BY:
GROUP
VII/PBI-IV/VI
FACULTY OF
TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS TRAINING
STATE
ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
NORTH
SUMATERA
MEDAN
2016
PREFACE
All
praises to God the Almighty who has given his mercy and blessing, so the writer
could finish the assignment well.
The
papers titled “Pragmatics: Conversational Implicature and Speech Acts
Theories” is arranged to fulfil the group assignment in Semantics subject.
In
the progress of making this paper, the writer surely realize that this paper is
still out from perfection because of the bounds of the knowledge we had.
Because of the reason we still need any critics or any suggestion from the
readers.
Hopefully,
may this papers will enhance the knowledge of the readers.
Medan, May 2016
The writers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In human communication, much of what is expressed goes beyond
simply conveying information to others. One limitation of semantics is that
dimensions of meaning that are outside the content of the linguistic sign are
also outside the scope of description. Social and affective meaning are not
covered by semantics (which focuses on conventional/conceptual meaning only),
but virtually any real-life communicative situation contains signs which are
used to express something about the speakers and their social relationships. Pragmatics
is concerned with how people use language within a context, in real-life
situations. While semantics is concerned with words, phrases and sentences, the
unit of analysis in pragmatics is an utterance made in a concrete communicative
context.
We use language for many purposes. We tell others what
we know or think we know, we express our feelings, ask questions, make requests,
protest, criticize, insult, apologize, promise, thank, say hello and goodbye.
Language seems to have as many different functions as there are occasions for
using language, but for all the apparent diversity the basic uses of language
are rather limited. In this chapter we recognize six different kinds of
utterances, or speech acts, classified according to their general purpose—though
a single utterance may have overlapping purposes. The description here will
apply to written discourse, and therefore to writer and reader, as much as to
spoken discourse. Nevertheless, we use the term speaker to include writer and the
term addressee to include reader as well as hearer.
In addition, although one person may speak or write on
behalf of several people and may have a plurality of addressees, whether in writing
or speaking, we use singular terms ‘speaker’ and ‘addressee’ throughout.
Beside the types of speech act, here we will explore
how the levels of speech acts affect the process of communication, since we
realize that communication process itself cannot be separated from the levels.
How the level synchronize to convey a message in communication.
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
A. What is Pragmatics?
Pragmatics is another branch of linguistics that is
concerned with meaning. Pragmatics and semantics can be viewed as different parts,
or different aspects, of the same general study. Both are concerned with
people’s ability to use language meaningfully. While semantics is mainly
concerned with a speaker’s competence to use the language system in producing
meaningful utterances and processing (comprehending) utterances produced by
others, the chief focus of pragmatics is a person’s ability to derive meanings
from specific kinds of speech situations—to recognize what the speaker is
referring to, to relate new information to what has gone before, to interpret
what is said from background knowledge about the speaker and the topic of discourse,
and to infer or ‘fill in’ information that the speaker takes for granted and
doesn’t bother to say. Obviously the boundary between semantics and pragmatics
is vague, and at the present time various scholars are apt to disagree about
where the boundary is. Some of the contents of this chapter may be considered
more ‘pragmatics’ than ‘semantics’ by some people.[1]
In human communication, much of what
is expressed goes beyond simply conveying information to others. One limitation
of semantics is that dimensions of meaning that are outside the content of the
linguistic sign are also outside the scope of description. Social and affective
meaning are not covered by semantics (which focuses on conventional/conceptual
meaning only), but virtually any real-life communicative situation contains
signs which are used to express something about the speakers and their social
relationships. Pragmatics is concerned with how people use language
within a context, in real-life situations. While semantics is concerned with
words, phrases and sentences, the unit of analysis in pragmatics is an
utterance made in a concrete communicative context. Pragmatics is
concerned with how factors such as time, place and the social relationship
between speaker and hearer affect the ways in which language is used to perform
different functions.[2]
Semantics is the level of linguistics which
has been most affected by pragmatics, but the relation between semantics (in
the sense conceptual semantics) and pragmatics has remained a matter for
fundamental disagreement. The central issue is: is it valid to separate
pragmatics from semantics at all? Three logically distinct position in this
debate can be distinguished:
·
Pragmatics should be subsumed under semantics
·
Semantics should be subsumed under pragmatics
·
Semantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of study.[3]
B. Implicature
Implicature (as we will call it for short) is a
concept of utterance meaning as opposed to sentence meaning, but is parallel in
many ways to the sense relation (i.e. sentence meaning concept) of entailment. Furthermore,
implicature is related to the method by which speakers work out the indirect
illocutions of utterances.[4]
Implicature is the process through which speakers include meaning beyond the
literal message in an utterance.
Example:
Bob: Are you coming to the party?
Jane: You know, I'm really busy.
Jane's response pragmatically implicates her
intention (that she won't come to the party), which Bob can infer via his past
experience from countless other conversations. Pragmatic implicatures are
characterized by the fact that usually several alternative interpretations are
possible. For example, the dialogue above could also go like this:
Example:
Bob: Are you coming to the party?
Jane: You know, I'm really busy, but
I'll come.
With the remark but I'll come Jane
effectively cancels the implicature that she won't come to the party.[5]
C. Speech Acts Theories
Speech acts are the routine ways of speaking;
utterances that involve both language and social information like promise,
argue, joke, utter, dare, curse, disdain etc. In this theory, it is believed
that every speech or language use has a function to perform in the place and
time of usage. This theory was proposed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969).[6]
v
Kinds Of
Speech Acts
Assertive utterances
In the assertive function speakers and
writers use language to tell what they know or believe; assertive language is
concerned with facts. The purpose is to inform.
10a I voted for Aaronson in the last election.
11a Most plastics are made from soy beans.
12a Cape Ann Lighthouse is a mile from the beach.
This is language concerned with knowledge,
with cognition. It deals with data, what exists or existed, what is happening
or has happened— or not. So assertive utterances are either true or false, and
generally they can be verified or falsified—not necessarily at the time of the utterance
or by those who hear them, but in a general sense they are subject to empirical
investigation.
The above sentences are indirect
assertives. Direct assertive utterances start with I or we and an
assertive verb:
10b I say that I voted for Aaronson in the last
election,
11b We declare that most plastics are made from soy
beans.
12b I can now announce that Cape Ann Lighthouse is ten
miles from the beach.
Reported assertive utterances also include
assertive verbs: Jarvis announced that he is voting for Aaronson…, and
so on. Assertive verbs are, in English, followed by a full clause. They
include allege, announce, agree, report, remind, predict, protest. They
are independent of time or aspect and are neutral with respect to who is
involved in what is reported. They are comments on a state of affairs.
We may question whether these really constitute a class of utterances or
a class of verbs which introduce information.
Focus on information: announce declare disclose explain express
indicate mention proclaim relate report
Focus on truth-value of utterance: affirm allege assert certify concede guarantee
swear attest bet claim contend maintain
Focus on speaker’s commitment or involvement
in what is reported: confide deny profess protest
Focus on manner of communicating: emphasize hint imply intimate stress
Focus on the nature of the message:
dictate [a spoken message, written by another person]
narrate recount [the utterance is a unified series of
events]
preach [the utterance has moral or ethical content]
Focus on aspect:
predict [the utterance is about possible future
events]
recall [the utterance is about previous events]
What makes an assertive utterance appropriate—what
are the felicity conditions? What is reported must be feasible, something that
can be true or could have been true; the speaker commits himself to the truth
of what is reported; and the addressee accepts it as true.
Performative utterances
13 I bid three no-trump.
14 We accept your offer.
15 I declare this meeting adjourned.
Speech acts that bring about the state of
affairs they name are called performative: bids, blessings, firings,
baptisms, arrests, marrying, declaring a mistrial. Performative utterances are
valid if spoken by someone whose right to make them is accepted and in
circumstances which are accepted as appropriate. The verbs include bet,
declare, baptize, name, nominate, pronounce.
Naturally there are strong limitations on
what can be a performative utterance. First, the subject of the sentence must
be I or we; “He declares this meeting adjourned” is not a
performative utterance, as the term is used here. However, we need to
distinguish between explicit and implicit performatives. “I declare this
meeting adjourned” is an explicit performative; “This meeting is adjourned,” if
spoken by the same person, is an implicit one. Second, the verb must be in the
present tense. And, perhaps most important, the speaker must be recognized as
having the authority to make the statement and the circumstances must be
appropriate. “I pronounce you man and wife” and “I declare this a mistrial” are
valid only if spoken by an appropriate person in socially determined
situations. Thus many performatives take place in formal settings and are
concerned with official acts.
A performative is neither true nor false
but its purpose is to make a part of the world conform to what is said. Blessings
and curses are performatives utterances to the degree that people accept them
as having effect. So long as one believes that a particular individual, or
anyone at all, can bring down divine favor on another by uttering some formula
such as “(May) God bless you,” that utterance is a valid performative. And
similarly invoking pain or punishment on another person through the performance
of a ritual utterance constitutes a curse for those who accept it as
performative.
Repeating somewhat, felicity conditions for
a performative utterance are the authority of the speaker to make the
utterance, the appropriateness of time, place and other circumstances, and the
acceptance by the addressee (and others) of this authority and appropriateness.
Verdictive utterances
16 I accuse you of putting on airs.
17 I congratulate you for performing so well.
18 The Mayor blamed the media for not accurately
reporting his accomplishments.
Sentences 16 and 17 are verdictive
utterances. Sentence 18 is the report of a verdictive utterance. Verdictives
are speech acts in which the speaker makes an assessment or judgement about the
acts of another, usually the addressee. These include ranking, assessing, appraising,
condoning. Verdictive verbs include accuse, charge, excuse, thank in
the explicit frame I ____ you of/for _____-ing.
Since these utterances present the
speaker’s assessment of the addressee’s previous action(s) or of what has
befallen the addressee, they are retrospective.
The action is viewed positively: commend…for
compliment…on congratulate… for honor… for praise…for
The action is beneficial to the speaker:
thank…for grateful to…for
The action is viewed negatively:
accuse…of charge…with
blame…for [presupposes truth of performance]
admonish…for “
criticize…for “
scold…for “
19 The teacher excused/pardoned Henry for
missing the meeting. The verbs excuse and pardon express speech
acts that do more than comment on an alleged previous action, but they
presuppose the truth of that action, like blame, admonish, criticize and
scold.
Felicity conditions for verdictive utterances
are: the possibility of the act, the ability of the addressee to perform it,
the sincerity of the speaker in making the utterance, and the addressee’s
belief that the speaker is sincere.
Verdictive utterances include accusation,
blaming, congratulation, praise and condolence. In English it is possible to
begin a verdictive utterance with the words “I accuse...” or “I blame …” or “I congratulate…”
It is not common to say “I praise you …,” and as for utterances of condolence,
while dictionaries list a verb condole, it is not in colloquial use. How
do we express praise and condolence, and when are these appropriate?[7]
Expressive utterances
20 I acknowledge that I didn’t do what I should have
done.
21 We admit that we were mistaken.
22 I apologize for having disturbed you.
Whereas a verdictive utterance is about
what the addressee has previously done, an expressive utterance springs from
the previous actions—or failure to act—of the speaker, or perhaps the present
result of those actions or failures.
Expressive utterances are thus
retrospective and speaker-involved. The most common expressive verbs (in this
sense of ‘expressive’) are: acknowledge, admit, confess, deny, apologize.
Another kind of expressive utterance is
boasting, but English usage does not have utterances that begin with “I boast
that…” How does one recognize that a speaker is boasting?
Directive utterances
Directive utterances are those in which the
speaker tries to get the addressee to perform some act or refrain from
performing an act.
Thus a directive utterance has the pronoun you
as actor, whether that word is actually present in the utterance or not:
23 (You) wait here.
24 Turn to page 164.
25 Don’t (any of you) miss this opportunity to save.
A directive utterance is prospective; one
cannot tell other people to do something in the past. Like other kinds of
utterances, a directive utterance presupposes certain conditions in the
addressee and in the context of situation. The utterance “Lift this 500-pound
weight” is not felicitous if spoken to a person incapable of lifting 500
pounds, and “Close the door” is vapid if the only door in the vicinity is
already closed. When the utterance can be carried out, the utterance is
felicitous, and if not, it is infelicitous.
Three kinds of directive utterances can be
recognized: commands, requests and suggestions. A command is effective
only if the speaker has some degree of control over the actions of the
addressee.
26a I (hereby) order you to appear in court next
Monday at 10 a.m.
26b You must appear in court next Monday at 10 a.m.
27a I’m telling you not to waste your time on that.
27b Don’t waste your time on that.
Commands can be produced with various
degrees of explicitness. Sentences 26a and 27a are more explicit than 26b and
27b but the b utterances are less formal, therefore more usual. They have the
form You must…or they are imperative sentences. 28 Passengers are
required to keep seat belts fastened when the sign is lit. 29 Smoking is not
permitted in the lavatories. These utterances are commands, and fairly explicit
ones, not because of syntax but because they contain such predicates as require
and permit. 30 The boss demands that these letters (should) go out
today. This sentence, even if it becomes an utterance, is not a command but the
report of a command. The general meaning of a command, then, is: Speaker, in
authority, expresses a wish that Addressee should <not> act as Speaker
wants Addressee <not> to act. (The angle brackets mean, here, that both
occurrences of not are included in the definition or both are excluded.)
Predicates that can be used in explicit commands (and therefore in reports of
commands) are: (positive) charge, command, direct, order, tell, demand (“I
charge/ command/direct/order/tell you to keep silence; I demand that you
(should) keep silence.”) (negative) forbid.
A request is an expression of what
the speaker wants the addressee to do or refrain from doing. A request does not
assume the speaker’s control over the person addressed. Illustrations appear in
sentences 28–30 (the last a reported request).
31 I appeal to you to help as much as you can.
32 We beg you to stay out of the way.
33 The receptionist asked the people in the waiting
room not to smoke there.
General meaning:
Speaker, not in authority, expresses wish
that Addressee <not> act as Speaker wants Addressee <not> to act.
Request predicates: appeal-to ask beg
beseech entreat implore petition plead-with request [ask is unmarked; appeal
suggests that person2 is in authority; petition suggests a formal
request, very likely in writing; beseech is nearly archaic; request is
followed by the hypothetical clause and therefore rather formal; the others are
stronger than ask.]
Suggestions are the utterances we make to other persons
to give our opinions as to what they should or should not do. 34 I advise you
to be prompt; I warn you not to be late. 35 We suggest you (should) pay more attention
to what you’re doing.
General meaning: Speaker expresses an
opinion about Addressee’s choice of performance. Addressee is the suggestee,
not necessarily the addressee. Presupposition: The suggestee has a choice of
performances.
Positive expressions: advise counsel recommend
Negative expressions: caution warn Whether
an utterance is or is not a directive, and if so what kind of directive it is,
depends in part on syntactic form, in part on choice of predicates (must,
demand, suggest...), and very much on the situation, the participants, and
their relative status. Felicity conditions include the feasibility of the act
and the ability of the addressee. For a command to be felicitous the addressee
must accept the speaker’s authority; for a request, the speaker’s wishes, and
for a suggestion, the speaker’s judgement.
Commissive utterances
Speech acts that commit a speaker to a
course of action are called commissive utterances. These include
promises, pledges, threats and vows.
Commissive verbs are illustrated by agree,
ask, offer, refuse, swear, all with following infinitives. They are
prospective and concerned with the speaker’s commitment to future action.
36 I promise to be on time.
37 We volunteer to put up the decorations for the
dance.
A commissive predicate is one that can be
used to commit oneself (or refuse to commit oneself) to some future action. The
subject of the sentence is therefore most likely to be I or we, as
in 36 and 37. Further, the verb must be in the present tense and there is some
addressee, whether the utterance shows it or not, since the speaker must be making
a commitment to somebody. In contrast, 38 and 39 below, with other kinds of
subjects or a different tense, are not commitments but reports of commitments.
38 Ernest promised us to be on time.
39 We volunteered to put up the decorations for the
dance.
In a commissive utterance the subject is I
or we, as indicated above. Felicity conditions: the speaker is
capable of the act and intends to perform it; the addressee has faith in the
speaker’s ability and intention.
Commissive predicates can be classified
this way:
Response to directive
positive response: agree consent
[agree is more common]
negative response: refuse decline
[refuse is stronger, decline more
formal, more polite]
Self-motivated (not response to directive)
benefactive: offer volunteer
[volunteer suggests a more formal commitment]
malefactive: threaten
Focus on speech act pledge promise swear [promise
is unmarked; a pledge is a solemn promise made in public; to swear is to
take a semi-religious oath][8]
v
Levels Of Speech Acts
There may be some confusion regarding types and levels
of speech acts. We have already discussed types of speech acts –
representative, declarative, directive, expressive and commissive. For levels
of speech acts, emphasis is on the different stages of interaction between the
speaker and the listener through the use of speech acts. Three distinct levels
are usually observed – locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.
Locutionary Acts – These are observed as the processes of producing grammatical and meaningful
utterances which can be recognised by the hearer.
Illocutionary Acts – Illocutionary acts are the force behind the utterances. Indeed, the
speaker performs these acts to achieve the purpose of communication as a
statement, a question, a command, an invitation, a threat, a request, an apology
etc. It is possible, for instance, to use a sentence that has the structure of
a statement for the purpose of a warning. For example:
(i)
You will lose
all your deposits – (from a financial adviser to a client)
(ii)
This sentence
may be a warning or a piece of advice.
Therefore, it is possible to use identical utterance
types for different tokens based on the intentions of the speaker and the
context.
Perculationary Acts – These are the effects of the speaker’s
utterance on the behaviour of the hearer. They are the acts performed by the
hearer as a result of the effect of the speaker’s utterances. It is assumed,
for instance, that the hearer will respond to a question of the speaker in a
specific way, or behave in accordance with the demands of the context. It should
be noted that the illocutionary force is the intended effect of an utterance on
the hearer from the point of view of the speaker. The perlocutionary effect is
the actual effect of the speaker’s utterance on the action, behaviour, attitude
or belief of the hearer. Maximum communication is achieved when there is
illocutionary uptake. This situation arises when the listener
understands the intended effect of the speaker. This demand is at the core of semantics
since meaning must be shared.[9]
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
Pragmatics is concerned with how people use language within a
context, in real-life situations. While semantics is concerned with words,
phrases and sentences, the unit of analysis in pragmatics is an utterance made
in a concrete communicative context.
Implicature is the process through which speakers include meaning
beyond the literal message in an utterance.
Speech acts are the routine ways of
speaking; utterances that involve both language and social information like
promise, argue, joke, utter, dare, curse, disdain etc. There are six types of
speech act, namely: assertive utterances, performative utterances, verdictive
utterances, expressive utterances, directive utterances, and commisive
utterances.
In every speech act we can distinguish three
things. What is
said, the utterance, can be called the locution. What the speaker intends to communicate to
the addressee is the illocution. The message that the addressee
gets, his interpretation of what the speaker says, is the
perlocution. If communication is successful, the illocution and the
perlocution are alike or nearly alike.
REFERENCES
Anthony C. Oha, Introduction to Sociolinguistics,(Lagos:
National Open University of Nigeria, 2010.
Charles Ogbulogo, Introduction to Semantics, Lagos:
National Open University of Nigeria, 2011.
Charles W. Kreidler, Introducing English Semantics,
London: Taylor and Francis e-Library, 1998.
Cornelius Puschmann, Companion to English Linguistics, Winter,
2009.
Geoffrey Leech, Semantics: The Study of Meaning, Midlesex:
Penguin Books, 1988.
James R. Huford, Brendan Heasley, and Micheal B.
Smith, Semantics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[1] Charles W.
Kreidler, Introducing English Semantics, (London: Taylor and Francis
e-Library, 1998), p. 18-19
[2] Cornelius Puschmann, Companion to English Linguistics,
(Winter, 2009), p. 37.
[3] Geoffrey Leech, Semantics: The Study of Meaning, ( Midlesex:
Penguin Books, 1981), p. 337.
[4] James R.
Huford, Brendan Heasley, and Micheal B. Smith, Semantics, (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 314.
[5] Cornelius Puschmann, Op.Cit, p. 37-38
[6] Anthony C.
Oha, Introduction to Sociolinguistics, (Lagos: National Open University
of Nigeria, 2010), p. 64.
[9] Charles
Ogbulogo, Introduction to Semantics, (Lagos: National Open University of
Nigeria, 2011), p. 71-72.
No comments:
Post a Comment