Semantics & Pragmatics
Riaz Laghari, Lecturer in English, NUML, Islamabad
Course: Semantics & Pragmatics
Category: (Major) Linguistics 8 Level: BS 5th Course Code: ENG(LL) 310
Course Description:
This course gives an introduction to the science of linguistic meaning. There are two branches to this discipline: semantics, the study of conventional, "compositional meaning", and pragmatics, the study of interactional meaning. There are other contributors: philosophy, logic, syntax, and psychology. The course gives an understanding of the concepts of semantics and pragmatics and of some of the technical tools that are used in the field.
Course Objectives:
The course aims to:
1. introduce students with the technical terms required to describe meaning
2. help students learn to apply modern semantic and pragmatic theories
3. assist students identify lexical relations between sentences
4. teach students categorize types of speech acts including performatives, indirect speech acts and sentence types
Course Outcomes:
By the end of this course, students are expected to:
1. have understanding of the nature of meaning as expressed through language
2. understand the basic principles of semantics and pragmatics as applied to English
3. know about logical relations relevant to linguistic analysis, such as negation, modality, scope, presupposition and implication
Assessment:
Total marks: 100
Mid Term: (Marks: 30)
Class Participation: (Marks: 20)
End Term: (Marks: 50)
Course Contents:
Mid Term
1. Semantics in Linguistics
· What is semantics?
· Three challenges in doing semantics
· Reference and sense
· Utterances, sentences and propositions
· Types of meaning
Semantics is the branch of linguistics concerned with meaning as a property of language itself. It asks a deceptively simple question:
How do linguistic expressions mean what they mean?
Unlike pragmatics, semantics does not begin with speakers, intentions, or social context. It focuses on conventional meaning, the meaning encoded in words, phrases, and sentences, independent of who uses them and where.
Compare:
The sun rises in the east.
Bachelors are unmarried.
These sentences are meaningful even without a speaker or situation. Their meanings are stable, rule-governed, and compositional, precisely the domain of semantics.
Semantics therefore studies:
word meaning
sentence meaning
relations between meanings
how meanings combine systematically
The Big Three Challenges in Semantics and Their Solutions
Semantics, the systematic study of meaning, is notoriously complex. Linguists such as John I. Saeed, along with foundational thinkers like Frege, Tarski, and Jackendoff, identify three primary challenges: circularity in definitions, distinguishing linguistic from encyclopedic knowledge, and context-dependent meaning. These challenges reveal why modeling meaning goes far beyond mapping words to dictionary definitions.
I. Circularity in Definitions
Lexical definitions often rely on other words, creating loops where a term is indirectly defined by itself. This classic problem makes it difficult to establish grounded, foundational meanings.
Solution: Semantic Primes (Anna Wierzbicka, NSM)
Languages share a set of ~65 universal, irreducible concepts (e.g., I, YOU, DO, GOOD).
Words like tame or domesticated are decomposed into these primes, eliminating circularity and providing self-evident building blocks for meaning.
II Linguistic vs. Encyclopedic Knowledge
Separating semantic knowledge from general world knowledge is challenging. For instance, knowing “bachelors are unmarried” raises the analytic/synthetic distinction: is this a linguistic truth or a fact about the world? Similarly, understanding that water freezes at 0°C relies on factual, encyclopedic knowledge rather than linguistic structure.
Solution: Truth-Conditional Semantics
Formal linguists define meaning in terms of the conditions under which a sentence would be true (T-schema: “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white).
This approach connects linguistic statements directly to reality, bridging the gap between semantics and world knowledge without relying solely on dictionary definitions.
III. Contextual Effects (Semantics-Pragmatics Interface)
Meaning shifts depending on speaker, place, time, and situation. Words like bank illustrate homonymy and polysemy, where context determines interpretation.
Solution: Compositionality and Co-Compositionality Principles
Words carry semantic slots that interact with context (Generative Lexicon Theory).
Example: Bank → [Physical/Land] triggered by river, grass; [Institution/Finance] triggered by money, account.
Meaning is constructed mathematically from the interaction between lexical content and context.
Componential Analysis and Prototypes
To handle circularity, encyclopedic overlap, and context simultaneously:
Words are decomposed into semantic features (binary atoms of meaning).
Example: Chair
| Object | ±Furniture | ±With Back | ±For Sitting | ±For One Person |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chair | + | + | + | + |
| Stool | + | - | + | + |
| Sofa | + | + | + | - |
| Bench | + | - | + | - |
This separates linguistic meaning (core features) from encyclopedic facts (materials, design).
Prototype Theory (Eleanor Rosch) further refines this: speakers represent a “best example” of a category in mind, and other instances are measured by similarity to this prototype, explaining graded membership and context-driven interpretation.
Summary of Solutions to the Big Three:
| Challenge | Solution | Key Concept |
|---|---|---|
| Circularity | Semantic Primes | Irreducible building blocks of meaning |
| Encyclopedic Knowledge | Truth-Conditional Semantics | Mapping sentences to real-world truth conditions |
| Context Dependence | Compositionality / Pragmatics | Interaction of lexical slots and situational triggers |
These frameworks together allow linguists to systematically tackle the “semantic nightmare” of words like chair or bank, reconciling circularity, encyclopedic ambiguity, and context dependence in a unified theory of meaning.
Additional Challenges in Doing Semantics
Despite its apparent clarity, semantics faces some major theoretical challenges.
(i) The Problem of Meaning Itself
Meaning is abstract and invisible. Unlike sounds or structures, it cannot be directly observed. Linguists infer meaning through:
intuitions
judgments of truth
patterns of usage
This makes semantics theoretically demanding and philosophically loaded.
(ii) The Compositionality Challenge
Human language allows infinite meanings from finite elements.
The meaning of a sentence depends on the meanings of its parts and how they are combined.
But compositionality is not always straightforward:
John began a book.
reading it?
writing it?
The structure is clear, yet meaning remains underspecified. Semantics must explain how much meaning is encoded and how much is inferred.
(iii) The Interface Problem
Semantics does not operate in isolation. It constantly interacts with:
syntax (structure affects meaning)
pragmatics (context enriches meaning)
logic (truth, entailment, contradiction)
psychology (concepts and mental representation)
Determining where semantics ends and pragmatics begins is one of the field’s central debates.
Reference and Sense
This distinction goes back to Gottlob Frege and remains foundational.
Reference
Reference concerns what expressions point to in the world.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan → a specific individual
Venus → a particular planet
Sense
Sense is how that reference is presented or conceptualized.
Morning Star
Evening Star
Both refer to Venus, but they differ in sense.
This explains why:
The Morning Star is the Evening Star
is informative rather than trivial.
Semantics must therefore explain meaning beyond mere reference.
Utterances, Sentences, and Propositions
These are often confused, but they belong to different analytical levels.
Sentence
An abstract grammatical object.
It is raining.
Utterance
A concrete use of a sentence in a particular context.
Said by Speaker A in Islamabad at 9 a.m.
Proposition
The core meaning content that can be evaluated as true or false.
That it is raining at location X at time Y
Multiple utterances can express the same proposition, and the same sentence can express different propositions in different contexts.
Types of Meaning
Meaning in language is not monolithic. Semantics distinguishes several layers.
(i) Lexical Meaning
Meaning of individual words.
dog, run, honest
(ii) Grammatical Meaning
Meaning contributed by grammatical structure.
Dogs barked vs Dogs are barking
tense, number, aspect, modality
(iii) Sentence Meaning
The meaning that emerges from lexical items plus structure.
Every student passed the exam.
This meaning exists independently of who utters it.
(iv) Speaker Meaning (Boundary with Pragmatics)
What the speaker intends to convey.
It’s cold in here.
→ a complaint
→ a request to close the window
This type of meaning properly belongs to pragmatics, not semantics, but understanding semantics is a prerequisite for understanding how meaning gets enriched.
Why Semantics Matters in Linguistics
Semantics is not an optional add-on to linguistic theory. It is central because:
syntax without meaning is empty
phonology without meaning is mechanical
communication without meaning is impossible
Modern linguistics increasingly treats meaning as:
structured
systematic
formally analyzable
This is why semantics draws on logic, philosophy, and cognitive science, not just descriptive linguistics.
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
define semantics as the study of conventional meaning
explain why meaning poses theoretical challenges
distinguish reference from sense
differentiate sentences, utterances, and propositions
identify major types of meaning in language
2. Meaning, Thought, and Reality
· Reference and its types, Names, Nouns
· Reference as a Theory of Meaning
· Mental Represetations
· Words, Concepts, and Thinking
How does language connect the human mind to the world?
When we use words, are we:
pointing to things in the world?
expressing thoughts in the mind?
or constructing reality through language?
Semantics has wrestled with this question through the concept of reference and its relationship to thought.
Reference and Its Types
What Is Reference?
Reference is the relationship between a linguistic expression and the entity it picks out in the world (real or imagined).
Reference is about linking language to reality.
Types of Referring Expressions
Not all expressions refer in the same way.
(i) Proper Names
Names are often treated as directly referring expressions.
Ali, Fatima, Pakistan
They typically:
refer to unique individuals
do not describe, but label
However, names can raise problems:
Which Ali?
What if the person does not exist? (Sherlock Holmes)
(ii) Noun Phrases
Common nouns and noun phrases usually refer via description.
a teacher
the Prime Minister
my linguistics teacher
Their reference depends on:
context
shared knowledge
descriptive content
(iii) Definite vs Indefinite Reference
This distinction is crucial for discourse analysis and meaning interpretation.
Reference as a Theory of Meaning
An influential view in philosophy holds that:
To know the meaning of a word is to know what it refers to.
This is known as the referential theory of meaning.
Strengths
Problems with the Referential Theory
Despite its appeal, reference alone cannot explain meaning.
(i) Abstract Words
What do these refer to?
freedom
justice
truth
There is no clear physical entity.
(ii) Function Words
Words like:
and, if, not, because
They do not refer to objects but are essential to meaning.
(iii) Empty Reference
Some expressions lack real-world referents:
unicorn
the present king of France
Yet they are still meaningful.
Conclusion: Reference is important, but not sufficient as a theory of meaning.
Mental Representations
To address these limitations, semantics turns inward—to the mind.
What Are Mental Representations?
Mental representations are conceptual structures in the mind that language activates.
When you hear:
dog
You do not search the world for a dog. You access a concept:
four-legged
animal
barks
pet (for many speakers)
Meaning, therefore, involves:
linguistic form
mental concept
possible real-world referent
Language as a Bridge
words → concepts → reality
This explains why:
two people can understand a word even if they imagine different examples
meaning can exist without direct reference
Words, Concepts, and Thinking
Do Words Shape Thought?
One long-standing debate asks:
Does language determine how we think?
Some key positions:
(i) Strong Linguistic Determinism
(ii) Weak Linguistic Relativity
Language influences thought.
how categories are carved up
what distinctions are made salient
Example:
languages with multiple words for snow, kinship, or color
grammatical gender influencing perception
Concepts Without Words
Humans (and even animals) can think without language:
recognizing danger
categorizing objects
forming memories
This suggests:
concepts are not created by words
words label and organize pre-existing conceptual structures
Implications for Semantics
From this discussion, several conclusions follow:
Meaning is not just “out there” in the world
Meaning is not just “in here” in the mind
Meaning emerges from the interaction of language, cognition, and reality
Modern semantics therefore:
combines reference with mental representation
avoids purely object-based theories
prepares the ground for pragmatic enrichment
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
define reference and identify its types
distinguish names and noun-based reference
explain why reference alone cannot explain meaning
understand mental representations and concepts
describe the relationship between language, thought, and reality
Recommended Reading: Chapter 2 from Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics (4th Edition). Blackwell.
3. Word Meaning
· Words and Grammatical Categories
· Words and Lexical Items
· Problems with Pinning Down Word Meaning
· Lexical Relations
Why Word Meaning Is Central
Words are the smallest meaningful units that speakers consciously manipulate. Before sentences can mean anything, words must already carry semantic content.
Yet word meaning is:
flexible
context-sensitive
historically unstable
This makes lexical semantics both foundational and theoretically difficult.
Words and Grammatical Categories
Words do not exist in isolation. They belong to grammatical categories (parts of speech), and these categories affect meaning.
Major Grammatical Categories
Category and Meaning Interaction
Consider:
run (verb): She runs daily.
run (noun): She went for a run.
The form remains, but grammatical category changes:
syntactic behavior
semantic interpretation
This shows that meaning is partly shaped by grammatical environment, not just lexical content.
Words and Lexical Items
What Is a Lexical Item?
A lexical item is an abstract unit of meaning stored in the mental lexicon.
One word form can correspond to:
multiple lexical items
or one lexical item with multiple uses
Example:
bank (financial institution)
bank (river bank)
These are distinct lexical items, not just “one word with many meanings.”
Lexeme vs Word Form
Example:
Lexeme: RUN
Word forms: run, runs, ran, running
Semantics primarily deals with lexemes, not surface forms.
Problems with Pinning Down Word Meaning
Defining word meaning precisely is harder than it seems.
(i) Vagueness
Some words lack clear boundaries.
tall
rich
old
There is no exact point at which someone becomes “tall.” Meaning here is context-dependent, not fixed.
(ii) Polysemy
A single word may have related meanings.
paper
material
newspaper
academic article
These meanings are connected, not accidental.
(iii) Homonymy
Different meanings with the same form, but no semantic relation.
bat (animal)
bat (sports equipment)
Semantics must explain how speakers effortlessly distinguish these.
(iv) Context Sensitivity
Even seemingly simple words shift meaning:
cold weather
cold tea
cold response
The core meaning remains, but interpretation adjusts to context.
Lexical Relations
Lexical meaning is best understood relationally, through contrasts and connections.
(i) Synonymy
Words with similar meanings.
begin / start
big / large
Perfect synonymy is rare. Differences often exist in:
formality
collocation
emotional tone
(ii) Antonymy
Oppositeness in meaning.
Types include:
Gradable: hot / cold
Complementary: alive / dead
Converses: buy / sell
Each type behaves differently in logic and discourse.
(iii) Hyponymy
Meaning inclusion.
rose is a hyponym of flower
flower is a hypernym of rose
This relation reflects how humans categorize the world.
(iv) Meronymy
Part–whole relations.
wheel → car
chapter → book
This is conceptual, not logical inclusion.
(v) Collocation
Words that tend to occur together.
strong tea (not powerful tea)
heavy rain (not strong rain)
Collocation shows that meaning includes usage patterns, not just definitions.
Why Lexical Relations Matter
Lexical relations help explain:
vocabulary acquisition
dictionary structure
metaphor and extension
semantic change
They also provide tools for:
discourse analysis
computational linguistics
translation studies
By the end, students should be able to:
distinguish words from lexical items
explain the role of grammatical categories in meaning
identify vagueness, polysemy, and homonymy
analyze key lexical relations
understand why word meaning resists rigid definitions
Recommended Reading: Chapter 3 from Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics (4th Edition). Blackwell.
4. Sentence Semantics 1: Situations
· Classifying Situations
· Verbs and Situation Types
· Tense
· Aspect
· Modality
· Evidentiality
From Words to Situations
Words name entities and properties, but sentences describe situations.
A sentence typically encodes:
what kind of situation is being talked about
when it holds
how it unfolds
how certain the speaker is
how the information was obtained
Sentence semantics therefore focuses on event structure and situation type, not isolated meanings.
Classifying Situations
Linguists classify situations based on their temporal and internal structure. A widely used system comes from Vendler.
Major Situation Types
(i) States
Static, unchanging situations.
She knows French.
The house belongs to him.
Characteristics:
no internal stages
no clear beginning or end
typically incompatible with progressive aspect
(ii) Activities
Ongoing processes without an inherent endpoint.
She is running.
They talked all night.
Characteristics:
dynamic
can continue indefinitely
compatible with progressives
(iii) Accomplishments
Processes that lead to a natural endpoint.
She wrote a thesis.
They built a bridge.
Characteristics:
duration + endpoint
compatible with progressives, but imply incompletion when ongoing
(iv) Achievements
Instantaneous changes of state.
She recognized him.
The balloon burst.
Characteristics:
no duration
no progressive (or odd with it)
Verbs and Situation Types
Verbs play a central role in determining situation type, but they do not act alone.
Compare:
She ran. → activity
She ran a mile. → accomplishment
Adding an object changes:
boundedness
completion
temporal interpretation
This shows that situation type is a property of the whole predicate, not just the verb.
Tense
What Is Tense?
Tense locates a situation in time relative to the moment of speaking.
English primarily marks:
Past: She left.
Present: She leaves.
Future (periphrastic): She will leave.
Tense does not describe the world directly; it reflects the speaker’s temporal perspective.
Semantic Role of Tense
Tense answers:
When does the situation hold?
Is it prior to, simultaneous with, or posterior to speech time?
This makes tense a deictic category—its interpretation depends on context.
Aspect
Aspect vs Tense
English distinguishes aspect mainly through:
Progressive Aspect
Highlights:
internal structure
ongoingness
incompleteness
Odd with:
states (?She is knowing French)
Perfect Aspect
She has finished the exam.
Encodes:
relevance of a past situation to the present
result states
Aspect interacts crucially with situation types, shaping interpretation.
Modality
What Is Modality?
Modality expresses:
possibility
necessity
obligation
belief
Examples:
She must leave.
She might leave.
Types of Modality
(i) Epistemic Modality
Concerned with knowledge and belief.
She must be home by now.
(ii) Deontic Modality
Concerned with rules and obligations.
You must submit the assignment.
(iii) Dynamic Modality
Concerned with ability or capacity.
She can swim.
Modality does not describe situations directly; it qualifies their status.
Evidentiality
What Is Evidentiality?
Evidentiality encodes how the speaker knows something.
direct perception
inference
hearsay
English lacks grammatical evidentials, but expresses them lexically:
I saw that…
Apparently…
It is said that…
Some languages grammaticalize evidentiality, making it obligatory, highlighting that meaning goes beyond truth.
Why Situations Matter
Situation semantics explains:
why some sentences feel complete and others not
why tense and aspect combinations vary
how speakers package experience linguistically
It also prepares students for:
logical semantics
discourse interpretation
pragmatic enrichment
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
classify situation types
explain how verbs shape situation meaning
distinguish tense from aspect
identify modal meanings
understand evidentiality as a semantic category
Recommended Reading: Chapter 5 from Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics (4th Edition). Blackwell.
5. Sentence Semantics 2: Participants
· Classifying Participants
· Thematic Roles
· Grammatical Relations and Thematic Roles
· Voice – Passive Voice
· Classifiers and Noun Classes
From Situations to Participants
Consider:
Sara opened the door with a key.
This sentence encodes:
an event (opening)
multiple participants (Sara, the door, the key)
different roles for each participant
Sentence semantics must explain how participants are represented and interpreted.
Classifying Participants
Participants differ in:
agency
affectedness
control
animacy
Some act; others undergo change.
Compare:
Ali broke the glass.
The glass broke.
The same participant (glass) appears, but its semantic role changes across structures.
Thematic Roles
What Are Thematic Roles?
Thematic roles (also called semantic roles) describe the function a participant plays in a situation.
They are not grammatical labels but semantic relations between participants and events.
Common Thematic Roles
Agent
The doer or initiator of an action.
Aisha opened the window.
Patient
The entity affected by the action.
Aisha opened the window.
Theme
An entity involved or moved, but not necessarily changed.
She placed the book on the table.
Experiencer
An entity that perceives or feels.
He feared the darkness.
Instrument
An entity used to perform an action.
She cut the bread with a knife.
Beneficiary
The one for whose benefit the action is performed.
She baked a cake for her brother.
Grammatical Relations and Thematic Roles
A crucial insight of modern linguistics is:
Subject ≠ Agent
The same grammatical position (subject) can host different thematic roles.
Object ≠ Patient
Here:
Ali = Beneficiary (object)
book = Theme (object)
This shows why meaning cannot be derived from syntax alone.
Voice: Passive Constructions
What Is Voice?
Voice concerns how participants are mapped onto grammatical positions.
English primarily contrasts:
active
passive
Active vs Passive
In the passive:
the Patient becomes subject
the Agent may be omitted
Semantic Effects of Passive Voice
The passive does not change:
the situation
the thematic roles
It changes:
focus
information structure
responsibility highlighting or hiding
This makes passive voice a meaningful choice, not just a stylistic one.
Classifiers and Noun Classes
What Are Classifiers?
Classifiers are elements that categorize nouns based on:
shape
animacy
function
Common in languages like:
Chinese
Thai
Japanese
Example:
three CL books
two CL animals
They encode semantic categorization, not mere counting.
Noun Classes
Some languages divide nouns into classes or genders.
Examples:
masculine / feminine / neuter
animate / inanimate
These systems reflect:
cultural categorization
cognitive salience
historical developments
Even in English, remnants exist:
he / she / it
collective nouns
Why Participants Matter
Understanding participant structure allows us to:
analyze argument structure
explain alternations (active/passive)
understand cross-linguistic variation
connect semantics with syntax and discourse
Participants are where meaning meets grammar.
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
identify and classify participants in a sentence
assign thematic roles accurately
distinguish grammatical relations from semantic roles
explain the function of passive voice
understand classifiers and noun class systems
Recommended Reading: Chapter 6 from Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics (4th Edition). Blackwell.
End Term
1. What is Pragmatics?
· Definitions of pragmatics
· From abstract meaning to contextual meaning
· Utterance meaning
· Force
Why Pragmatics Is Necessary
Consider:
Can you pass the salt?
The gap between these two interpretations is the territory of pragmatics.
Definitions of Pragmatics
There is no single definition of pragmatics, but several complementary ones.
Key Definitions
Pragmatics is the study of meaning in context.
Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of how more is communicated than is said.
All definitions share one insight:
Meaning cannot be fully explained without reference to users, contexts, and intentions.
Semantics vs Pragmatics
Semantics
Pragmatics
Example:
It’s cold here.
From Abstract Meaning to Contextual Meaning
Sentences do not exist in a vacuum. Every utterance is embedded in:
physical context
social relations
cultural norms
shared assumptions
Context helps determine:
reference (he, here, now)
implicature
politeness
intended action
Pragmatics studies how listeners bridge the gap between linguistic form and intended meaning.
Utterance Meaning
What Is an Utterance?
An utterance is:
a concrete use of language
produced by a speaker
at a specific time and place
Utterance meaning depends on:
who is speaking
to whom
why
under what circumstances
Sentence Meaning vs Utterance Meaning
Pragmatics explains how utterance meaning is reconstructed by the hearer.
Force
What Is Force?
Force refers to the kind of act an utterance performs.
Consider:
You will close the door.
Depending on context, this can function as:
a prediction
an order
a threat
a promise
The linguistic form remains constant, but force changes.
Force vs Form
There is no one-to-one relationship between:
sentence type (declarative, interrogative, imperative)
communicative function
This mismatch is a core concern of pragmatics and prepares the ground for speech act theory.
Why Pragmatics Matters
Pragmatics explains:
indirectness
politeness
misunderstanding
irony and sarcasm
real-life communication failures
Without pragmatics, language would be:
logically neat
communicatively useless
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
define pragmatics in multiple ways
distinguish semantics from pragmatics
explain contextual meaning
differentiate sentence meaning from utterance meaning
understand the concept of force
Recommended Reading: Chapter 1 from Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.
2. Speech Acts
· J. L. Austin
· Ordinary language philosophy
· Logical positivism and truth conditional semantics
· The performative hypothesis
· Utterances and actions
The Revolutionary Idea
For a long time, language was treated as a system for stating facts—sentences were meaningful only if they could be judged true or false.
J. L. Austin challenged this assumption with a simple but radical claim:
Some utterances do not describe the world; they change it.
When someone says:
I apologize.
I promise.
I declare this meeting open.
They are not reporting an action, they are performing one.
J. L. Austin and Ordinary Language Philosophy
Who Was Austin?
J. L. Austin was a philosopher working within ordinary language philosophy, a movement that emphasized:
everyday language use
natural contexts
actual speaker intentions
This approach rejected abstract, idealized logic in favor of how language really works.
Ordinary Language Philosophy
Key assumptions:
philosophical problems arise from misuse of language
meaning is revealed through ordinary usage
context is essential
Austin’s work emerged as a direct reaction to earlier philosophical traditions.
Logical Positivism and Truth-Conditional Semantics
Logical Positivism
Earlier philosophers argued that:
a sentence is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified
meaning equals truth conditions
Under this view:
Snow is white → meaningful
I promise to help you → problematic
Promises, orders, and apologies were treated as nonsensical or secondary.
Austin’s Critique
Austin showed that:
many meaningful utterances are neither true nor false
evaluating them by truth conditions misses their function
This critique laid the foundation for pragmatics.
The Performative Hypothesis
Performative Utterances
Austin identified utterances that:
perform actions by being spoken
often include a first-person present-tense verb
Examples:
I name this ship…
I apologize.
I bet you ten rupees…
These were called explicit performatives.
Constatives vs Performatives
Austin initially distinguished:
Constatives → describe states of affairs
Performatives → perform actions
However, this distinction eventually collapsed.
Why the Distinction Failed
Austin realized that:
all utterances perform actions
even statements involve acts like asserting, warning, or informing
This insight led to a more general theory of speech acts.
Utterances and Actions
The Three Levels of a Speech Act
Every utterance involves three acts:
(i) Locutionary Act
The act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.
sounds
words
grammatical structure
(ii) Illocutionary Act
The intended action performed by the speaker.
asserting
promising
requesting
warning
This is the core of speech act theory.
(iii) Perlocutionary Act
The effect of the utterance on the listener.
persuadingfrightening
convincing
insulting
Perlocutionary effects are not fully under speaker control.
Why Speech Acts Matter
Speech act theory shows that:
language is a form of social action
meaning cannot be reduced to truth
context and intention are central
It explains:
indirect requests
politeness strategies
legal and institutional language
everyday misunderstandings
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
explain Austin’s contribution to pragmatics
contrast ordinary language philosophy with logical positivism
define performative utterances
describe the three levels of speech acts
understand how utterances function as actions
3. Conversational Implicature
· H. P. Grice
· Implicature
· The Cooperative Principle
· The four conversational maxims
· Flouting a maxim
· Testing for implicature
Why Meaning Goes Beyond Words
In real communication, speakers rarely say everything explicitly. Yet listeners usually understand perfectly.
Example:
A: How was the lecture?
B has not answered directly, but A infers something, most likely that the lecture itself was not good.
This extra layer of meaning is called implicature.
H. P. Grice
Who Was Grice?
H. P. Grice was a philosopher of language who sought to explain:
His insight was that conversation is a cooperative activity guided by shared rational principles.
What Is Implicature?
Implicature refers to:
meaning that is suggested or implied, not explicitly stated.
Compare:
Some students passed the exam.
Semantically:
“some” means at least one
Pragmatically:
often implicates not all
This inference is not part of sentence meaning, but arises through pragmatic reasoning.
The Cooperative Principle
Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle (CP):
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.
This does not mean speakers are always polite or truthful; it means they behave as if they are cooperating.
The Four Conversational Maxims
The Cooperative Principle is elaborated through four maxims.
(i) Maxim of Quantity
Make your contribution as informative as required.
Violation example:
Giving too little or too much information.
(ii) Maxim of Quality
Do not say what you believe to be false.
This maxim underlies:
(iii) Maxim of Relation (Relevance)
Be relevant.
This maxim explains why seemingly unrelated replies are still understood.
(iv) Maxim of Manner
This concerns how things are said, not what is said.
Flouting a Maxim
What Is Flouting?
Speakers often deliberately violate a maxim in a noticeable way, expecting the listener to infer additional meaning.
Example (Quality):
What a brilliant idea! (said about a terrible plan)
The speaker is not lying; they are inviting inference.
Flouting vs Violating
Violating: secretly breaking a maxim (misleading)
Implicatures arise mainly from flouting, not violation.
Testing for Implicature
How do we know something is an implicature?
Key Tests
(i) Cancellability
The implicature can be cancelled without contradiction.
Some students passed; in fact, all of them did.
(ii) Non-detachability
Changing wording does not remove the implicature.
Some / a number of students passed.
(iii) Context Dependence
Implicature depends on situation and expectations.
(iv) Calculability
Listeners can reason step by step from:
Why Implicature Matters
Conversational implicature explains:
It also shows how pragmatics complements semantics:
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
Recommended Reading: Chapter 3 from Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.
4. Pragmatics and Indirectness
· What is indirectness?
· How do we know how indirect to be?
· Measuring indirectness
· Why use indirectness?
What Is Indirectness?
In everyday communication, speakers often do not say exactly what they mean—at least, not directly.
Compare:
Close the door.
It’s a bit cold in here.
Both can function as requests, but only one is direct.
Indirectness refers to:
the mismatch between the linguistic form of an utterance and its intended communicative function.
Direct vs Indirect Speech
Direct Speech Acts
Form and function match.
Imperative → command
Sit down.
Interrogative → question
Where are you going?
Indirect Speech Acts
Form and function diverge.
Interrogative → request
Could you pass the salt?
Declarative → complaint
This room is noisy.
Indirectness relies heavily on:
context
shared assumptions
pragmatic inference
How Do We Know How Indirect to Be?
Speakers do not choose indirectness randomly. They are guided by social and contextual variables.
Key Factors Governing Indirectness
(i) Power Relations
Student → teacher
Employee → boss
(ii) Social Distance
Greater distance → greater indirectness
strangers vs close friends
(iii) Imposition
Greater cost or inconvenience → greater indirectness
borrowing money vs borrowing a pen
(iv) Cultural Norms
Different cultures encode indirectness differently.
Some value clarity
Others value deference and harmony
Measuring Indirectness
Indirectness is not binary; it exists on a scale.
Consider requests ordered from most direct to least direct:
Each step:
Indirectness can be measured through:
Why Use Indirectness?
(i) Politeness
Indirectness minimizes face-threats.
commands → softened requests
(ii) Plausible Deniability
Speakers can retreat if challenged.
I was just saying it’s cold…
(iii) Social Harmony
Avoids confrontation and preserves relationships.
(iv) Strategic Ambiguity
Allows flexibility in interpretation.
political discourse
diplomatic language
(v) Cultural Expectation
In some contexts, directness is perceived as rude or aggressive.
The Cost of Indirectness
Indirectness is not always beneficial.
can cause misunderstanding
relies on shared background knowledge
may fail in cross-cultural communication
Pragmatic competence involves knowing when not to be indirect.
7. Indirectness and Pragmatic Competence
To communicate effectively, speakers must:
assess context
calculate social variables
balance clarity with politeness
This ability is learned, not grammatical, and varies across communities.
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
Recommended Reading: Chapter 5 from Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.
5. Theories of Politeness
· Delimiting the concept of politeness
· Politeness in terms of principles and maxims
· Politeness and the management of face
Delimiting the Concept of Politeness
Although politeness is a familiar everyday concept, defining it precisely is surprisingly difficult.
At an intuitive level, politeness involves:
However, in pragmatics, politeness is not merely about being “nice” or using polite words like please or thank you.
Politeness is a pragmatic phenomenon, concerned with:
how speakers manage social relationships through language.
Why Is Politeness Hard to Define?
According to Thomas, politeness is difficult to delimit because:
it varies across cultures
it depends on context
it is interpreted, not encoded
the same utterance can be polite or impolite depending on situation
Example:
Be quiet.
– impolite in a classroom discussion
– appropriate in an emergency
Thus, politeness is interactional, not inherent in words.
Politeness in Terms of Principles and Maxims
Early pragmatic approaches attempted to explain politeness through rules or principles, similar to Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
(i) The Politeness Principle
Proposed by Geoffrey Leech, this approach suggests that politeness operates through conversational maxims, such as:
Tact Maxim
Generosity Maxim
Approbation Maxim
Modesty Maxim
Agreement Maxim
Sympathy Maxim
These maxims aim to:
minimize cost to others
maximize benefit to others
Strengths of the Maxim-Based Approach
Limitations (as noted by Thomas)
As a result, later theories moved toward a more socially grounded model.
Politeness and the Management of Face
The most influential theory of politeness is Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory.
The Concept of Face
Borrowed from sociology, face refers to:
a person’s public self-image.
There are two types of face:
(i) Positive Face
(ii) Negative Face
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Many everyday speech acts threaten face, including:
requests
orders
criticisms
disagreements
refusals
Example:
Lend me your notes → threatens negative face
Your answer is wrong → threatens positive face
Politeness strategies are used to reduce the impact of these threats.
Politeness Strategies
Brown and Levinson identify several strategies, ordered from most to least direct:
Bald on-record
no politeness strategy
Give me the book.
Positive politeness
attends to positive face
You’re so organized—can I borrow your notes?
Negative politeness
respects autonomy
Could you possibly lend me your notes?
Off-record (indirect)
leaves interpretation open
I wish I had today’s notes…
Do not perform the act
Choice of strategy depends on:
power
social distance
degree of imposition
Politeness, Power, and Culture
Politeness is not universal in its expression.
What counts as polite in one culture may seem distant or rude in another.
Some cultures value:
directness and clarity
Others value:
deference and indirectness
Thomas emphasizes that politeness is culturally negotiated, not fixed.
Critiques of Politeness Theory
Thomas highlights several critiques:
overemphasis on speaker intention
insufficient attention to hearer interpretation
limited applicability across cultures
gender and power asymmetries underexplored
These critiques paved the way for newer approaches, such as:
relevance theory
discursive approaches to politeness
Recap
By the end, students should be able to:
Recommended Reading: Chapter 6 from Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.
6. Relevance Theory – An Introduction
Understanding Meaning Beyond Words
Language is more than just words strung together. Often, what is said is not exactly what is meant. Humans routinely convey messages indirectly, imply information, and rely on shared knowledge to interpret meaning.
Relevance Theory (RT), developed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, provides a framework to understand how listeners interpret utterances efficiently. It explains why humans communicate the way they do: not just through literal meaning, but by making inferences, considering context, and maximizing cognitive benefit with minimal effort.
What Is Relevance Theory?
Relevance Theory is a cognitive pragmatic framework that explains human communication in terms of inference and efficiency.
Key points:
Communication is guided by inference rather than literal meaning.
Understanding depends heavily on context, including physical, social, and cultural factors.
Every communicative act is a balance between cognitive effort and information gain.
Optimal relevance occurs when:
The effort expended by the listener is justified by the cognitive benefits gained from interpreting the utterance.
Key Principles of Relevance Theory
The Cognitive Principle of Relevance
Human cognition is designed to maximize relevance.
We automatically focus on information that yields the greatest positive cognitive effects for the least effort.
Cognitive effects include learning new facts, resolving contradictions, or strengthening existing assumptions.
The Communicative Principle of Relevance
Every act of communication carries the expectation of relevance.
Speakers are presumed to aim for relevance.
Listeners assume that utterances are worth processing.
Understanding involves inferring the speaker’s intention within context.
Example:
It’s a bit chilly in here.
The speaker expects the listener to infer a request: “Please close the window.”
Explicit vs Implicit Communication
Explicit Content
Example:
She is late again. → literally indicates lateness
Implicit Content (Implication / Implicature)
Example:
She is late again. → implies criticism or annoyance
Relevance Theory focuses on how listeners infer implicit content efficiently.
Inference in Relevance Theory
Unlike Grice, which relies on cooperative maxims, RT emphasizes cognitive inference:
Cognitive Effects: Listeners assess the new information, contradiction resolution, and reinforcement of assumptions provided by the utterance.
Processing Effort: Listeners estimate how much mental effort is needed to interpret the utterance.
Communication succeeds when:
Cognitive benefits outweigh processing effort.
Example:
John’s car is in the garage.
Could imply John cannot attend a meeting, John is repairing it, or a warning about his availability.
Listeners choose the interpretation that is most relevant in the given context.
Relevance and Utterance Interpretation
RT explains why humans can understand meaning beyond literal words:
Indirect requests: “It’s cold in here” → please close the window
Sarcasm: “Great job!” (after failure) → inferred criticism
Humor and irony: interpretation depends on context and cognitive inference
Listeners continuously balance effort and reward, choosing the interpretation with maximum relevance.
Advantages of Relevance Theory
Relevance vs Traditional Pragmatics
| Feature | Gricean Pragmatics | Relevance Theory |
|---|---|---|
| Core | Cooperative maxims | Cognitive principle |
| Focus | Norms of conversation | Optimal relevance |
| Process | Rational reasoning about maxims | Cognitive inference |
| Scope | Implicature | All utterance interpretation (literal & non-literal) |
Practical Implications
Relevance Theory can be applied in:
Indirect Requests
It’s cold in here → listener infers request
Irony & Sarcasm
Great job! (after failure) → inferred criticism
Advertising & Rhetoric
Maximizes cognitive effect while minimizing explanation
Cross-Cultural Communication
Focuses on cognitive context rather than rigid rules
Education and Language Teaching
Helps learners understand indirect meaning and inferential reasoning
Recap
Relevance Theory demonstrates that meaning is not fixed in words; it emerges from the interaction between:
the speaker’s intentions
the listener’s cognitive processing
the context in which communication occurs
By understanding RT, students gain a powerful framework for analyzing language in use, from everyday conversations to literature, advertising, and cross-cultural interactions.
Relevant Readings
Recommended Books:
Griffiths, P. (2006). Introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press.
Grundy, P (2008) Doing Pragmatics. (3rd Ed.) London: Hodder Education.
Kroeger, P. R. (2022). Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. (3rd Ed.). Language Science Press.
Peccei, J. S. (1999). Pragmatics. Routledge.
Saeed, John I. (2016). Semantics. (4th Ed.). Blackwell.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.
