Pragmatic factors always influence our selection of sounds, grammatical constructions, and vocabulary from the resources of the language. Some of the constrains are taught to us at a very early age - in British English, for example, the importance of saying “please” and “thank you”, or (in some families) of not referring to an adult female in her presence as “she” . In many languages, pragmatic distinctions of formality, politeness, and intimacy are spread throughout the grammatical, lexical, and phonological systems, ultimately reflecting matters of social class, status, and role. A well-studied example is the pronoun system, which frequently presents distinctions that convey pragmatic force - such as the choice between tu and vous in French.
Languages differ greatly in these respects Politeness expressions, for instance, may vary in frequency and meaning. Many European languages do not use their word for “please” as frequently as English does; and the function and force of thank you may also alter (e.g. following the question 'Would you like some more cake?’, English “thank you” means ‘yes', whereas French “merci” would mean "no"). Conventions of greeting, leave-taking, and dining also differ greatly from language to language. In some countries it is polite to remark to a host that we are enjoying the food; in others it is polite to stay silent. On one occasion, at a dinner in an Arabic community, the present author made the mistake of remarking on the excellence of the food before him. The host immediately apologized, and arranged for what was there to be replaced!
Pragmatics is not at present a coherent field of study. A large number of factors govern our choice of language in social interaction, and it is not yet clear what they all are, how they are best interrelated, and how best to distinguish them from other recognized areas of linguistic enquiry. There are several main areas of overlap.
Semantics. Pragmatics and semantics both take into account such notions as the intentions of the speaker, the effects of an utterance on listeners, the implications that follow from expressing something in a certain way, and the knowledge, beliefs, and presuppositions about the world upon which speakers and listeners rely when they interact.
Metalinguistics is an independent study, which has as its task the examination of all the interrelations and points of contacts, which come into existence between the language and the culture of the people speaking the language. Metalinguistics thus claims to replace traditional semantics.
Stylistics and sociolinguistics. These fields overlap with pragmatics in their study of the social relationships which exist between participants, and of the way extralinguistic setting, activity, and subject-matter can constrain the choice of linguistic features and varieties.
Psycholinguistics. Pragmatics and psycholinguistics both investigate the psychological states and abilities of the participants that will have a major effect upon their performance - such factors as attention, memory, and personality.
Discourse analysis. Both discourse analysis and pragmatics are centrally concerned with the analysis of conversation, and share several of the philosophical and linguistic notions that have been developed to handle this topic (such as the way information is distributed within a sentence, deictic forms, or the notion of conversational 'maxims'.
As a result of these overlapping areas of interest, several conflicting definitions of the scope of pragmatics have arisen. One approach focuses on the factors formally encoded in the structure of a language (honorific forms, tu /vous choice, and so on) Another relates it to a particular view of semantics here, pragmatics is seen as the study of all aspects of meaning other than those involved in the analysis of sentences in terms of forth conditions. Other approaches adopt a much broader perspective. Thе broadest sees pragmatics as the study of the principles and practice underlying all interactive linguistic performance - this including all aspects of language usage, understanding, and appropriateness Textbooks on pragmatics to date, accordingly, present a diversity of subject matter and a range of partially conflicting orientations and methodologies which proponents of the subject have yet to resolve. However, if we take diversity of opinion to be a sign of healthy growth in a subject, it must be said that few other areas of language study have such a promising future
The British philosopher J. L. Austin 911-60) was the first to draw attention to the many functions performed by utterances as part of interpersonal communication. In particular, he pointed out that many utterances do not communicate information, but are equivalent to actions. When someone says 'I apologize ..’,’.’I promise ...'/I will' (at a wedding), or 'I name this ship...', the utterance immediately conveys a new psychological or social reality. An apology takes place when someone apologizes, and not before. A ship is named only when the act of naming is complete. In such cases, to say is to perform. Austin thus called these utterances performatives, seeing them as very different from statements that convey information (constatives). In particular, performatives are not true or false. If A says 'I name this ship ...', В cannot then say 'That's not true'!
In speech act analysis, we study the effect of utterances on the behaviour of speaker and hearer, using a threefold distinction. First, we recognize the bare fact that a communicative act takes place: the locutionary act. Secondly, we look at the act that is performed as a result of the speaker making an utterance - the cases where 'saying = doing', such as betting, promising, welcoming, and warning: these known as illocutionary acts, are the core of any theory of speech acts. Thirdly, we look at the particular effect the speaker's utterance has on the listener, who ma> feel amused, persuaded, warned, etc., as a consequence: the bringing about of such effects is known as a perlocutionary act. It is important to appreciate that the illocutionary force of an utterance and its perlocutionary effect may not coincide. If I warn you against a particular course of action, you may or may not heed my warning.
There are thousands of possible illocutionary acts, and several attempts have been made to classify them into a small number of types. Such classifications are difficult, because verb meanings are often not easy to distinguish, and speakers intentions are not always clear. One influential approach sets up five basic types
• Representatives. The speaker is committed, in varying degrees, to the truth
of a proposition, e. g. affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report.
•Directives. The speaker tries to get the hearer to do something, e. g challenge, command, insist, request.
• Commissives. The speaker is committed, in varying degrees, to a certain
course of action, e.g. guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow
• Expressives, The speaker expresses an attitude about a state of affairs, e.g
apologize, deplore, congratulate, thank, welcome
•Declarations. The speaker alters the external status or condition of an object or situation solely by making the utterance, e.g. / resign, I baptize, You're fired, War is hereby declared.
Speech acts are successful only if they satisfy several criteria, known as 'felicity conditions'. For example, the 'preparatory' conditions have to be right: the person performing the speech act has to have the authority to do so. This is hardly an issue with such verbs as apologize, promise, or thank, but it is important constraint on the use of such verbs as fine, baptize, arrest, and declare war, where only certain people are qualified to use these utterances. Then, the speech act has to be executed in the correct manner: in certain cases there is a procedure to be followed exactly and completely (e.g. baptizing)', in others, certain expectations have to be met (e.g. one can only welcome with a pleasant demeanor). And, as a third example, 'sincerity' conditions have to be present: the speech act must be performed in a sincere manner. Verbs such as apologize, guarantee, and vow are effective only if speakers mean what they say; believe and affirm are valid only if the speakers are not lying.
Ordinary people automatically accept these conditions when communicate, and they depart from them only for very special reasons example, the request Will you shut the door? is appropriate only if
(a) the door is open
(b) the speaker has a reason for asking,
(с) the hearer is in a position to perform the action.
If any of these conditions does not obtain, then a special interpretation of the speech act has to apply. It may be intended as a joke, or as a piece of sarcasm. Alternatively, of course, there may be doubt about the speaker's visual acuity or even sanity!
Some speech acts directly address a listener, but the majority of acts in everyday conversation are indirect. For example, there are a very large number of ways of asking someone to perform an action. The most direct way is to use the imperative construction {Shut the door), but it is easy to sense that this would be inappropriate in many everyday situations - too abrupt or rude, perhaps. Alternatives stress such factors as the hearer's ability or desire to perform the action, or the speaker's reasons for having the action done.
These include the following:
I'd be grateful if you'd shut the door.
Could you shut the door? Would you mind shutting the door?
It'd help to have the door shut.
It's getting cold in here. Shall we keep out the draught?
Now, Jane, what have you forgotten to do?
Brrrl
Any of these could, in the right situation, function as a request for action, despite the fact that none has the clear form of an imperative. But of course, it is always open to the hearer to misunderstand an indirect request - either accidentally or deliberately.
Teacher: Johnny, there's some chalk on the floor.
Johnny: Yes, there is, sir.
Teacher: Well, pick it up, then!
5. Pragmatics and the Dictionary
For many years the overriding concern of English language teachers was that their students should learn to speak and to write English correctly. More recently, serious attention has been drawn not only to the correct, but to the appropriate use of language. This shift of emphasis has taken place under the influence of studies in pragmatics.
Traditionally, dictionaries and grammars are concerned with what words, phrases, and sentences mean. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is the study of how words are used, and what speakers mean. There can he a considerable difference between sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning. For example, a person who says "Is that your car?" may mean something like this: "Your car is blocking my gateway -move it!" - or this: "What a fantastic car - I didn't know you were so rich!"-or this: "What a dreadful car-I wouldn't be seen dead in it!" The very same words can be used to complain, to express admiration, or to express disapproval.
This Dictionary will often help you by giving examples of typical speaker-meanings. Look, for example, at the following Usage Note at the entry for way.
• USAGE.............. By the way.
Although this expression seems to suggest that you are going to add unimportant information, in fact it is often used to introduce a subject that is really very important to you; By the way, / wonder if we could discuss my salary some time?\ By the way, do you think you could lend me £10? —see also incidentally (USAGE)
In general, the context-in which the words are spoken, or the way in which they are said (For example, their intonation) will tell us which of, the possible speaker-meanings is intended. But between speakers of different languages or people of different cultures, serious misunderstandings can occur. For example, it is common for a British teacher to say to a student: "James, would you like to read this passage?" Although the sentence is a question about what James likes, the teacher is not asking about James's wishes, but is telling him to read. A foreign student could easily misunderstand the teacher's intention, and reply; "No, thank you". This would strike the teacher either as being very rude, or as a bad joke. In other words, the reply would be inappropriate.
Misunderstandings are particularly likely to occur with words such as please, whose meaning cannot be explained by the normal method
1 . How formal is the situation (is it a business meeting, a class discussion, or a picnic)?
2 . How well do we know the people we are addressing (are they friends, workmates, or complete strangers)?
3 . If we are talking to strangers, how similar are they to ourselves (e.g. are they people of a similar age, of the same sex, of a similar social background, of the same profession)?
4 . Are we talking to people who are in a superior, equal, or subordinate relationship (e.g.our boss, a colleague, or a waiter)?
5 . How great is the demand we are making on them {e.g. are we asking to borrow a pencil or a car)?
Do we have the right to make a particular demand (e.g. teachers can require a student to write an essay, but not to clean their car)?
People of different cultures will answer these questions differently. Thus it is less of an "imposition" to ask for a cigarette in Eastern Europe (where they are very cheap) than in some parts of Western Europe (where they are expensive). And the point should be made that different English-speaking cultures vary among themselves, just as they differ from non-English-speaking cultures. For example, it can be less of an "imposition" to borrow someone's car in the United States "than it is in Great Britain.
People from different cultures will attach different values to the same factors. For example, a teacher has a higher status in some countries than in others. In some cultures, people are very deferential to their parents: the idea of parents being polite to their young children, as often happens in American or British middle-class homes (e.g. a mother's saying "Peter, would you mind shutting the door, please?") will seem very strange. Finally, the importance attached to factors such as differences of sex, age, and social status varies enormously from culture to culture.
Of dictionary definition; or with words such as surely, for which a definition giving the meaning of the word out of its context can easily be misleading.
For example, please is a conventional marker of politeness added to requests. But it cannot be simply equated with items such as bitte in German or dǒzo in Japanese. Unlike these words, please cannot be used in reply to thanks (e.g. by a hostess giving a visitor a drink). And moreover, please is a minimal marker of politeness, which in some situations can actually be less polite than its absence! For example, "Will you please sit down?" is more likely to be used in addressing a naughty child than in addressing an important visitor to one's office. "Mind your head, please" is inappropriate because "Mind your head" is a warning, not a request: it is the kind of remark which is meant to benefit the hearer, rather than the speaker. These examples show how difficult it is to explain the meanings of some words without giving details of [he context in which it would be appropriate or inappropriate to use them.
Many linguists and language teachers would argue that the most serious cross-cultural misunderstandings occur at the level of speaker-meaning (i.e. pragmatics). If foreign learners make grammatical errors, people may think they do not speak English very well, and make allowances for them. But if learners make pragmatic errors, they risk (as in the case of "Will you please sit down?") appearing impolite, unfriendly, or even aggressive. Conversely, some learners (e.g. some speakers of oriental languages) may make the mistake of appearing over-polite, which in turn can cause embarrassment, or can even give an impression of sarcasm. The study of pragmatics may thus be seen as central to the foreign student's need to communicate, and it is perhaps surprising that up to now no serious attempt has been made to incorporate pragmatic information into a dictionary for foreign learners of English.