Pragmatics and Discourse What is pragmatics? An approach within DA which concentrates on the way language acquires meaning in use. It has developed from the tradition of the philosophy of language known as pragmatics. Focus: The study of contextualised meaning and is concerned with describing the principles that underlie how we interpret the meaning behind words: how we get from what we say to what we mean. Pragmatic approaches tend to be interested in the 'big picture': trying to formulate generalisable principles about how people produce and interpret discourse (eg’ the use of humour in business meetings’). Context Context is an important concept in DA. Language does not take place in a vacuum and we need to consider the context in which it occurs in order to understand it. However, this seemingly unproblematic statement masks the issues and debates that are ongoing in discourse analysis around the concept of context and its significance. Two types of context The 'intrinsic' or 'linguistic' context which refers to information that can be found within the text that surrounds the language that is being analysed at a particular moment. It is generally agreed that this type of context is not only useful but essential. The more problematic type of context lies outside the actual text: what is sometimes called 'extrinsic' (Schegloff 1997) or 'experiential' context. This refers to all sorts of information about setting, situation, social circumstances of the participants such as age, gender, ethnicity and possibly also about the shared background knowledge and assumptions of the participants. So, in the example: 'Later, an item about vasectomy and the results of the do-it-yourself competition' (from Cameron 2001:12)  The issue with extrinsic context is moving from description to interpretation in research. Along with describing 'what' is happening in the discourse , it is also important to interpret 'why' it is happening.  Extrinsic contextual evidence can be potentially very useful in discussing why participants say a particular thing in a particular way at a particular time, however, there is also a danger of 'reading too much into the text' and of judging which out of many possible interpretations is the 'right' one. For instance, if the analyst is aware of gender, age or ethic difference among discourse participants, these variables may well appear to influence the discourse but how do we know which of these particular variables are important to the participants in an particular communicative event.  This is not to say that we should ignore extrinsic context but to suggest that we need to be cautious about what we select as significant and rigorous about how we incorporate it into our analyses. Schegloff (1997) advises that the best option is to use only what can be shown to be relevant to participants.  Can you imagine a meaningful context for this text? a. Which of you was the prawns?

1. Pragmatics and Discourse
What is pragmatics?
An approach within DA which concentrates on the way language
acquires meaning in use. It has developed from the tradition of the
philosophy of language known as pragmatics.
Focus: The study of contextualised meaning and is concerned with
describing the principles that underlie how we interpret the meaning
behind words: how we get from what we say to what we mean.
Pragmatic approaches tend to be interested in the 'big picture': trying
to formulate generalisable principles about how people produce and
interpret discourse (eg’ the use of humour in business meetings’).

2. Context
Context is an important concept in DA. Language does not take place in a vacuum and we
need to consider the context in which it occurs in order to understand it.
However, this seemingly unproblematic statement masks the issues and debates that are
ongoing in discourse analysis around the concept of context and its significance.
Two types of context
The 'intrinsic' or 'linguistic' context which refers to information that can be found
within the text that surrounds the language that is being analysed at a particular
moment. It is generally agreed that this type of context is not only useful but essential.
The more problematic type of context lies outside the actual text: what is sometimes
called 'extrinsic' (Schegloff 1997) or 'experiential' context.
This refers to all sorts of information about setting, situation, social circumstances of the
participants such as age, gender, ethnicity and possibly also about the shared
background knowledge and assumptions of the participants.
So, in the example:
'Later, an item about vasectomy and the results of the do-it-yourself competition'
(from Cameron 2001:12)

3.  The issue with extrinsic context is moving from description to interpretation in
research. Along with describing 'what' is happening in the discourse , it is also
important to interpret 'why' it is happening.
 Extrinsic contextual evidence can be potentially very useful in discussing why
participants say a particular thing in a particular way at a particular time,
however, there is also a danger of 'reading too much into the text' and of
judging which out of many possible interpretations is the 'right' one.
For instance, if the analyst is aware of gender, age or ethic difference among
discourse participants, these variables may well appear to influence the
discourse but how do we know which of these particular variables are
important to the participants in an particular communicative event.
 This is not to say that we should ignore extrinsic context but to suggest that we
need to be cautious about what we select as significant and rigorous about how
we incorporate it into our analyses. Schegloff (1997) advises that the best
option is to use only what can be shown to be relevant to participants.
 Can you imagine a meaningful context for this text?
a. Which of you was the prawns? b. Not me. I'm the steak
Are the two utterances connected and, if so, did you use intrinsic or extrinsic
contextual cues to guide you?

4. Function and Form
A distinctive feature of discourse analysis then, as opposed to sentence
linguistics, is its concern with how language is used in context, in other
words with the functional as well as the formal aspects of language.
There is often a lack of one-to-one correspondence between grammatical
form and communicative function in discourse:
ACTIVITY
1. Can you supply four possible answers to the utterance:
A: The door is open
B: …………………………………………………
B …………………………………………………
B:…………………………………………………..
B:…………………………………………………..
2. Why is there a divergence between language form and function? Why
don’t people just ‘say what they mean and mean what they say’?

5.  Discourse function has to be seen as something quite different from
grammatical form. As grammarians we are interested in how the four
examples below differ; as discourse analysts, we are interested primarily in
what, as functional items, they seem to have in common.
1.Can you lend me a fiver ?
2.You haven't got a fiver, have you ?
3.Lend me a fiver.
4.I wonder whether you have five pounds that I could borrow ?
 Most discourse analysts coming from the academic discipline of linguistics are
interesting in exploring both form and function, although the balance between
the two may vary.
 However, a third level of analysis is becoming increasingly the focus of
discourse analysis particularly through the influence of social scientists from
non linguistic backgrounds, such as sociology and psychology.
 This 'interpretive' level of analysis is concerned less with how language works
but how language conveys or constructs social phenomena, such as sexual
harassment or racial prejudice.

6. Pragmatics
 There is no simple match between form and function. The surface form of an
utterance may appear to bear little resemblance to its ‘real meaning’.
 Pragmatics involves the study of communication in interactions including, for
example, the study of how meanings are inferred, how politeness and formality
are managed; in short, how language operates in social context.
 The main unit of analysis in pragmatics is the 'speech act' and the basic notion
behind speech acts is that whenever we say something we are also doing
something.
 Pragmatics attempts to categorised utterances in terms of the acts that are
being performed through them by the speaker. Of particular interest is the
question of the universality versus culture variation of principles of utterance
interpretation.

7. Speech Acts
 Once you start looking at utterances in terms of what they do, i.e their
function, you could consider every utterance to be a kind of speech act.
 This borrows heavily on the work of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969).
Other labels for speech functions have been identified:
Constative utterances that relate to the real world; the proposition
contained in the utterance can be said to be true or false.
John works in the School of Education.
Ethical utterances that cannot be true or false in the same way and are value-
laden.
Hymes is cleverer than Chomsky.
Tom is a good manager.
Heuristic this is the ‘tell me why’ function (Halliday 1978) answering
questions like ‘How does it work?’ and ‘Why is it like that?’
Performative utterances where something is being done with words.
I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth.
I declare this conference open.

8.  Austin described the felicity conditions under which we can identify a
performative utterance. These are the conditions which must be met if the
speech act is to be appropriately delivered (adapted from Levinson (1983: 229)):
 - there must be a conventional procedure having a conventional effect;
 - the circumstances and participants must be appropriate for the procedure;
 - the procedure must be executed correctly and completely;
 - the participants must have the requisite feelings and intentions;
 - if consequent conduct is specified then it must be carried out
Activity
Consider: “I do”. What conditions must be met for this act to be successful?
Why are the following not performative utterances?
1. I hereby sentence you to another six months of hard work.
2. I baptise this dog Rover.
3. If you don’t get the work done by Friday, I promise I’ll kill you.
[Adapted from Wardhaugh (1986)]

9. The action performed by producing an utterance consists of three related acts:
locutionary act - the actual words uttered;
illocutionary act - the intention behind the words;
perlocutionary act - the intended effect on the hearer.
Speech Acts can be explicit (“I hereby ...”) or implicit. The illocutionary force
of an utterance (a term used by both Austin and Searle) is to do with the
intention behind the words.
“Can you close the door?”
The illocutionary force of this locution is a request.
Activity
Consider the illocutionary force and the perlocutionary effect:
1. I’ve left my purse at home.
2. I’m finding it very difficult to keep up with the reading for the
assignment.
3. You used to be such a nice boy.
4. I wouldn’t do that.
5. Would you find examples like these in coursebooks?

10.  In the following examples the illocutionary force and the intended
perlocutionary effect are the same but the locutions are different.
There’s a draught.
It’s cold in this room.
The window’s open.
Could you see to the window?
John, window.
 So, the locution is the surface language, the illocutionary force is the intended
functional meaning of the utterance and the perlocutionary effect is the
intended purpose to be achieved.
Activity
Think of five direct ways and five indirect ways of asking
someone to be quiet. What factors affect your choice of language?
 Obviously, we have a lot of choice in how we say things and a lot of what we say
is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Why don’t we just say what we mean?
The reasons are complex and related to issues of face, power and social distance
between interlocutors.

11. Implicature
We rarely say what we mean literally; we imply it. This notion of implicature,
i.e. implied meaning as opposed to the mere lexical meaning involves the
listener or reader in supplying additional information that is not included in
the surface form of the discourse. We usually work out inferences
subconsciously - without really thinking about them.
Consider the following exchange:
Husband: “That’s the telephone.”
Wife: “I’m in the bath.”
Husband: “OK.”
What is the context? Where are the two speakers? What does ‘that’ refer to?
What is the illocutionary force of the utterances? What do you think is the
outcome of the exchange?
Occasionally, when you do not have some specialist knowledge that the writer
assumes, the relevant inferences cannot be made and the text cannot be
comprehended, as Brown & Yule point out:
As bullion levels dropped below the psychological $300 barrier, putting
most high-cost mines into loss, kaffirs fell sharply, with ‘the heavies’
closing $1 to $4 down. (The Guardian, 22 June 1982) [from Widdowson 1978]

12. Inference and implicature are concerned with how language can mean more
that what is actually said, or written.
“Cosmopolitan” magazine (June 1995: 123) gives some pithy examples of
conversational implicatures in a lighthearted analysis of ‘malespeak’:
“You cook; I’ll clean.” [You cook now; you clean later.]
“I picked up some holiday brochures.” [I’ve decided where we are going
on holiday.]
“I’ll do dinner on Friday.” [We haven’t had a takeaway for
ages.]
The following examples depend on interpretation rather than implicature:
“I’ll ring you sometime.” [You’ll never hear from me again.]
“We can still be friends.” [Goodbye.]
To work out an implicature the reader must assume that the writer is observing
the Co-operative Principle, or the Conversational Maxims (see Grice 1975: 45),
and is attempting to communicate.

13. The Co-operative Principle and Implicature
 An important philosophical contribution to ways of looking at language
comes from Grice (1975). Grice was interested in the way people use
language; he was a logician and his theory of implicature suggested how
people might ‘imply’ meaning from what is said.
 Grice maintained that the overriding principle that guides conversation is
co-operation: people actively try to communicate when they engage in
conversation and they follow the rules of conversation; Grice argued that
even when people appear to be breaking these rules this was also for
communicative purposes.
 Grice’s approach is important for pragmatics and discourse analysis (and of
course for ELT) because it attempts to explain the mechanisms we use in
order to ‘mean more than we say’ and ‘to read between the lines’.

14. Consider the following interaction between two people in a restaurant:
A: How’s your hamburger?
B: A hamburger is a hamburger. [Example from Yule, 1996: 35]
B’s response is a tautology and because we can safely assume that A already
knows that ‘a hamburger is a hamburger’, B’s response looks like an insult to A,
at first sight. However, if the hearer assumes that B is being co-operative and
trying to communicate something then there could be an additional meaning -
called an implicature.
Grice (1975) formulated the Co-operative Principle in conversation:
Make your 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 Co-operative Principle was further elaborated in 4 sub-principles called
the conversational maxims:
1. Maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true,
specifically:
 do not say what you believe to be false;
 do not say that for which you have insufficient evidence;
2. Maxim of Quantity:
 make your contribution as informative as is required for current purposes
of the exchange;
 do not make your contribution more informative than is required;
3. Maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant;
4. Maxim of Manner: be brief; be orderly; avoid ambiguity; avoid obscurity.

15. Work out the standard implicatures from the following:
A: “Can you tell me the time:” A: Do you support Manchester United?
B: “Well, the milkman’s just been.” B: And is the Pope a Catholic?
 Grice also suggested that even if the Maxims are deliberately broken by the
Speaker, if the Hearer assumes that the Speaker is observing the Co-operative
Principle then the implicature can be worked out. Grice called the breaking of
the Maxims for communicative purposes ‘floutings’.
 Grice believes that speakers engage in these processes because of general
principles of rationality. An important question in relation to L2 Learning is
whether and to what extent aspects of speech work differently in different
cultures (Cook, 1989: 123-125).
Eg: A: it’s been lovely talking to you … we must meet up for a coffee sometime
B: I can meet you tomorrow morning at 10.00.
 Grice believes that speakers engage in the process because of general principles
of rationality. An important question in relation to second language learning
is whether and to what extent aspects of speech proceed differently in different
cultures (Cook 1989: 123-125).

16.  Researchers other than Grice have tried to formulate universals in language
use. Brown and Levinson (1987) consider the concept of face as a universal
human need and the key motivating force for politeness and rapport
management.
 They claim that face consists of two related aspects: negative face representing
the desire for autonomy, and positive face representing the desire for approval.
 However, there have been critics of Brown and Levinson as well as Grice's work.
Linguists such as Matsumoto (1988), Ide (1989) and Mao (1994) refer to the
importance of "social identity" as a concept in Japanese and Chinese society,
which has been omitted in Brown and Levinson's notion of face.
 Similarly, Wierzbicka (1991, pp. 67-68) describes aspects of Grice's and Brown
and Levinson's work as "ethnocentric" with a strong "anglo-centric bias" and
cautions against attempts to formulate language universals at the expense of
culture-specifics.

17. Another analysis of proposed language universals was suggested by Leech
(1983), who formulated six politeness maxims:
1. TACT MAXIM 2. GENEROSITY MAXIM
a. minimize cost to other a. minimize benefit to self
b. maximize benefit to other b. maximize cost to self
3. APPROBATION MAXIM 4. MODESTY MAXIM
a. minimize dispraise of other a. minimize praise of self
b. maximize praise of other b. maximize dispraise of self
5. AGREEMENT MAXIM 6. SYMPATHY MAXIM
a. minimize disagreement between a. minimize antipathy between self and other
self and other b. maximize sympathy between self and other.
b. maximize agreement between
self and other
Leech (1983) proposes that these maxims of politeness work in conjunction with Grice's four
conversational maxims, but suggests that there may be cultural variations in their
importance. For example, in the context of responding to compliments, in Japanese society
it appears that the Modesty Maxim clearly outweighs the Agreement Maxim, while in
English-speaking societies it is customarily more polite to accept a compliment "graciously",
i.e. to find a compromise between violating the Modesty Maxim and violating the
Agreement Maxim (Leech, 1983, p. 137).