Week 11: Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis
Lecture 11.1: Introduction to Pragmatics
Lecture 11.1: Introduction to Pragmatics
Introduction
In this lecture, we will explore the field of pragmatics, which is concerned with how context influences the interpretation of language. Unlike semantics, which focuses on the meaning of words and sentences in isolation, pragmatics examines how language is used in actual communication. We will cover key concepts such as speech acts, politeness theory, the cooperative principle, and explore phenomena like deixis, implicature, and presupposition. These concepts help us understand how speakers use language to achieve specific communicative goals, navigate social interactions, and convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of words.
I. Speech Acts Theory (Austin, Searle)
1.1 Overview of Speech Acts Theory
Speech act theory examines how utterances can perform various kinds of actions. Rather than simply conveying information, speech acts show that speaking is a form of action that can have different effects on the world.
John Austin (1962) is credited with developing the foundations of speech act theory in his work How to Do Things with Words. According to Austin, when people use language, they are performing actions known as speech acts, and these can be classified into three different types:
Locutionary acts: The basic act of producing sounds or uttering words (i.e., the physical act of saying something).
Illocutionary acts: The function or purpose of the utterance within the communication context (e.g., making a promise, giving an order, making a request).
Perlocutionary acts: The effect the speech act has on the listener (e.g., persuading, convincing, or frightening).
1.2 John Searle’s Contribution
John Searle, a prominent figure in pragmatics, further developed Austin's theory and proposed a classification of illocutionary acts based on the intentions of the speaker. Searle distinguished between:
Assertives: Statements that describe the world (e.g., “It’s raining”).
Directives: Requests, commands, or suggestions (e.g., “Please pass the salt”).
Commissives: The speaker commits to a certain course of action (e.g., “I promise to help you”).
Expressives: The speaker expresses their emotions or feelings (e.g., “I’m sorry for being late”).
Declarations: The speaker brings about a change in the world by making the utterance (e.g., “I now pronounce you husband and wife”).
II. Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson)
2.1 Overview of Politeness Theory
Politeness theory, developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in 1987, explores how people use language to manage social relationships and avoid conflict. They argue that politeness is necessary for maintaining social harmony and managing the social distances between people. They propose that face, the positive social value a person claims for themselves in interaction, plays a central role in communication.
Face: There are two types of face:
Positive face: The desire to be liked, admired, and respected.
Negative face: The desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition.
2.2 Face-threatening Acts (FTAs)
When individuals perform actions that may threaten another person's face, such as making requests, giving criticism, or making demands, these are known as face-threatening acts (FTAs). According to Brown and Levinson, speakers use various strategies to mitigate FTAs and avoid social embarrassment or offense.
2.3 Politeness Strategies
Brown and Levinson identify four main politeness strategies used to minimize face threats:
Bald on-record: Direct and unambiguous communication with no attempt to soften the impact (e.g., “Give me that!”).
Positive politeness: Strategies that seek to enhance the listener’s positive face (e.g., “Could you do me a favor?”).
Negative politeness: Strategies that minimize the imposition and acknowledge the listener's negative face (e.g., “Sorry to bother you, but could you…?”).
Off-record: Indirect communication that allows the speaker to avoid taking responsibility for the potential face threat (e.g., hinting or making suggestions rather than direct requests).
III. Cooperative Principle and Grice’s Maxims
3.1 The Cooperative Principle
The cooperative principle is a fundamental concept in pragmatics introduced by Herbert Grice in 1975. Grice proposed that effective communication relies on speakers and listeners adhering to certain cooperative norms. According to the cooperative principle, speakers assume that their conversational partners will cooperate by providing information in a way that is useful and appropriate.
3.2 Grice’s Maxims
Grice formulated four maxims that guide cooperative communication:
Maxim of Quantity: Provide the right amount of information, not too little and not too much.
Example: "It’s 4:00 PM" is a sufficient response to "What time is it?" (assuming the context is clear).
Maxim of Quality: Do not provide false or unsupported information.
Example: "I have no idea where the keys are" should not be said if the speaker knows where the keys are.
Maxim of Relation: Be relevant in your contributions to the conversation.
Example: In a discussion about hobbies, responding with "I love playing soccer" is relevant.
Maxim of Manner: Avoid ambiguity and be as clear as possible.
Example: "Turn left at the next street" is clearer than "Go that way."
These maxims help ensure that communication is efficient and effective. However, they are often flouted (intentionally violated), leading to the use of implicature.
IV. Deixis, Implicature, and Presupposition
4.1 Deixis
Deixis refers to words and expressions that require contextual information to be understood. Deictic expressions depend on the situation of the speech act, such as time, place, and participants. Examples of deictic terms include:
Person deixis: Pronouns (e.g., "I," "you," "they").
Place deixis: Spatial terms (e.g., "here," "there").
Time deixis: Temporal terms (e.g., "now," "then," "tomorrow").
The meaning of these terms changes depending on the context in which they are used. For example, “I will meet you there tomorrow” requires the speaker and listener to share an understanding of the time and location.
4.2 Implicature
Implicature is a concept introduced by Grice, referring to information that is suggested or implied by the speaker rather than directly stated. When a speaker flouts one of Grice's maxims, the listener often infers meaning from the context or the way something is said, rather than what is explicitly stated.
Example: If someone says, “It’s getting late,” they may be implying that it is time to leave, even though they haven’t directly stated it.
There are two main types of implicature:
Conversational implicature: Arises from the cooperative nature of communication and is context-dependent.
Conventional implicature: Arises from the meaning of specific words (e.g., "but" implies contrast).
4.3 Presupposition
Presupposition refers to background assumptions or information that the speaker assumes the listener already knows or accepts as true, often without explicitly stating it. Unlike implicatures, presuppositions remain constant even if the sentence is negated.
Example: "John stopped smoking" presupposes that John once smoked.
Example: "Have you stopped smoking?" presupposes that the person was smoking before.
Presuppositions are often triggered by specific linguistic structures, such as definite descriptions (e.g., "the president of the company"), quantifiers (e.g., "both"), and certain verbs (e.g., "regret," "stop").
Conclusion
In this lecture, we have introduced key concepts in pragmatics, which focuses on the use of language in context. We have explored speech act theory (Austin and Searle), which looks at how language performs actions; politeness theory (Brown & Levinson), which addresses how people manage social interactions; Grice’s maxims, which guide effective communication; and phenomena such as deixis, implicature, and presupposition, which are essential for understanding meaning beyond the literal level. By understanding these concepts, we gain a deeper appreciation of how language functions in real-world communication.
Thank you for your attention!
Riaz Laghari (Riaz Hussain) is an independent scholar, linguist, and writer based in Islamabad, Pakistan. His primary research focus is comparative and theoretical syntax, particularly the structure and variation of English, Urdu, and Saraiki, followed by psycholinguistics, with an interest in language processing and cognition. His wider writing explores education, culture, and society.
“Learn to live, live to learn.” — Riaz Laghari
