PRAGMATICS
Cristina Lorente Santamarina
Jose Espinosa López
Marta García de Paz
Irene Gonzalez Morales
OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION







Definition
Aims & Purposes
2. THEORIES
2.1. Speech acts theory
2.2. Relevance theory
2.3. Cooperation theory
2.4. Argumentation theory
OUTLINE

3. PRAGMATIC ANALISYS
3.1. Related to the situation
3.2. Related to the context
3.3. Related to the people
3.4. Related to the information

4. SUMMARY




DEFINITION

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics

It studies how the use of language is based
on the relationship established between
utterance, context and interlocutors.
(Baena, E. 2002)
OBJECTIVES & PURPOSES

Why have we chosen PRAGMATICS?
Common un everyday life
 Wide subject to be studied
 Comes out of language study

OBJECTIVES & PURPOSES

EXAMPLES
OBJECTIVES & PURPOSES

EXAMPLES
2. THEORIES

SPEECH ACTS THEORY
Words do not have meaning by themselves.
(Searle, J.R. ; Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. 1980)
2. THEORIES
 Speech
acts can be analysed by
three levels
-
-
Locutionary act
Perlocutionary act
Ilocutionary act
2. THEORIES

LOCUTIONARY ACT
The performance of an utterance
Semantic and sintactic aspects
2. THEORIES

EXAMPLE
‘CLOSE THE WINDOW’
2. THEORIES

ILLOCUTIONARY ACT
Real intended meaning
EXAMPLE:
The person who is talking is cold
2. THEORIES
PERLOCUTIONARY ACT
It’s actual effect

EXAMPLE:
The action of closing the window
2. THEORIES
2. THEORIES

RELEVANCE THEORY
The meaning of a concept is the subtotal of
its impication for possible observations
and actions.
2. THEORIES

COOPERATION THEORY
The way in which people try to make
conversations work.
2. THEORIES
 There
are four subprinciples within
this theory called maxims
Quantity. (quantity of information)
 Quality (be truthful)
 Relevance/Relation (be relevance)
 Manner (be clear)

2. THEORIES

ARGUMENTATION THEORY
Interdisciplinary study of how humans do
reach conclusions through logical
reasoning
3. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

3.1 RELATED TO THE SITUATION
We adapt our conversation to different situations,
depending on the place and the time where the
speech occurs.
3. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS
3.2 RELATED TO THE PEOPLE
Depending on who you are with and the relation
between those people, the conversation will have
different meaning.

Example: Ironic utterances with friends and with
unknown people.
3. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS
3.3 RELATED TO THE CONTEXT
Within the people, there are clues in the context
that allow us to notice that irony (to say the
opposite of what it actually means)

Example: Facial expressions.
3. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

3.4 RELATED TO THE INFORMATION
Presuppositions about the world-knowledge of
hearers; i.e meanings that can be deducted by
listeners because they already know about that
information.
4. SUMMARY
Pragmatics as an important factor when it comes
to understanding the language in a deeply way as
words do not have meaning by themselves.
REFERENCES
Searle, J.R. ; Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (1980). Speech act theory and
Pragmatics. Dordnecht; Holland.
Baena, E. ; Lacorte, M. (2002). Para entender la Pragmática. Ed.
Gredos.
Yulen, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pietarin/publications/Relevance%20theor
y-Pietarinen.pdf