
- •Introduction
- •Module 1. Classical Pragmatics
- •1. Basic Assumptions of Linguopragmatics
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition
- •Structural Ambiguity
- •Origins
- •Areas of Interest
- •Referential Uses of Language
- •Related Fields
- •Criticisms of Pragmatics
- •References
- •2. Speech Act
- •Issues Discussed:
- •J. L. Austin’s Taxonomy of Speech Acts
- •Speech Act and Language Development
- •Earlier Treatments of Speech Acts
- •Historical Critics of Speech Act Theory
- •References
- •3. Illocutionary Act
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition
- •Further examples:
- •Approaches to Defining "Illocutionary Act"
- •J. R. Searle’s Taxonomy of Illocutionary Speech Acts
- •Illocutionary Force
- •Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices
- •Illocutionary Negations
- •References
- •4. Indirect Speech Acts
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition
- •J. R. Searle's Theory of "Indirect Speech Acts"
- •Analysis Using Searle's Theory
- •References
- •5. Felicity Conditions
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition
- •Preparatory Conditions
- •Conditions for Execution
- •Sincerity Conditions
- •Felicity Conditions for Declarations
- •Felicity Conditions for Requests
- •Felicity Conditions for Warnings
- •References
- •6. K. Bach, r. Harnish and The Unified Theory
- •Issues Discussed:
- •K. Bach and r. Harnish on the Locutionary Acts
- •K. Bach and r. Harnish on the j. R. Searle’s Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts
- •Communicative Acts versus Conventional Acts
- •The Speech Act Schema
- •References
- •Module 2. Contemporary Pragmatics
- •7. Contemporary Pragmatic Theory and Two Models of Linguistic Communication
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Contemporary Pragmatic Theory
- •Two Models of Linguistic Communication
- •References
- •8. D. Sperber, d. Wilson and Relevance Theory
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Basic Assumptions of Relevance Theory
- •The Principles of Relevance
- •Implicated Premises and Conclusions
- •References
- •9. Levinson's Theory of Utterance-Type-Meaning
- •References
- •10. Literalists, Minimalists, Contextualists and Others
- •References
- •Module 1. Classical Pragmatics Seminar 1. Referential Uses of Language
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition of Sign
- •Dyadic Signs
- •Triadic Signs
- •Molino and Nattiez's diagram:
- •Modern Theories of Sign
- •Indexicality
- •Pragmatics and Indexicality
- •Ch. S. Peirce's Trichotomy of Signs
- •Referential Indexicality
- •Indexical Presupposition and Performativity
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Seminar 2. Non-Referential Uses of Language
- •Issues Discussed:
- •First, Second, and Higher Orders of
- •Sex/Gender Indices
- •Affect Indices
- •Deference Indices
- •T/V Deference Entitlement
- •Affinal Taboo Index
- •Hypercorrection as a Social Class Index
- •Multiple Indices in Social Identity Indexicality
- •Oinoglossia (‘Wine Talk’)
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Seminar 3. Performative Utterance
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Origin of the Term
- •J. L. Austin's Definition
- •Categories of Performatives
- •The “Hereby” Test
- •Distinguishing Performatives from Other Utterances
- •Are Performatives Truth-Evaluable?
- •E. Sedgwick's Account of Performatives
- •Some Examples (Mainly of Explicit Performative Utterances)
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Seminar 4. H. P. Grice and Theory of Conversation
- •Issues Discussed:
- •H. P. Grice’s Definition of Conversational Implicature
- •H. P. Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Conversational Maxims
- •Conversational Implicature and Its Characteristics
- •Conversational Implicature versus Conventional Implicature
- •Particularized and Generalized Conversational Implicatures
- •Other Types of Conversational Implicature
- •Implicature versus Entailment
- •H. P. Grice’s Theory of Meaning and Communicative Intentions
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Module 2. Contemporary Pragmatics Seminar 5. Near-Side Classical Pragmatics
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Indexicality
- •D. Kaplan on Indexicals and Demonstratives
- •Pragmatic Puzzles of Referentialism
- •R. Stalnaker on Context and Content
- •Presupposition, Common Ground and Context
- •Propositional Concepts
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Seminar 6. Politeness Theory
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Politeness and Its Types
- •Techniques to Show Politeness
- •Linguistic Devices to Show Politeness
- •P. Brown and s. Levinson’s Politeness Theory
- •Positive and Negative Face
- •Face-Threatening Acts
- •Negative Face Threatening Acts
- •Positive Face Threatening Acts
- •Politeness Strategies
- •Bald On-record
- •Positive Politeness
- •Negative Politeness
- •Choice of Strategy
- •Payoffs Associated with each Strategy
- •Sociological Variables
- •Social distance between parties (symmetric relation).
- •The absolute ranking of the threat of the fta.
- •Criticism of the Politeness Theory
- •G. Leech’s Politeness Maxims
- •The Tact Maxim
- •The Generosity Maxim
- •The Approbation Maxim
- •The Modesty Maxim
- •The Agreement Maxim
- •The Sympathy Maxim
- •References
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Seminar 7. Deixis
- •Issues Discussed:
- •Definition
- •Types of Deixis Traditional Categories
- •Other Categories
- •Discourse
- •Anaphoric Reference
- •Deictic Center
- •Usages of Deixis
- •Deixis and Indexicality
- •Tasks and Questions
- •Questions for Module Control 1
- •Questions for Module Control 2
- •References
- •Some Definitions of Pragmatics (versus Semantics)
- •Glossary
Sociological Variables
Take into consideration three sociological factors when deciding whether and how to use the various strategies in real life situations.
Depending on three factors [2, 15]:
Social distance between parties (symmetric relation).
Distinguish kin or friend from a stranger with whom you may be of the same social status, but who is still separated by social distance. Different FTAs are used depending on the social distance between interlocutors.
Example: We may use less elaborate positive strategies or we may choose to use positive rather than negative politeness when speaking with family.
Power relations between parties (asymmetric relation).
We are inclined to speak to our social equals differently than those whose status is higher or lower than our own in a given situation.
Example: If a professor is working in her office and people are being very loud and disruptive in the next room, she will go over there and tell them to be quiet but the way she does it will differ depending on who it is.
If they are students she will use the bald on-record strategy to make sure there is no confusion in what she is asking: “Stop talking so loud!”
If they are colleagues she will claim common ground with them using the positive politeness strategy or frame an indirect request for them to stop talking: “I’m working on a lecture and it’s really hard to concentrate with all this noise.”
If they are really high status directors of the department she may end up saying nothing at all or apologize for interrupting them.
The absolute ranking of the threat of the fta.
Some impositions are greater than others. Highly imposing acts like requests demand more redress to mitigate their increased threat level.
Criticism of the Politeness Theory
Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness has been criticized as not being universally valid, by linguists working with East-Asian languages, including Japanese. Matsumoto and Ide claim that Brown and Levinson assume the speaker's volitional use of language, which allows the speaker's creative use of face-maintaining strategies toward the addressee [11, 16]. In East Asian cultures like Japan, politeness is achieved not so much on the basis of volition as on discernment (wakimae, finding one's place), or prescribed social norms. Wakimae is oriented towards the need for acknowledgment of the positions or roles of all the participants as well as adherence to formality norms appropriate to the particular situation.
Japanese is perhaps the most widely known example of a language that encodes politeness at its very core. Japanese has two main levels of politeness, one for intimate acquaintances, family and friends, and one for other groups, and verb morphology reflects these levels. Besides that, some verbs have special hyper-polite suppletive forms. This happens also with some nouns and interrogative pronouns. Japanese also employs different personal pronouns for each person according to gender, age, rank, degree of acquaintance, and other cultural factors.