Pragmatics I

06fe8494

Understanding meaning is not just a matter of understanding the words and the grammar of a sentence (or utterance). Our use of language has intended effects in actual use.

It is not easy to look at words and sentences and decide what they really mean. However, even if we have a way of deciding the meaning of sentences (or utterances) from the words they contain, we still have a problem. For example, many Japanese people say that they usually do not express themselves directly; their intended meaning is not simply the same as the meaning of the words in their utterances.

Japanese_politeness_5220

Do you agree that Japanese people often express themselves indirectly?

For another example, many British people say that they never really say what they are thinking! This can sometimes lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It is all very complicated. What is happening here?

enhanced-buzz-wide-13765-1372685755-18

Apparently, the British do not usually directly say what they really mean! Is this kind of thing common?

Sentences often do not simply carry the meaning of the words they contain. For example, utterances can sometimes be more like actions than meanings. Consider this sentence/utterance:

1. I hereby name this ship H.M.S. Invincible.

1404497357004_Image_galleryImage_FIFE_SCOTLAND_JULY_04_Que

“I hereby name this ship H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth.” Oh, same name! That’s a coincidence.

In 1, an action seems to be taking place: a ship is given a name. Of course, it is also necessary that the person speaking has the right to perform this action. The person and the situation must be appropriate.

How about the following sentence?

2. There’s a huge spider on your head.

2C44C7E71D31A9CAFEB7CA98BDE81E_h270_w300_m2_bblack_q99_p99_cMDozeqHl

Sentences/utterances act as warnings sometimes.

Sentence/utterance 2 does not simply carry the meaning of the words. It also acts as a warning.

How about the following?

3. Don’t do that!

Dont-be-a-statistic

If someone says “Don’t do that” we probably understand it as an order or a request.

Sentences like 3 seem to actually do things; they are not simply statements. We seem to have a distinction between the meaning of an utterance and its use in real situations. Also, it seems impossible to say whether these utterances are true or false (remember Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic?). Instead, we can only say whether or not they are appropriate in context.

austin1

The British philosopher J.L. Austin developed the theory of Speech Acts.

Speech Act Theory suggests that there are three different speech acts that take place when people speak:

speech-act-theory

Three Speech Acts: the Locutionary Act, the Illocutionary Act, the Perlocutionary Act.

The Locutionary Act is the basic grammatical meaning, familiar from Predicate Logic.

mqdefault

Think of a Predicate Logic formula to express “Don’t do that!” You just want the basic linguistic meaning with no specific situation.

The Locutionary Act is about the sentence before it is used to actually interact with someone. Before it is used in context, “Don’t do that” somehow addresses someone, but we don’t know who. It tells that person not to do something, but we don’t know what. Can you think of a Predicate Logic formula to express this?

s.act.illocutionary

The Illocutionary Act is central to speech act theory. What actually happens when people actually interact while speaking?

The Illocutionary Act is central to Speech Act Theory; it describes what a speaker does by uttering a sentence. You might be commanding, promising, warning, threatening and so on. These acts can be explicit in sentences like the following:

4. I (hereby) command you to stop talking!

ygYVwfLX

If you just say “Shut up,” the act is implicit. The listener has to work out what kind of act is being performed. If you say “I command you to shut up,” the act is explicit. Do you think the command (to the baby) will be successful?

In sentence 4 it is very clear that the illocutionary act is a command. However, illocutionary acts are usually implicit.

The Perlocutionary Act is the effect that the utterance has on a listener.

s.act.perlocut

The Perlocutionary Act is the effect that speakers want to have on a listener. Here it is the listener giving food to the cat.

Consider the following:

5. Please feed the cat while I am gone.

The Illocutionary Act is a command or request but the (intended) Perlocutionary Act is the listener giving food to the cat after the speaker has gone away. Of course, the Perlocutionary Act might be different from the one you intend. How could the intended Perlocutionary Act go wrong in 5?

Felicity Conditions

huge-rubber-duck-13--196-p

Imagine you are in the bath playing with your new rubber duck and you say, “I hereby name this rubber duck “Professor Ducky!” Any problem with that?

All Speech Acts have to satisfy Felicity Conditions; they have to be appropriate to the situation. Imagine you say, “I declare the Olympic Games open” while sitting on the toilet at home. Clearly, neither the person, the place, nor the time are appropriate to the successful performance of the act. Any other problems? Or imagine I say to you, “You spoke Japanese in class so I sentence you to three years in prison!” How about that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s