Both semantics and pragmatics study meaning.
• Semantics is the study of the literal meaning of
linguistic expressions:
There is no salt on the table, dear.
• Pragmatics deals with speaker’s meaning.
There is not salt on the table, dear  Pass me
the salt, please.
It is very often the case that natural language
speakers communicate more than that which is
explicitly stated.
When a diplomat says yes, he means ‘perhaps’;
When he says perhaps, he means ‘no’;
When he says no, he is not a diplomat.
When a lady says no, she means ‘perhaps’;
When she says perhaps, she means ‘yes’;
When she says yes, she is not a lady.
Voltaire (Quoted, in Spanish, in Escandell
1993.)
Today we will focus on the following
subject areas which are within the interest
of pragmatics:
I.
The role of context in the process of
interpretation
II. Presupposition
III. Speech acts
IV. Conversational maxims and
implicatures
• I. The role of context in the process of
interpretation
• Pragmatics is the study of how contexts affects
the meaning of linguistic expressions.
• Context is an important factor when we want to
study language as a system of communication.
Communication is understood as a transfer of
information and it implies speaker and hearer.
SPEAKER
HEARER
MEANING
INTERPRET
SPEAK
HEAR
FORM + CONTEXT
Conclusion:
Interpretation (semantics + pragmatics)
Semantics
to fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we
must calculate how its meaning is built up from the
meaning of its smaller elements in a compositional
fashion.
Pragmatics
However, it is also important to understand the role
of context in the process of interpetation.
Types of contexts:
Situational context – where and when the
conversation takes place
Deictic pronouns are interpreted relative to
situational context.
Diectics are those linguistic expressions whose
interpretation is dependent on the context in which
they appear. They refer to the world outside the
linguistic context.
I am glad he is gone.
John is there.
The interpretation of definite descriptions is
dependent on situational context.
I am glad the bastard is gone.
Epistemic context - background knowledge shared by
the speakers and hearers
It must be hot outside.
If I uttered this sentence now, would you find it
sensible? Probably not, because such sentences can be
uttered only when we have some reasonable evidence.
Can this sentence be uttered by someone who is
standing in front of an open window and who is
exposed to high temperature and sun-rays?
No. This sentence must be based on some indirect
evidence.
It must be hot outside.
Scenario: Both a speaker and a hearer are in an
office which is air-conditioned. They can see that
people coming in wear T-shirts, sun-glasses and
these people are sweating. A hearer bases his
statement on the evidence-based reasoning.
Linguistic context - utterances previous to the
utterance under consideration (all sentences which have
been uttered earlier)
The interpretation of anaphoric pronouns is
dependent on the information provided in the sentences
uttered earlier in discourse.
Anaphoric expressions – in order to interpret them
we have to refer to the entity that is mentioned earlier in
the linguistic context. That entity relative to which an
anaphora is interpreted is called an antecedent.
For instance, when we say She loves him out
of context, we are not able to determine
what this sentence means, because the
meaning of pronouns she and him is
dependent on linguistic context.
Mary John
I met Mary and John yesterday. I think she
loves him.
John entered the room. He took off his coat.
antecedent NP
anaphoric pronoun
Social context: the social relationship between the
speakers and hearers
When a lady says no, she means ‘perhaps’;
When she says perhaps, she means ‘yes’;
When she says yes, she is not a lady.
Voltaire (Quoted, in Spanish, in Escandell 1993.)
II. Presupposition – is a pragmatic phenomenon
which exemplifies how the interpretation of
linguistic expressions interacts with context.
A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the
world, the preexisting knowledge which has to be
true before something is uttered. Simply speaking,
presupposition is some body of knowledge which is
assumed before the utterance is made.
Examples:
Do you want to do it again?
Presupposition: that you have done it already, at least once.
John used to smoke.
Presupposition: John no longer smokes.
Why did you stop visiting John?
Presupposition: You visited John in the past regularly.
I regret telling John the truth.
Presupposition: I told John the truth.
Such expressions as: too, again, regret trigger
presupposition.
III. Speech acts
John Austin: "By saying something, we do
something”, as when a minister joins two people in
marriage saying, "I now pronounce you husband
and wife." People perform some kind of acts
simply by using language; these are called speech
acts.
We use language to do a wide range of activities. We
use it to:
Convey information
Request information
Give orders
Make requests
Make threats
Give warnings
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
I lost my wallet.
Who ate my sandwich?
Close the door!!!
Please scratch my back.
Say it again and I will kill you.
Beware of the dog!!!
Importantly, we use specific types of syntactic
structures to conduct different kinds of spech
acts:
• Declarative structures are used to convey
information. (twierdzące)
• Interrogative structures are used to elicit
information or to make a request. (pytające)
• Imperative structures are used to give orders, to
make requests, give warnings. (rozkazujące)
Performative Verbs
The fact that speaking is a legitimate kind of
action is made clear by the linguistic use of
perfermative verbs. Performative verbs name the
speech act explicitly:
Convey information
Request information
Give orders
Make requests
Make threats
(1) I assert that lost my wallet.
(2) I ask who ate my sandwich?
(3) I order you to close the door!!!
(4)
I request that you scratch my
back.
(5) I threaten you that if you do it
again, I will kill you.
There are some requirements which need to be
satisfied for identifying whether a given statement is
a performative act.
• 1) The subject of the sentence is the same as the
doer of the speech act (the speaker). The subject
must be I.
• 2) The statement must be in present tense.
• 3) Presence of performative verbs.
• 4) The statement cannot be negated and it cannot be
a question.
There is a test which checks whether a given
statement is a performative utterance. Try to insert
‘hereby’ – ‘niniejszym’.
I hereby assert/advise/declare/warn/invite you…
Niniejszym oświadczam/radzę/deklaruję/ostrzegam/
zapraszam
* I hereby convince you/inspire you/provoke you…
*Niniejszym przekonuję cię/inspiruję cię/prowokuję
cię…
There are three types of acts of speaking:
The most general act is called LOCUTION
LOCUTION is any act of saying something meaningful.
The act in which a speaker specifies or has some purpose of
his utterance e.g. his purpose is to threaten sb, to warn
someone, persuade sb, nominate sb is called ILLOCUTION.
The final effect an act of speaking exerts on a speaker is
called PERLOCUTION. For instance, when someone is
annoyed, upset, thrilled to bits after hearing some sentence,
we refer to this final effect as perlocution.
Speech acts can be further subdivided into direct and
indirect.
Direct speech acts are perfomed in a direct literal
manner.
Open the window!!! – the
speaker makes an order directly
Indirect speech acts are implied. The speaker’s
intention is not stated directly.
Isnt’t it too hot in here? (means Open the window)
Examples of direct and indirect speech acts which
have more less the same illocutionary effect
DIRECT SPEECH ACT
Turn down the radio, please.
Get off my foot!!!
INDIRECT SPEECH ACT
The radio is too loud.
Could you get off my foot!!!
Illocutionary effect: order
Henry VIII had six wives.
Close the window, please.
Do you know that Henry VIII
had six wives?
Isn’t it too cold in here?
Take the garbage out!!!
The garbage isn't out yet.
IV. Conversational maxims and implicatures
Is the following example of communication
possible?
Kim: How are you today?
Sandy: Oh, Harrisburg is the capital of
Pennsylvania.
Gail: Really? I thought the weather would be
warmer.
Mickey: Well, in my opinion, the soup could have
been more salty.
This example of communication seems
impossible, because the process of
communication between a speaker and a
hearer is driven by some principles of
cooperation. These principles have been
formulated by the philosopher Paul Grice:
Grice argued that there are a number of
conversational rules, or maxims, that
regulate conversation. These are:
•
•
•
•
Maxims of Quality
Maxim of Relevance
Maxim of Quantity
Maxim of Manner
A. Maxims of Quality:
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
(informally – do not lie)
In a scenario in which your sister tells you that Kate told
her that John had a car accident, would you inform
someone about it using the statement in A or B?
A: John had a car accident.
B: I heard that John had a car accident.
By virtue of the maxim of Quality, you would prefer to use
B, because you would not have enough evidence to assert A.
B. Maxim of Relevance:
1. Be relevant.
Supposing your friend asked you: Do I look good?
Would you respond:
A. Yes, you look good or Not really.
B. The sky is blue.
You would probably choose A to abide by the maxim
of Relevance.
The next pair of maxims are the Maxims of Quantity.
C. Maxims of Quantity:
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required.
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is
required.
In a scenario in which you know that John has exactly 23
apples, would you say:
A: John has exactly 23 apples.
B: John has about 23 apples.
You would say A to make your contribution as informative
as possible.
D.
1.
3.
4.
Maxims of Manner:
Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief.
Be orderly.
Grice also observed that speakers sometimes
choose to violate Maxims of Conversation to
indirectly convey some hidden meanings. Those
hidden meanings which arise from the violation
of Gricean maxims are called IMPLICATURES:
Examples of implicatures:
Grice gave an example of a professor who was asked to
write a letter of recommendation for a recent Ph.D. who
was applying for a teaching position. Suppose that the
letter went like this:
Dear Colleague:
Mr. John J. Jones has asked me to write a letter on his
behalf. Let me say that Mr. Jones is unfailingly polite, is
neatly dressed at all times, and is always on time for his
classes.
Sincerely yours,
Harry H. Homer
Do you think Mr. Jones would get the job? This is
an example of flouting a maxim - the Maxim of
Quantity. Professor Homer was expected to be as
informative as possible about the candidate’s
qualifications as a teacher. The receiver of this
letter will assume that Professor Homer violated
the Maxim of Quantity intentionally to convey a
hidden message that the candidate is not suitable
for the position of a teacher. Conclusion: the
violation of the Maxim of Quantity resulted in the
IMPLICATURE that the student was not a good
candidate for the announced position.
Another example of IMPLICATURE is as follows:
A: Would you like to go to the cinema with me?
B: The weather is wonderful today, isn’t it?
The speaker B violates the Maxim of Relevance
and the implicature arises: No, I do not want to
go with you to the cinema.
THANK YOU!!!