! >» Illocutionary point >» Direction of fit: relationship between words and world > Expressed psychological state These are summarized in: >In the case of illocutionary point as a representative type of speech act, we take into consideration assertion. So, the direction of fit is words-to-word: my assertion contains words that are describing what is in the world (there is a match between the words and the world). The psychological state is expressed through an assertion is belief: the speaker believes that the described state is the truth Ex. the sun is a star: this is obviously true and my words are fitting what actually is going on in the world and this is my belief. >In the case of illocutionary point as directive type of speech act, we take into consideration a request or an order. So, the direction of fit is world-to-words, which means that in order to have a fit we need the world to match and change the words. The expressed psychological state is the desire of the addressee > In the case of illocutionary point as a commissive type of speech act, we take into consideration a promise. So, the direction of fit is world-to-words, because the speaker, that needs to act in the world in order to match the words: | need to fulfil the promise in order to match the words. The expressed psychological state is the intention of the speaker: my intention is to fulfil the promise. > In the case of illocutionary point as a expressive type of speech act, we take into consideration a thanking. There is no direction of fit, because | am expressing something not about the world, but that comes from my feeling, my interior world. So, the expressed psychological state is variable according to the speaker: there is no a fixed psychological state and it could be an apology, a welcoming, a greeting.. > In the case of illocutionary point as a declaration type of speech act, we take into consideration a declaration (Ex. | am the USA president and | declare a war against a country), that is institutionalised speech act, because it is a statement, that comes from institution. The direction is both words-to-world and world-to-words. Why this fit? Because the moment in which for example ‘I pronounce you husband and wife”, | am creating the changing in the world. The expressed psychological state is none, because the speaker is just performing a specific procedure and is using conventional words Under Searle’s taxonomy speech acts are grouped into 5 types: Type of speech acts: REPRESENTATIVE (Assertives). They commit the sender to the truth of the proposition. They carry a truth value; they express the sender’s belief. Typical cases are: stating, asserting, claiming, concluding, reporting. Ex. The developers are struggling because of the snow 20 Ex. Chinese characters are borrowed to write Japanese and Korean Ex. Crick and Watson discovered the DNA structure In performing Assertives types of speech acts the sender represents the world as he or she believes it is. Therefore, the direction of fit which is the relationship between words and world: the words fit the world of belief. *The psychological state expressed: the expression of the sender/s belief. — Typeof speech acts: DIRECTIVE. Directives are those type of speech acts that represent attempts on the part of the sender to get the addressee to do something. They express the sender’s desire to make the addressee do something. Typical cases include: advice, commands, orders, and requests. Ex. Turn the TV down; Don't use my electric car; Could you please move that lid off, for me? In using a directive the sender wishes to get the addressee to do something. Therefore, the direction of fit which is the relationship between words and world is: the world will match the words via the addressee. *The psychological state expressed: the sender’s desire to get the addressee do something. — Typeof speech acts: COMMISSIVE. Commissives are those types of speech acts that commit the sender to some future action. They express the sender's intentions to do something. Typical cases include: offers, pledges, promises, refusals, and threats. Ex. | will never buy another computer game; | will be back in five minutes In the case of commissives the direction of fit which is the relationship between words and world is: the world is adapted to words via the sender himself or herself. *The psychological state expressed: the sender’s intentions to do something. — Typeof speech acts: EXPRESSIVE. Expressives are those types of speech acts that express a psychological state or attitude in the sender. Typical cases are apologizing, blaming, congratulating, praising, thanking. Ex: expression of joy, sorrow, and likes or dislikes. There is no direction of fit for the type of speech act called expressive. These speech act type is an expression of a state of mind and there is no action to be performed in the outside world. *The psychological state expressed: the sender makes known what he or she feels — Typeof speech acts: DECLARATION. Declarations are those types of speech act that effect immediate changes in the current state of affair. For their performance they rely on institutions. Typical cases are bidding in a game of cards, declaring war, excommunicating, firing from the employment, nominating a candidate. Ex. | declare a state of national emergency; The meeting is adjourned In performing the declaration speech act the sender brings about changes in the world. The sender effects (e.g. by declaring two people husband and wife) a correspondence between words (the proposition) and the world. *The direction of fit which is the relationship between words and world is double: words correspond to the world and the world correspond to the words. INDIRECT AND DIRECT SPEECH ACT English has three basic sentence types: — Declarative :You listen to the news — Interrogative: Do you listen to the news? — Imperative: Listen to the news! The three major sentence types are associated with three basic illocutionary forces and can be paraphrased with performatives: 21 — Asserting/stating: | hereby state that you listen to the news — Asking/questioning:|hereby enquire whether you listen to the news — Ordering/ requesting: | hereby order to listen to the news If there is a match between a sentence type and an illocutionary force, we have a direct speech act. Explicit performatives also are direct speech acts because they have the illocutionary force is explicitly named by the performative verb. If there is no direct match or direct relationship between the sentence type and an illocutionary force the speech act is indirect. When an explicit performative is used to make a request, it function as a direct speech act. The same happens when an imperative is used: ex. Pass the salt / | request you to pass the salt When an interrogative is used to make a request we have an indirect speech act: ex. Can you pass the salt? *Ex. | promise to fire you if you do not finish the job by this weekend This is a promise, because the performative is explicitly calling it a promise, but itis also a threat ora warning. So maybe it is safer to use John Searle”s classification: The sentence is then a commissive in all cases, a promise, a threat, or a warning... In social practices, especially at work, most of our speech acts are indirect speech acts. The speech act of requesting is usually performed indirectly (by adding an extra speech act...) Ex. Can you close the window? (precondition: Can you or can you not?) Ex. Will you close the window? (precondition: Will you or will you not?) Ex. Would you mind closing the window? (precondition: Would you or would you not?) Ex. | wonder if you would mind to close the window (precondition: do you mind or you don't?) Ex. | want you to close the window (it is my wish that...) How is an indirect speech act analysed? We can assume the existence of a dual illocutionary force, as John Searle explains. On this assumption indirect speech acts are 2 speech acts: one is direct and the second one is indirect. The indirect speech act is the primary or most important of the two speech acts. The secondary speech act of ‘Can you pass the salt?’ is a question ‘Can you? about the preconditions or preparatory conditions that allow the addressee to perform the request. lt means ‘are you in the conditions to perform my request? It is a way to give the addressee a way out, so, maybe you can answer ‘Sorry l am too busy right now”. The primary speech act is indirect and it is an order/request of passing the salt. Understanding the process of the two speech acts involved in the indirect speech act is also useful in understanding when a speech is direct. Moreover, Searle’s explains that a speaker's performing and an addressee understanding a speech act involves some inference or implicature. We can understand as addressees if for example relevance is involved in the speech act. Indirect speech acts are most of the time conventionalized and therefore the speech act (the direct one) that is precondition for the second (the indirect one) is usually a fixed expression Ex. Can you pass the salt? > It is a conventionalized way to make a request. And you do not say ‘Do you have the ability to pass the salt? The 2 types of questions are performing an indirect speech act. They both inquire about the satisfaction of the addressee-based preparatory condition for requiring the addressee to perform the act of passing the salt. The difference is only in the conventional way of performing the speech 22 Is this a case of face-enhancing? Implicitly being in the position of giving permission is a position of power which should enhance her self-esteem. Showing solidarity is also a question of showing that you are part of a group which means sharing values The definitions of deference politeness and non-imposition politeness describe well defined sets of communicative behaviour, but it is an empirical question whether such forms do exist in a particular language. And in the case where they exist it is still an empirical question whether they have a prominent or a marginal position in the communicative repertoire, discourse and vocabulary, of a speech community. *Non-imposition politeness consists of the strategies that give the addressee a choice. These strategies do not, or pretend not to, intrude on the addressee’s wish to remain free from imposition. Stewart in 2005 argues: ‘in certain circumstances British English tends toward negative politeness ... it seems at least that to be British a healthy degree of paranoia can help”. Non-imposition politeness forms of Present Day English have been attested as ‘directives’ (speech acts such as orders, requests, invitations, advices, and reminders) and classified by Wierzbicka in 2006: > ‘Whiperatives’ are could you (do x), will you (do x), would you (do x) >» ‘Suggestory formulae’ are might like to, might consider, | would suggest, perhaps you could, | wonder if you could. These strategies are NOT universal, they are very much culture specific! POSITIVE POLITENESS, that is concerned with the addressee's wish to be appreciated and liked by others. Strategies based on positive politeness such as: Emphasizing solidarity > could we consider them as face-enhancing because they are concerned with the addressee's wish to be appreciated and liked by others? MODAL VERBS The use of modal verbs and directives (speech acts such as orders, requests, invitations, advices, and reminders) prove a prevalence of non-imposition politeness in English. An example is the decline of the deontic ‘must’ in favour of ‘should’ and ‘need to’ (deontic modality refers to obligation and permission) in English of the second half of the 20th century. What about other cultures? Let's read some example of speech acts cross-cultural variation by the the book Pragmatics by Huang and make classifications: We distinguish 2 types of CULTURAL SPECIFIC SPEECH ACTS: -— Institutionalized speech acts — Noninstitutionalized speech acts: Absence of a Searle’s type of speech act in a culture. Examples are absence of the speech act of promising (the case is the Ilongots, a tribal group in the Philippines) and absence of speech act of thanking (the case being YolIngu, an Australian aboriginal language) Presence of a speech act unique to a specific culture. The case considered is the kinship-based request, which is based on kinship obligations in Walmajari, an Australian aboriginal language. 2. We distinguish SPEECH ACTS THAT ARE CARRIED OUT DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES: 25 — Expression of sympathy toward the victim of a trivial accident. In western cultures in this situation an apology on the part of the one that caused the trivial accident is considered conventional. The expression of sympathy is instead conventional in Akans, a West African Culture. — Same situation but different use of speech acts (broaden use of the same speech act): Situations: invitation to a dinner party or receiving a gift. In English thanks are offered to the host/giver. In Japanese apologies are offered to the host/giver. Japanese makes a broaden use of apologies. 3. SAME SPEECH ACT USED IN DIFFERENT RESPONSES: — English: a compliment typically generate acceptance and thanking. In Japanese a compliment typically generate a refusal and non acceptance which practically means an implicit negotiation. The same implicit negotiation happens in Irish for offers and ritual of refusal ending with the addressee reluctantly accepting the offer Directness and indirectness in different cultures Requests, apologies and complaints are realized across different languages with a different use of FTAs. Australian English speakers realization patterns of requests for example are the least direct. DEIXIS The term deixis is derived from the Greek and it means to show or to point out. Deixis are some of the linguistic elements which require contextual information for their interpretation. In order to interpret deictic forms such as ‘here, there, you, this’ it is necessary to know who the speaker is, and who the hearers are, and the time and place of the discourse. Ex. | don't want to go with her, | want to go with her. > The deictic references are resolved if accompanied by selecting gesture indicating the right person and the wrong person in the situational context. In this case English pronouns are words that require contextual information to convey any meaning (in this case the physical context). So we can summarize that deictics are phrases that cannot be fully understood without additional contextual information. Ex. John told Bill that he couldn't date his sister + For this utterance we need to resolve the discourse reference: he=Bill (personal pronoun), his=John's (possessive ADJ). In this case English pronouns and possessives Adjectives are words that require contextual information to convey any meaning (in this case the linguistic context). So we can summarize that deixis is the relationship between the structure of the language and the context in which the language is used. Ex. A message in a bottle found in the sea: Meet me here, a month from now, with a magic wand about this size-> Without the deictic information the reader would not know who to meet, where or when to meet the writer, or the correct size of the required magic wand. A case of non deictic use: When the pronoun you is used as impersonal. Ex. When you travel on a train without a valid ticket you will be liable to pay a fine You in this sentence refers to anyone, not to a specific person. 26 Third person pronouns are usually linked to the discourse, therefore they refer to the linguistic context, and they are considered anaphoric or cataphoric. Ex. Mary wishes she could visit the Louvre. BUT they can also be used deictically with reference to the physical context. Ex. She's not the secretary, she is (accompanied by a deictic gesture which selects the referred people who are in the situational context) *An ANAPHORIC REFERENCE refers to something within a text that has been previously identified Ex. Susan dropped the plate. It shattered loudly> The word it refers to the noun phrase "the plate". The following deictics refer back to a part of a book or an article: in the last section, in the previous chapter, as already mentioned *A CATAPHORIC REFERENCE refers to something within a text that has not yet been identified Ex. He was very cold. David promptly put on his coat+ The identity of the pronoun "he" is unknown until the individual is also referred to as "David". Ex. Here goes the main argument.. ; This is how it works. Do you see that baby girl over there? She is cute. Anaphora= When a word or phrase picks up its meaning from some other piece of language nearby, the relationship between the two. Antecedent= A word which gets its meaning in this way — an anaphoric device, and the piece of language which gives the anaphoric device its meaning Ex. This town is famous for its small antique shops. ®The deictic this can be interpreted by knowing the location of the speaker. The possessive its is anaphoric (refers back to the word ‘town’) and cataphoric (refers forward to the word ‘shops’) Discussion about the concept of deictic pronouns: Deictic pronouns refer to entities that must be identified according to the physical context or the linguistic context. For instance, in the sentence Ex. | will give you an answer about deictic pronouns the deictic pronouns I and YOU refer to the speaker and the addressee, respectively, therefore they refer to the physical context. Linguistic expressions in deictics — Demonstratives — Adverbsof time and space Ex. When he phoned | had already sent the email Time adverbials have the function to help reveal the relation between time and tense (then, yesterday, at present, in 2 minutes...) — Motion verbs Ex. Can | go to your office tomorrow at 12 PM? Ex. Can | come to your office tomorrow at 12 PM? Come and go are motion verbs: go marks a movement away from the deictic centre and come marks a movement toward the deictic centre. — First and second person pronouns — Tense 27