ALL.pptx

Lecture (1): Introduction to Alert! Almost each session in course is divided into three sections: PART I: THEORY NOTES PART II: PROVIDING TOOLS FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PART III: ANALYSING TEXTS Language Language Language Language Language Language Language Pragmatics exceeds the basic level of linguistic units (phonemes, morphemes, sentence…etc.) by including context in its analysis. Phonetics Phonology Morphology Semantics Syntax Pragmatics It is language beyond the sentence. For example: story, conversation, lecture, chat, etc. What is context? Context is a dynamic, not a static concept. Continually changing surroundings that enable the participants to interact. Kinds of context (Remember Pragmatics?) Linguistic context or cotext. e.g., the homonym bank. Physical context. e.g., the word BANK on the wall of a building in a What is Discourse Analysis? If Discourse  is language beyond the sentence. Then, Discourse analysis  The study of language in text and conversation. Brief history of Discourse Analysis The term 'Discourse Analysis' was first used by Zellig Harris, an American linguist, in 1952. According to him, discourse analysis is an art of looking beyond the boundaries (limits) of language to bring out the hidden motivation behind the texts. Hence, Discourse Analysis is rightly called meaning-making Communication in Discourse Analysis Communication Means of [Interpretation expression clues] Nonverbal World of S/H [Interpretation basis] Para linguisti c Verbal [Text] spoken written Ideas and feelings Cultural or world knowledge Discourse can be: Written or Spoken Formal or Informal Differences between written and spoken discourse Written Discourse Keeps record. Cannot adjust as readers are not known. Repetition is not possible. Spoken Discourse Keeps no record. Can adjust according to listener’s needs. Repetition is possible. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Register can be adjusted according to listeners. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Register can be adjusted according to listeners. Extra linguistic signals such as gestures and facial expressions etc. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Register can be adjusted according to listeners. Extra linguistic signals such as gestures and facial expressions etc. Employs non-sense words and slangs and also contractions Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Register can be adjusted according to listeners. Extra linguistic signals such as gestures and facial expressions etc. Employs non-sense words and slangs and also contractions Rhythm and intonation. Feature s of Spoken Discour se Spontaneous. Can be repeated. Register can be adjusted according to listeners. Extra linguistic signals such as gestures and facial expressions etc. Employs non-sense words and slangs and also contractions Rhythm and intonation. Mistakes cannot be concealed. Feature s of Written Discour se The writer does not know readers, thus readers expectations are unknown. Feature s of Written Discour se The writer does not know readers, thus readers expectations are unknown. Writer revises the content many times hence it becomes complex. Feature s of Written Discour se The writer does not know readers, thus readers expectations are unknown. Writer revises the content many times hence it becomes complex. Reader cannot clarify doubts. Feature s of Written Discour se The writer does not know readers, thus readers expectations are unknown. Writer revises the content many times hence it becomes complex. Reader cannot clarify doubts. Can use tables, formulas and chart. Formal Discourse It is more strict. Formal Discourse It is more strict. It uses passive voice. Formal Discourse It is more strict. It uses passive voice. Does not have contracted forms. Formal Discourse It is more strict. It uses passive voice. Does not have contracted forms. Complex sentence structure. Formal Discourse It is more strict. It uses passive voice. Does not have contracted forms. Complex sentence structure. In English language, most of the vocabulary used are derived from Latin. Informal Discourse It uses active voice. Contractions are common. Communication is casual. Factors influencing the selection of formal or informal language Relationship between the speaker and listener. Number of addressees. Occasion (private or public). Interpreting discourse What we hear/read never contains everything we need in order to interpret it. Interpreting discourse What we hear/read never contains everything we need in order to interpret it. To do so, we add a lot of material based on the words used but also on our cultural and world knowledge. Interpreting discourse What we hear/read never contains everything we need in order to interpret it. To do so, we add a lot of material based on the words used but also on our cultural and world knowledge. This is what constitutes the basis for our interpretation. Questions that discourse analysts focus on when analyzing discourse: 1. 2. Who are the participant in the discourse, that is, the writer and reader(s), the speaker(s) and listener(s)? What is their relationship? How do we know what writers and speakers mean? What does this piece of language mean in this context? Approaches to Discourse Analysis Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic disciplines: Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic discipline s: Philosophy (Speech act theory), Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic discipline s: Philosophy (Speech act theory), Sociology (Conversation Analysis), Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic discipline s: Philosophy (Speech act theory), Sociology (Conversation Analysis), Sociolinguistic Approaches (Ethnography of Speaking, Variation Theory), Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic discipline s: Philosophy (Speech act theory), Sociology (Conversation Analysis), Sociolinguistic Approaches (Ethnography of Speaking, Variation Theory), Linguistic Approaches (Initiation-ResponseFeedback (IRF) model). ‫‪RHETORI‬‬ ‫‪C‬‬ ‫علم(‬ ‫)ا ‪0‬لبالغة‬ ‫)ا‪9‬لذرا‪9‬ئ‪9‬عية( ‪PRAGMATICS‬‬ ‫‪RHETORI‬‬ ‫‪C‬‬ ‫علم(‬ ‫)ا ‪0‬لبالغة‬ PRAGMATICS (‫عية‬9‫ئ‬9‫لذرا‬9‫)ا‬ RHETORI C (‫علم‬ ‫لبالغة‬0 ‫)ا‬ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ‫خطاب‬ ( ‫ل‬99‫حليلا‬999‫)ت‬ RHETORI C (‫علم‬ ‫لبالغة‬0 ‫)ا‬ PRAGMATICS (‫عية‬9‫ئ‬9‫لذرا‬9‫)ا‬ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ‫حليل‬999‫ت‬ ( ‫لخطاب‬99‫)ا‬ STYLISTICS ‫يب‬ ( ‫ل‬9‫السا‬9‫)ا‬ RHETORI C (‫علم‬ ‫لبالغة‬0 ‫)ا‬ PRAGMATICS (‫عية‬9‫ئ‬9‫لذرا‬9‫)ا‬ DISPOSITIO (‫حجاج‬ ِ ‫ل‬99‫)ا‬ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ‫حليل‬999‫ت‬ ( ‫لخطاب‬99‫)ا‬ STYLISTICS ‫يب‬ ( ‫ل‬9‫السا‬9‫)ا‬ Next class (Lecture 2) : 1. Cohesion Types of Cohesive devices: lexical & grammatical 2. Coherence Part I: Theory Notes Part II: Providing Tools for Discourse Analysis Part III: Analysing Texts Lecture (2): Discourse Tools: Cohesion & Criteria for Qualifying a Discourse Seven criteria which have to be fulfilled to qualify either a written or a spoken text as a discourse have been suggested by Beaugrande (1981). These include: Cohesion Coherence Intentionality Acceptability Informativeness Situationality Intertextuality Criteria for Qualifying a Discourse Of the seven standards of textuality: Cohesion Coherence the first two are text-based Intentionality Acceptability Informativeness Situationality the other five standards of textuality are discourse-based Intertextuality Criteria for Qualifying a Discourse  Cohesion – grammatical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for its interpretation;  Coherence – the order of statements relates one another by sense.  Intentionality – the message has to be conveyed deliberately and consciously;  Acceptability – indicates that the communicative product needs to be satisfactory in that the audience approves it;  Informativeness – some new information has to be included in the discourse;  Situationality – circumstances in which the remark is made are important;  Intertextuality – Coherence & Cohesion Jigsaw Puzzle Have you ever played/saw a jigsaw puzzle? A jigsaw puzzle is a tiling puzzle that requires the assembly of often irregularly shaped interlocking pieces, each of which typically has a portion of a picture. When assembled, the puzzle pieces produce a complete picture. Coherence & Cohesion Jigsaw Puzzle Rules of the puzzle: 1. Pieces fit properly around the edges Coherence & Cohesion Jigsaw Puzzle Rules of the puzzle: 1. Pieces fit properly around the edges 2. The assembled photo is complete The assembled photo is complete edges Coherence (‫سجام‬9‫الن‬9‫)ا‬ Pieces fit properly around the Cohesion (‫ساق‬9‫الت‬9‫)ا‬ Coherence & Cohesion Coheren ce & Cohesion What helps us interpret (make sense of) a text is that it must have a certain structure with cohesion and coherence. Coheren ce & Cohesion What helps us interpret (make sense of) a text is that it must have a certain structure with cohesion and coherence. Cohesion and coherence are terms used in discourse analysis to describe the properties of discourse texts. What helps us interpret (make sense of) a text is that it must have a certain structure with cohesion and coherence. Coheren ce & Cohesion Cohesion and coherence are terms used in discourse analysis to describe the properties of discourse texts. Coherence and cohesion are essential for aiding readability and idea communication. Coheren ce & Cohesion What helps us interpret (make sense of) a text is that it must have a certain structure with cohesion and coherence. Cohesion and coherence are terms used in discourse analysis to describe the properties of discourse texts. Coherence and cohesion are essential for aiding readability and idea communication. Coherence is about the unity of the ideas and cohesion is the unity of structural (linguistic) elements. Coherence Coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. Coherence Coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. It's the order of statements that relates one another by sense. Coherence Coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. It's the order of statements that relates one another by sense. The quality of being meaningful and unified. Coherence Coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. It's the order of statements that relates one another by sense. The quality of being meaningful and unified. The relationship which links the meanings of utterances in a discourse, or the sentences in a text. These links may be based on the speakers' shared knowledge. Coherence Coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. It's the order of statements that relates one another by sense. The quality of being meaningful and unified. The relationship which links the meanings of utterances in a discourse, or the sentences in a text. These links may be based on the speakers' shared knowledge. Coherence is defined as the quality of being logical, consistent and able to be understood Coherence [Example] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She likes cooking. [incoherent] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She had to attend a wedding. [coherent] Coherence [Example] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She likes cooking. [incoherent] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She had to attend a wedding. [coherent] Coherence [Example] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She likes cooking. [incoherent] Mona took a train from Riyadh to Qassim. She had to attend a wedding. [coherent] Coherence “A piece of writing is coherent when it elicits the response: ‘I follow you. I see what you mean.’ It is incoherent when it elicits the response: ‘I see what you're saying here, but what has it got to do with the topic at hand or with what you just told me above?’ ” Johns, A.M. (1985) Cohesion It is the property that distinguishes a sequence of sentences that form a discourse from a random sequence of sentences. Cohesion It is the property that distinguishes a sequence of sentences that form a discourse from a random sequence of sentences. It is a series of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links between the various parts of a text. (Halliday, 2004) Cohesion It is the property that distinguishes a sequence of sentences that form a discourse from a random sequence of sentences. It is a series of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links between the various parts of a text. (Halliday, 2004) It is concerned with the way in which the components of the SURFACE TEXT, i.e., the actual words we hear or see, are connected within a sequence. Cohesion It is the property that distinguishes a sequence of sentences that form a discourse from a random sequence of sentences. It is a series of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links between the various parts of a text. (Halliday, 2004) It is concerned with the way in which the components of the SURFACE TEXT, i.e., the actual words we hear or see, are connected within a sequence. It is the grammatical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for its interpretation Cohesion vs. Coherence A text will be cohesive if (and only if) cohesive ties are used. However, it will only be coherent if the cohesive ties are used appropriately to create meaning. You can have cohesion without coherence but you cannot have coherence without cohesion. Sometimes, coherence is referred to as “pragmatic cohesion.” In studying cohesion, we should make a distinction between “linguistic cohesion” and “pragmatic cohesion” or coherence. Cohesion (Cohesive devices/ties/tools) Lexical Cohesion (Cohesive devices/ties/tools) Lexical Grammatical Grammatical Cohesive Devices 1. Between messages [conjunctions (e.g., but, so)] 2. In meaning [reference (e.g., he, she, this)] 3. In wording [ellipsis (e.g., yes I am { }), substitution (e.g., one, some)] ⍉ Grammatical Cohesive Devices conjunctions Grammatical Cohesive Devices [ellipsis (e.g., yes I am { }), substitution (e.g., one, some)] ⍉ Ellipsis She understood, as she always did. Always had. Always would. Grammatical Cohesive Devices [ellipsis (e.g., yes I am { }), substitution (e.g., one, some)] ⍉ Ellipsis She understood, as she always did. Always had. Always would. “Always had” and “Always would”. Their complete forms are “She had always understood” and “She would always understand” respectively. Grammatical Cohesive Devices [substitution (e.g., one, some)] 1. Nominal substitution: These are all Dracula movies. Get me some documentary ones. 2. Verbal Substitution: A: You dislike an argument and want to silence it. B: Perhaps I do. 3. Clausal Substitution: A: We should recognize the place when we come to it. B: Yes, but supposing not: then what do we do? Grammatical Cohesive Devices [reference (e.g., he, she, this)] Types of reference in English: 1. Personal reference [personal pronouns, possessive determiners, and possessive pronouns] Mr. Bingley was good looking and gentleman like; he had a pleasant countenance, and easy, unaffected manners. His sisters were fine women, with an air of decided fashion. (Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice ) Grammatical Cohesive Devices [reference (e.g., he, she, this)] Types of reference in English: 2. Demonstrative reference At last we came to the door of a classroom, and she said, “Go in.” I answered, more in shyness than in politeness, “After you, Teacher.” To this, she returned:” Don’t be ridiculous, girl; I am not going in.” And scornfully walked away. This was very uncomfortable, and I was half-afraid. Grammatical Cohesive Devices [reference (e.g., he, she, this)] Types of reference in English: 3. Comparative reference Joe's blue eyes turned a little watery; he rubbed, first one of them, and then the other, in a most uncongenial and uncomfortable manner, with the round knob on the top of the poker. (Charles Dickens: Great Expectations) Lexical Cohesive Devices Lexical cohesion deals with the meaning in text. It is known as “the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Lexical Cohesive Devices Devices: 1. Elaborating: Identity [repetition, synonymy, antonymy] Attribution [hyponymy] 2. Extending [meronymy] 3. Enhancing [collocation] Lexical Cohesive Devices Figure - uploaded by Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash (2019)| Recognize and Interpret Cohesive Devices Cohesive Device Cohesive device is a device which holds different parts of a thing together. Cohesive devices are typically single words or phrases that hold and hang different parts of the text. Function: The major function of cohesion is text formation. Helps in achieving unity of text as a semantic whole. unified whole of linguistic items. A text must be meaningful. A text that is not cohesive is never meaningful. They show the logical relationship between sentences and paragraphs. e.g., 1. Aslam (proper noun) is an intelligent boy. He (pronoun) always stand first in class. He is holding two sentences together. 2. Mary will jump if she is fit. 3. The company will change its policy. 4. Ayesha wants to know if her proposal was accepted. Cohesive devices may take a number of forms e.g. pronouns, nouns, conjunctions etc. Numerous words are considered cohesive devices in the English language. For example; however, in conclusion, basically, at last, eventually, after all, rarely, normally, at first, often, further, and firstly. Each of the above examples can be used to start a sentence to link together the sentences or story. Types of cohesive devices Sentences that are presented as a whole are linked and related to each other by means of specific cohesive devices, i.e. 1) Reference, 2) Substitution, 3)Ellipsis, 4)Conjunctions, 5)Lexical items 1. Reference Reference is used to describe the different ways in which entities- things, people, events are referred to within texts Linguistic features e.g. pronouns are used to refer to the already mentioned entities. e.g. Sara went to the market in rain. She stepped in puddle and never went there again. She and there show that the information about them is retrieved elsewhere within the text. This type of cohesion is called reference. Types: 1. - Personal ref; e.g., I, me, mine, mine, his, her, they, them, he, she, you, we, us etc. 2. Demonstrative ref; (This/these, that/those, here/there) It is a form of pointing the referent on the basis of proximity (near, far)e.g. i. Leave that there and come here. ii. I like these books but I don’t like those. 3. Comparative ref; Here things compared show likeness or unlikeness.e.g. i. It is the same pen I bought yesterday. ii. It is different pen from the one I bought yesterday. (general) iii. There are twice as many books there as the last time. 2)Substitution It is replacement of one linguistic item by another i.e. replacement of one word/phrase with another word/phrase. Used to avoid repetition of a particular item..e.g. 1. The glass broke. I must get another. You know she already know this. I think everybody does. 2. A: I will have two eggs on the bread. B: I will have the same. 3. I don’t know the meaning of those words, and I don’t believe you do either. 4. Is this mango ripe? It seems so 3)Ellipsis It is the deletion or omission of a linguistic item. It can be interpreted as that form of substitution in which an item is replaced by nothing. An occasion when words are deliberately left out of a sentence, though the meaning can still be understood. Leaving out of words or sentences as they are necessary because they have already been referred or mentioned. e.g. A: Where are you going? B: To town instead of I am going to town. A: Have you been swimming? B: yes 4)Conjunction A word which joins words and sentences such as but, because, when, and, so, or, unless etc. Categories: i. Additive (substance added to another) ii. Adversative (contrary to expectations) iii. Causal (relations expressed by so, hence, therefore, thus) iv. Temporal (relation expressed by “then” 5)Lexical cohesion Lexical cohesion is established through vocabulary. While reference, ellipsis and conjunction tend to link clauses which are near each other in the text, lexical cohesion tends to link much larger parts of the text Lexical cohesion is created by Reiteration and Collocation Reiteration; involves - the repetition of the same word - a synonym or near-synonym - a general word e.g. There is a boy climbing that tree - The boy is going to fall……. - The lad is going to fall…….. -The idiot is going to fall…… Collocation; is the way in which particular words tend to occur or belong together. the fast train----------the quick train fast food ------------- quick food a quick shower -------- a fast shower a quick meal ----------- a fast meal Lecture (3): Conversation Analysis What is conversation analysis? A major area of study in the analysis of discourse is conversation analysis. Conversation analysis is pioneered by Harvey Sacks in the early 1970s to analyze chunks of conversations to arrive at some generalizations. Conversation analysis is an analysis of natural conversation to reveal what the linguistic feature of conversation is, and how conversation is used in ordinary life. An approach to the analysis of authentic recorded spoken discourse. According to Seedhouse (2004), conversation analysis is the investigation of “how participants analyze and interpret each others' actions and develop a shared understanding” (p. 43) Aspects of Conversational Analysis (what do we analyze within a conversation?) 1. The techniques that the speaker uses during a conversation, such as the rules of turn-taking, backchannels, etc. 2. The ways in which some speakers’ utterances are related, for instance, adjacency pair, and inserted sequence. 3. The different functions that the conversation is used for, for example, establishing roles, or communicating politeness. Key questions for conversation analysts are: 1. 2. 3. 4. How do people take turns in conversation? How do people open and close conversation? How do people launch new topics, close old ones, shift topic, etc.? How is it that conversation generally progresses satisfactorily from one utterance to the next? Methodology (What makes it different from discourse analysis) 1. Sources of data 2. Transcription of data 3. Procedures for analysis and interpretation Methodology (What makes it different from discourse analysis) 1. Sources of data The extracts used in this analysis derived from a selection of recordings of naturally occurring communications. 2. Transcription of data 3. Procedures for analysis and interpretation Methodology (What makes it different from discourse analysis) 1. Sources of data The extracts used in this analysis derived from a selection of recordings of naturally occurring communications. 2. Transcription of data The data collected is then transcribed using a repeated playback method and the standard conversation analysis conventions (Jefferson transcription conventions) 3. Procedures for analysis and interpretation Transcription An important step in conversational analysis where spoken texts are transcribed to be written texts. There are certain conventions that need to be followed like: ↑Shift into a high pitch NOW Loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk :: prolongation of the immediately prior sound (.) a brief interval(about a tenth of a second) within or between utterances. (0.5) the time elapsed between the end of utterance/ sound and the next one know Stress = Latched utterance – no break or gap between stretches of talk. (overlap) ? Rising intonation. Falling intonation , Unfinished intonational contour + Interruption Jefferson transcription example. : (colon) - stretched sound; (0.2) - a pause of 0.2 seconds;.hhh - in breath,.h short in breath; ↑ - Rise in intonation; underline - emphasis; - slowed speech rate, >< - quickened speech rate; [] - overlapping speech. Methodology (What makes it different from discourse analysis) 1. Sources of data The extracts used in this analysis derived from a selection of recordings of naturally occurring communications. 2. Transcription of data The data collected is then transcribed using a repeated playback method and the standard conversation analysis conventions (Jefferson transcription conventions) 3. Procedures for analysis and interpretation Data was analyzed turn by turn basis after transcription. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION A particular interest of conversation analysis is the sequence and structure of spoken discourse. The sequence and structure of spoken discourse include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Conversational openings and closings turn taking sequences of related utterances (‘adjacency pairs’) preferences for particular combinations of (‘preference organization’) 5. feedback and conversational ‘repair’ utterances DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Conversational openings and closings) Conversations are generally divided up into four main stages. As Burns and Joyce in Paltridge (2000, p. 85) suggest, these are typically: 1. Opening Stage, 2. Middle Stage, 3. Preclosing 4. Closing Stage. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Conversational openings and closings) 1. Opening stages: Beginnings (e.g., salutations and greetings such as ‘Hello, How are you?’) 2. Middle stages: Development of range of topics using conversational strategies for turn taking, turn allocation, and keeping a turn, adjacency pairs, preferred and dispreferred responses, ways of giving back, changing a topic, asking for clarification, correcting what was said, etc. 3. PreClosing stages: Preclosing exchanges which signal the ending of the conversation (e.g., discourse markers and formulaic expressions, such as : ‘Anyway, well, I’d better be off’. ‘Thanks for calling’, falling intonation). 4. Closing: (e.g., formulaic expressed such as ‘bye’, ‘see you’). DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Conversational openings and closings) EXAMPLE A: Well, I must go now. We must get together soon. B: All right, when? A: Oh…. I’ll call you B: When will you call me? I’m busy Monday … What went wrong with this closing? A wrong reading to a pre- closing formula: (B) understood that it was a request for commitment, but it was a polite pre-closing formula. Possible reason for such misunderstandings: Different cultural DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) The basic rule in conversation is that one person speaks at a time, after which they may nominate another speaker, or another speaker may take up the turn without being nominated (Sacks, 1974) There are some clues to when a speaker's turn has finished and when another speaker should talk. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) Signaling end of turn: 1. completion of syntactic unit followed by a pause. 2. Use of falling intonation. 3. Pausing 4. Fillers (umm) (anyway) 5. Eye contact, body language and movement. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) Holding on to a turn: 1. Not pausing too long at the end of an utterance and starting straight away. 2. Pausing during an utterance not at the end. 3. Increasing the volume by extending a syllable or a vowel. 4. Speaking over someone else’s attempt to take our turn. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) ‘Overlap’ is a turn taking strategy for: 1. taking a turn. 2. Preventing someone from taking a turn. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) ‘Overlap’ is a turn taking strategy for: 1. taking a turn. A: B: A: B: Did you hear the news! ab… She got engaged! To a doctor. Yes, you know? I just.. Of course I know! Her sister is my best friend. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) Overlap is a turn taking strategy for: 1. taking a turn. 2. Preventing someone from taking a turn. Teacher: Mona, what do you think? Mona: aah..mm I guess Nour: It’s a declarative sentence! Teacher: Mona? Do you think it is? Mona: Maybe a quest….. Nour: an interrogative !! DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Turn taking) Turn-taking varies according to: 1. Situation: In a classroom for example a teacher nominates who can take a turn, a student may or may not respond. In a court, turn-taking is the least flexible. 2. Topic: People take a turn when they have something to say or when they want to change the topic. 3. Relationship: A child may be instructed not to speak with adult guests unless spoken to. Interaction with friends is different from more formal relationships. 4. Rank: To some degree, turn taking is by rank, the right to talk is an indicator of the status of the speaker. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) An adjacency pair, used in conversational analysis, is a pair of conversational turns by two different speakers such that the production of the first turn (called a first- pair part) makes a response (a second-pair part) of a particular kind relevant. A failure to give an immediate response is noticeable and accountable. Many actions in conversation are accomplished through adjacency pair sequences. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) Example: question - answer sequence in Example: thanking - response sequence in Example: request - accept sequence in First Part B: About eight-thirty A: What time is it? A: Thanks. A: Could you help me with this? B: You're welcome B: Sure DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) Beside the adjacency pair above there also other kinds of adjacency pairs carried out by Paltridge (2000, p. 98-99), they are: 1. Greeting-greeting The way of saying hello and salutation e.g.,: A: “Hi!” B: “Hello!” 2. Leave-taking adjacency pair The utterances which have purpose to end the conversation. e.g., A: “See you.” B: “See you” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) 3. Complaint-apology Complaint is utterances which indicate feeling unsatisfied about something. However, apology is the way to response the complaint, which express regretless. e.g.: A: “This food is too salty.” B: “I’m sorry, sir. I’ll give you another one.” 4. Warning-acknowledgement Warning is utterances to warn someone about something. While acknowledgement is statements which show that the warning is already acceptable. e.g.: A: “Beware of the hole in the street.” B: “Okay. Thank you.” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) 5. Complaint-apology Complaint is utterances which indicate feeling unsatisfied about something. However, apology is the way to response the complaint, which express regretless. e.g.: A: “This food is too salty.” B: “I’m sorry, sir. I’ll give you another one.” 6. Warning-acknowledgement Warning is utterances to warn someone about something. While acknowledgement is statements which show that the warning is already acceptable. e.g.: A: “Beware of the hole in the street.” B: “Okay. Thank you.” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) 7. Blame - Denial Blame is utterances that express that someone is responsible about the mistake. Denial is statement to say that something is not true. e.g.: A: “You lost the key, didn’t you?” B: “No. I didn’t.” 8. Threat - counter-threat, etc. Threat is utterances that indicate the intension of harm. However, counter-threat is utterances that express the defeat of someone’s threat. e.g.: A: “You got to get out of here or I’ll call the security.” B: “No, I won’t.” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Adjacency Pairs) Insertion Sequence (Q1—Q2—A2—A1) An insertion sequence is a sequence of turns that intervenes between the first and second parts of an adjacency pair. Form Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1 (one adjacency pair within another). For example, Agent: Do you want the early flight? Client: What time does it arrive? Agent: Nine forty-five (A2) Client: Yeah - that's great (Q1) (Q2) (A1) Insertion sequence has two functions: seeking clarification and delay (used to put off a dispreferred part) DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal when they occur as second parts of some pairs, e.g., a first part request expects an acceptance. Refusal is expected as well. However, acceptance is structurally more likely than refusal and Structural likelihood is called preference. Preference structure divides second parts into PREFERRED and DISPREFERRED social acts. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) First parts Second parts Second parts (Preferred) (Dispreferred) Request Acceptance Refusal Offer/invite Acceptance Refusal Assessment Agreement Disagreement Question expected answer Unexpected answer or no answer Compliment Acceptance Rejection DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) REQUEST – ACCEPTANCE/REFUSAL Requesting is asking someone to do something which can be responded with acceptance or refusal. e.g.,: A: “Would you mind closing the door?” (Request) B: “Of course.” (Acceptance) Or A: “Would you mind closing the door?” (Request) B: “ Sorry, I am busy” (Refusal) DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) OFFER/INVITE – ACCEPTANCE/ REFUSAL Offering something to someone, it may be in the form of goods or services. It can be responded into acceptance or refusal, or generally called granting. e.g.,: A: “Will you come to my house sometimes?” B: “Yes, I will.” Or A: “Will you come to my house sometimes?” B: “No, never.” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) ASSESSMENT – AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT Assessment can be formed into opinion seek or comment, which is asking another’s opinion or agreement. It is responded with agreement or called opinion provide. e.g.,: A: “What do you think about that kitten?” B: “So cute.” Or A: “What do you think about that kitten?” B: “Disgusting.” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) QUESTION – ANSWER/UNEXPECTED ANSWER OR NON-ANSWER Question can be formed into information seek, clarification seek, etc. It is about asking something to someone. It is responded with information provide, clarification provide, etc. e.g.: A: “Where do you live?” B: “I live in Semarang.” Or A: “Where do you live?” B: “Is it important?” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) COMPLIMENT – ACCEPTANCE/REFUSAL Compliment is the way of praising another person about something he or she has. It is responded with acceptance. e.g.,: A: “What a nice cloth?” B: “Oh, thanks.” Or A: “What a nice cloth?” B: “Are you kidding?” DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) So, some second pair parts may be preferred and others may be dispreferred. When this happens, the dispreferred second pair part is often preceded by a delay, a preface, and/or an account, for example: A: Would you like to come to the movies on Friday? [Invitation] B: Uhhh… [Delay] I don’t know for sure. [Preface] I think I might have something on that night. [Account] Can we make it another time? [Rejection] DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Preference Organization) Dispreferred takes more time/language/ effort. More language creates more distance between first and second part. Preferred represents closeness and quick connections. Participants try to avoid creating context for dispreferred e.g., by using presequence. Silence is also a dispreferred response. Silence is risky as it may give the impression of non- participation in the conversational structure. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Feedback/Backchannels/Backchannel signals) Feedback shows how the listener responds to what is talking about by the speaker. Feedback can be done both verbally or non-verbally which signaling response. Feedback also varies cross-culturally. For example, a common feedback token in Arabia is ‫يب‬9‫’ط‬ ‘ which, taken literally, means ‘ok’. However, in Arabic interactions the use of this feedback token does not necessarily mean agreement as ‘ok’ might in English, but rather, simply, ‘I am listening to what you are saying and keep going’, much as ‘uh huh’ might in English. Normal expectation: using backchannel. No backchannel is significant. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Repair) Repair is a correction of what has been said by the speaker about the previous statement they said during the conversation. There are two types of repair; self repairs and other repairs: 1. Self repairs are repairs done by speaker about what has been said before. 2. Other repairs are repairs done by another speaker as interlocutor. For example, we might correct what we have said (self repair) as in: A : I’m going to the movies tomorrow…I mean the opera; Or, the other person might repair what we have said (other repair): A : I’m going to that restaurant we went to last week. You know the Indian one in Albukhari Street? B : You mean Alrayan Street, don’t you? A : Yeah. That’s right, Alrayan Street. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION (Repair) Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding. Repair is classified by who initiates repair (self or other) and by who resolves the problem (self or other) as well as by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns. End of Lecture (3) Amal : Do you have any questions? A Student: Questions about today’s class? Amal: Yes! Student: No! Thanks Amal: Well, thank you then and have a blissful end to your day Students: Thank you! Lecture (4): Speech Acts The Structure of Conversation in Expanding Circle Contexts Required Conceptual Components: Interactive acts – how the interaction is managed (e.g., by turn taking, backchannels, opening, closing, adjacency pairs, and repair) Cross-cultural Differences: Speech acts Cooperative principle Politeness Introduction Introduct ion This concept was proposed by John Langshaw Austin in 1962, one of the founders of pragmatics and later developed by John R. Searle in 1969. Introduct ion This concept was proposed by John Langshaw Austin in 1962, one of the founders of pragmatics and later developed by John R. Searle in 1969. Both are philosophers of language, and they believe that language is not only used to inform or to describe things, but also used “to do things”, to perform acts. In other words, actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts. Introduct ion This concept was proposed by John Langshaw Austin in 1962, one of the founders of pragmatics and later developed by John R. Searle in 1969. Both are philosophers of language, and they believe that language is not only used to inform or to describe things, but also used “to do things”, to perform acts. In other words, actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts. Speech Acts are group of utterances with a single interactional function. Performatives Austin called such utterances performatives, which he saw as distinct from statements that convey information (constatives). I name this ship The Queen Elisabeth (performative). Maurice Garin won the Tour de France in 1903 (constative) Performatives cannot be true or false. Austin suggested that they should be defined as felicitous Speech Act Theory Austin emphasized the contexts in which utterances take place Felicity conditions: describe all the circumstantial properties of an utterance which are relevant to its successful accomplishment 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES 172 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must st be 1 person. 173 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be st 1 person. Verb must be active. 174 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be 1st person. Sentence must be positive, not negative. Verb must be active. 175 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be 1st person. Verb must be active. Sentence must be positive, not negative. Verb must perform the act. 176 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be 1st person. Verb must be active. Verb must perform the act. Must meet felicity conditions (authority, etc.) Sentence must be positive, not negative. 177 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be 1st person. Verb must be active. Sentence must be positive, not negative. Verb must perform the act. Must meet felicity conditions (authority, etc.) Must meet sincerity conditions (not a joke, etc.) 178 22 CONDITIONS ON PERFORMATIVES Subject must be 1st person. Must meet felicity conditions (authority, etc.) Verb must be active. Sentence must be positive, not negative. Must meet sincerity conditions (not a joke, etc.) Can be larger than a sentence (e.g. The Declaration of Independence ) Verb must perform the act. 179 Austin’s Statement  Desire/ Illocution Effect / per locution Specific words locution Austin distinguished three acts in every single speech act or event we perform: 1) locution = physical utterance by the speaker 2) illocution = the intended meaning of the utterance by the speaker (performative) 3) perlocution = the action that results from the locution. Example, Alice told Tom: "Would you please close the door" Speech Acts Specific words locution Desire/ Illocution Effect / per locution Example A teacher utters the words, "The door will be closed in five minutes." The locutionary act of saying that the door will be closed in five minutes, where what is said is reported by indirect quotation. The illocutionary act in saying this, the teacher is informing the students of the door’s imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to enter the classroom. The teacher intends to be performing the Locutionary act Locutionary act is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expressions. We can say performing an act of saying something or physical utterances of words. Example; I am not feeling well. ( Linguistic meaning) Illocutionary act Illocutionary acts are the real actions which are performed by the utterance. We form an utterance with some kind of function in mind. This communicative force of an utterance is known as illocutionary force. (Intention/desire of the speaker) Example; I am not feeling well. Perlocutionary act Perlocutionary act is the effect/ result produced on the listener when they listen a locutionary act or this is the hearers' response. Response may be negative or positive. Example; I am not feeling well. ( Linguistic meaning) Locutionary I want to rest now (Intention) Illocutionary Teacher: You can leave, and you may take the class This theory was further classified by John Searle. He states that the taxonomy used by Austin is defective, especially there is a lack of clear criteria for distinguishing one kind of illocutionary force from another. Searle divides illocutionary acts into five basic types. 1. Directive 2. Commissive 3. Representative/Assertive 4. Declarative 5. Expressive Searle’s Classification of Speech Acts Representativ e/Assertive Directive Commissive Expressive Declarative 1. Directive In the conversation between 1st and 2nd person here, the speaker tries to make the hearer do something, with words as: ask, order, command, request, beg, plead, pray, entreat, invite, permit, advise, demand etc. Example; Give me your pen. Leave the town immediately. 2. Commissive Here, the speaker commits himself or herself to the future course of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, promise, swear, refuse, threatening etc. Examples; I will repay the money. I swear to tell the truth. 3. Representative/Assertive Here, the speaker asserts a proposition to be true, using such verbs as: affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report, state, etc. Examples; The earth is round. I think, he is saying the truth. 4. Declarative Here, the speaker alters the external status or condition of an object, situation, or context solely by making the utterance. Examples; Class dismissed. You are fired. We find defendant not guilty. 5. Expressive Here, the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs, using such verbs as: thanks, congratulate, apologize, praise etc. Examples; I am sorry for being late. What a great day! Congratulation! SPEECH ACTS (Pragmatics) A. Speech Acts When someone expresses something, he does not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, but he also performs an action through the utterances. Action performed by an utterance called speech acts. Example: You’re fired! This utterance can be used by us as an action to fire someone from his current job.  Performing action by producing an utterance has three kinds of related acts. Those are: Locutionary Act Illocutionary Act/Illocutionary Force Perlocutionary Act/Perlocutionary Effect An utterance that produces literal meaning An utterance An utterance which that gives an effect to do has something social function in mind For example: It’s hot here. - Locutionary act: The speaker feels hot in his place. - Illocutionary act: The utterance has two possible meanings inside · An indirect request for someone to open the window. · An indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold - Perlocutionary act: The hearer will open/close the window B. Illocutionary Act Illocutionary act is the main focus of speech acts. Illocutionary force from an utterance is what it ‘count as’. Example: I’ll see you later. We could find three different assumptions of its meaning.  (I predict that) I’ll see you later => a prediction  (I promise you that) I’ll see you later => a promise The problem could happens in every utterance: They might have different meaning which can make the hearer can not recognize the real illocutionary force from the utterance. How to solve this problem? There are two ways to answer this: IFIDs Felicity condition 1. IFIDs Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices => an expression from an utterance which contains a slot to put a verb that explicitly named the illocutionary act being performed. The verb called performative verb (Vp) I (Vp) you that... I’ll see you later.  I warn you that I’ll see you later.  I promise you that I’ll see you later. Speakers do not usually ‘perform’ their speech acts with a performative verb. But sometimes, they use it to distinct their speech act. Him : Can I talk to Mary? Her : No, she is not here. Him : I’m asking you—can I talk to her? Her : And I’m telling you—SHE IS NOT HERE! They explicitly describe their utterance’s illocutionary act by using ‘ask’ and ‘tell’ as performative verb. IFIDs can be identified as a word order, stress, and intonation. a.She is going! => I tell you. b.She is going? => I request confirmation. c. Is she going? => I ask you. 2. Felicity condition To make the utterance can be recognize by the hearer, the circumstance surrounding the speaker must be appropriate with the condition. Such condition called felicity condition. Ex: I sentence you to six months in prison. The performance won’t be appropriate if the speaker is not a specific person in special context (in this case, the speaker must be a judge in a courtroom). A speech act needs to be performed along certain types of conditions, in order to be successfully recognized. Propositional content condition Requires the participants to understand the language, not to act like actors or to lie. E.g. Promise or warning must be about the future. Preparatory condition Requires that the speech act is embedded in a context that is conventionally recognizable, thus, just by uttering a promise, the event will not happen by itself. A speech act needs to be performed along certain types of conditions, in order to be successfully recognized. Sincerity condition Essential condition Requires that the Requires that all speaker is parties sincere in uttering the intend the result. declaration. E.g. Changes state of E.g. Promise is only speaker from noneffective when the speaker obligation to obligation really intends to carry it (promise). out. C. The Performative Hypothesis A way to assume the underlying utterance (U), there is a clause, similar to the previous example (I (Vp) you that...), containing a performative verb (Vp) which makes the illocutionary force explicit. I (hereby) Vp you (that) U In this clause, the subject must be first person singular (‘I’), followed by the adverb ‘hereby’, indicating that the utterance ‘counts as’ an action by being uttered. Look at the examples below: I hereby order you that you clean up this mess. Clean up this mess! The underlying clause in the blue box will always make explicit, and the second one is implicit. The first example (normally without ‘hereby’) is used by speakers as explicit performatives. And the second example is an implicit performatives or primary performatives. The advantage of this analysis type: It makes clear just what elements are involved in the production and interpretation of utterances. Do it yourself! (implicit) The reflexive in ‘yourself’ is made possible by the antecendent ‘you’ in explicit version. I order you that you do it yourself. (explicit) The disadvantage of this analysis type: Not all the performative verbs can be used to make an explicit version of the implicit utterance. - You’re dumber than a rock. - ? I hereby insult you that you’re dumber than a rock The real practical problem with any analysis based on identifying explicit performative is we simply do not know how many performative verbs are there in any language. To solve this, there is a general classification system list of function performed by speech acts that can be used. D. Speech Act Classification One general classification system lists five types of general function performed by speech acts: Declaration Representative Expressive Directive Commissiv e 1. Declaration Speech acts that change the world via their utterance/word. For example: a) Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife. b) Referee: You’re out! c) Judge: I sentence you to six months in prison! 2. Representative Speech acts that state what speaker believes to be the case or not. Fact, assertions, conclusions, descriptions => representing the world as he believes it is. The speaker makes the words fit the world (of belief). For example: a) The earth is flat. b) Chomsky didn’t write about peanuts. c) It was a warm sunny day. 3. Expressive Speech acts that state what speaker feels. Psychological expression => pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow. The speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling). For example: a) I’m really sorry! b) Congratulations! c) Oh, yes, great, mmm, ssahh! 4. Directive Speech acts that speaker use to get someone else to do something. Command, orders, requests, suggestion => can be positive or negative. The speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via hearer). For example: a) Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black. b) Could you lend me a pen, please? 5. Commissive Speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future action. Promises, threats, refusals, pledges => can be performed alone or by a group. The speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via the speaker). For example: a) I’ll be back. b) I’m going to get it right next time. c) We will not do that. Table of Speech Act Classification Speech act type Direction of fit S = Speaker, X = Situation Declarations Words change the world S causes X Representative Make words fit the world S believes X Expressive Make words fit the world S feels X Directives Make the world fit words S wants X Commissive Make the world fit words S intends X E. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts Look at the examples below: She plants a mango tree. (declarativestatement) b. Does she plant a mango tree? (interrogativequestion) c. Plant a mango tree! (imperativecommand/request). There is an easily recognized relationship between three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and three general communication a. Direct speech is a direct relationship between a structure and a function. Indirect speech is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function. For example: We have known that a declarative sentence has a function as a statement, so we call it direct speech act. But if the declarative sentence used to be a request, we call it indirect speech act. a) b) c) It’s cold outside. I hereby tell you about the weather. I hereby request of you that you close the door. The utterance a) is a declarative. If we used it make a statement as paraphrased in b), it is functioning as a direct speech. If the a) used to make a command/request, as paraphrased in c), it is functioning as an indirect speech. Move out of the way! (imperative-command) b) Do you have to stand in front of the TV? (interrogative-command) c) You’re standing in front of the TV. (declarativecommand) a) Could you open the window? The utterance not only needs the answer Yes/No, but it also asks the hearer to do something. Interrogative sentence as a command (indirect speech act). F. Speech Event Speech act => one person trying to get another person to do something without risking refusal or causing offense. Speech event => the set of utterance produced in a social situation involving participants who necessarily have a social relationship and have particular goals. The activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at some a) b) : I don’t really like this. : Ok, I will take another one. a) As an obvoius central speech act b) As the speech act that reacts to the central speech act. It means that in the speech event above (complaining), there is a central speech act and the other speech act that lead up and reacts to A speech event can be defined by a unified set of components through out: Same purpose of communication Same topic Same participants Same language variety (generally)  For example: exchanging greetings, telling jokes, giving speeches, requesting help, complaining, etc. Speech event: asking the time A : What time is it? (speech act 1) B : It is 3 o’clock. (speech act 2) A : Thank you. (speech act 3) Speech event: exchanging greetings A : Good morning, Sir. (speech act 1) B : Morning. How are you today? (speech act 2) A : I’m fine, Sir. Thank you. (speech Lecture (5): Cooperative Principle & The Structure of Conversation in Expanding Circle Contexts Required Conceptual Components: Interactive acts – how the interaction is managed (e.g., by turn taking, backchannels, opening, closing, adjacency pairs, and repair) Cross-cultural Differences: Speech acts Cooperative principle Politeness Cooperative Principle Herbert Paul Grice In Grice’s paper, ‘Logic and conversation’ (1975), he argued that in order for a person to interpret what someone else says, some kind of cooperative principle is assumed to be in operation. Cooperati on is the basis of successful conversations. Cooperative Principle Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. See the Example Text A: B: Customer number two! Ah ….. Could I have 2 pounds of salmon please? THE FOUR MAXIMS QUANTITY Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of exchange. Do not make your contribution more informative than is Text Example A: Sit down Example A: Sit down at the newly painted table. This referring expression contains information that may be useful to identify the referent. However: Under the assumption that A is being cooperative, we might expect that the property of “being newly painted” is being chosen for a purpose. QUALITY Try to make your contribution one that is true. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Text RELATION Text BE RELEVANT MANNER Text Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief. Be orderly. Example Clear fulfillment of these maxims may be demonstrated in the following exchange: Husband: Where are the car keys? Wife: They ‘re on the table in the hall. The wife has answered clearly (manner) and truthfully (Quality) She has given just the right amount of information (Quantity) She has directly addressed her husband’s goal in asking the question (Relation) She has said precisely what she meant, no more and no less (Quantity). Assumptions: 1. We don't adhere to them strictly. 2. We interpret what we hear as if what we hear conforms to them. 3. Where maxim is violated, we draw implicatures. Not Observing a Maxim 1. Flout a maxim: –When we have NO intention to deceive or mislead hearer. –Speaker knows that Hearer will get the meaning implied. Man : Does your dog bite? Woman : No. The man reaches down to pat the dog. (The dog bites the man's hand.) Man: Quch! Hey! You said your dog doesn't bite. Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog. 2. Violate a maxim: – There is an intention to deceive hearer. Father: Mummy’s gone on a little holiday because she needs a rest. [Truth] Mummy’s gone away to decide if she wants a divorce or not. 3. Opt out of a maxim: – Speaker chooses not to observe maxim for ethical or legal Lyingafor the sake of working things out is an reasons. example for ethical reasons. When a doctor lies about a patient’s medical case to an unauthorized person, he does this for legal reasons. HEDGES Words or phrases used to indicate that we are not really sure that what we’re saying is sufficiently correct or complete. Expressions which sound a note of caution. They display awareness on the speaker’s part that she/he may be violating one of the maxims of Violating the maxim of quality A: Excuse me, do you know what time the shops close? B: As far as I know, they close at 7, but I’m not from around here. We’re often in situations where we can’t guarantee that the information we impart is in fact true. This leads to potential violations of the Quality.maxim Violating the maxim of quantity I don’t know if you know this already, but the shops close at 7, so you might want to hurry up. To cut a long story short, she decided she would leave for Hawaii. In these situations, we are in a position where: We’re not sure the interlocutor knows something already (which would make our contribution “extra” or “unnecessary”) So we have to acknowledge this, but still make sure the background information is in place. Violating the maxim of relevance Oh, by the way, did you notice he’s not wearing a wedding ring anymore? This may sound silly, but did you come here on your own? Here too, the speaker displays an awareness that what she is saying may be irrelevant (or already known). However, there are scenarios where speakers do make remarks which are otherwise unconnected to the conversation. Violating the maxim of Manner Sorry, but I find this a little difficult to describe... I don’t know if this is at all clear, but I do believe the man burst in through the window. And here, the speaker seems to be aware of his contribution being confused, or verging on obscurity, thus potentially violating Manner. WHAT HEDGES SHOW US Ultimately, speakers’ use of hedges suggests that Grice’s maxims are on the right track When the maxims are violated – usually for some purpose – the speaker indicates that she is aware of this. To conclude, Grice’s cooperative principle is meant to specify rules (maxims) that should be followed by speakers in a conversation in order to achieve cooperation. Violating any of the maxims of cooperative principle is called the conversational implicature or indirect communication. Which maxim(s) is/are violated, and what does that violation actually communicate? Editor: I’m considering hiring X as a writer. What can you tell me about X? Writing teacher: X has good handwriting, and always comes to class on time. The teacher is violating the maxim of Quantity (not giving enough information) and the maxim of Relevance (giving irrelevant information) This strategy generally communicates, “I have nothing good to say about X as a writer”; that is, “Anything relevant I could say would not be in X’s favor” Jana: I’d like to visit Bashayer. Where does she live? Rana: Somewhere near the mall. Rana is violating the maxim of Quantity. Because her response doesn’t give Jana enough information for her to visit Bashayer APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE MAXIMS IS THE KEY TO THE NOTION OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE !! Implicatures Basic assumption in conversation: Unless otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to the cooperative principle and the maxims. A: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese B: Ah, I brought the bread. Implicatures A: are you coming to the party tonight? B: I’ve got an exam tomorrow. B’s response contains an implicature concerning tonight’s activities and that is not simply a statement about tomorrow's activities. Implicatures Speakers communicate meaning via implicatures. listeners recognize the communicated meanings via inference Understanding implications rely on some background knowledge Background knowledge Schema A conventional knowledge structure that exists in memory. We used our conventional knowledge of a classroom or “ a classroom schema” to analyze a ‘I used the whiteboard which is closer to the door’ We have main schemas that are used in the interpretation of what we experience. E.g. “ supermarket schema” Scripts A dynamic schema contain information on event sequences. E.g. “going to the dentist” + “going to the movies” Scripts help explain that expectations play an important role in understanding discourse. When we hear a situation being described, we expect that certain events take place. Lecture (6): Politeness “Can you pass the salt?” Why Conversation Works (when it shouldn’t…) according to theorists… Grice, Goffman, Brown, Levinson and Leech Grice’s ‘Logic of Conversation’ Conversation works - even when we don’t say what we mean. Why it works so well fascinated philosopher Paul Grice. He wondered about conversations such as this: Jana: Layla: You’ve got a mountain to climb! It’s better than a slap in the face. Grice wondered just how we make meaning out of such conversation. Grice’s ‘Logic of Conversation’ Grice concluded that conversation must follow its own set of logical principles or ‘rules’. He worked out how, even when we don’t mean what we say – that the full ‘pragmatic force’ of our utterance is easily understood, as in this third example: Layla: My bank account is eagerly waiting! Jana: Yay - is that the time already? Grice’s Insights Communication is a co-operative activity: when two people communicate, it’s in their interests to make the communication go as smoothly as possible in order to achieve their aims. Speakers behave in certain predictable ways. When we, as hearers, try to work out what someone means, we do it by assuming they’re being co-operative. Grice’s ‘Co-operative Principle’ “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose and direction of the exchange in which you are engaged.” Conversation works only with the co-operation of its participants. Co-operation is built around a series of ‘Gricean maxims’: Quality Quantity Manner Relation ‘The Gricean Maxims’ 1. Be true 2. Be brief 3. 4. Be clear Be relevant ‘In short, these maxims specify what the participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly whilst providing sufficient information.’ The maxims in action… A. “How do I get to Panda’s, sister?” B. “Go straight ahead, turn right at the school, then left at the gas station on the hill.” Speaker A assumes that: B believes his directions to be genuine – the maxim of quality; B believes the information to be sufficient – the maxim of quantity; B believes the information to be clear – the maxim of manner; B believes his directions are to Panda’s – the maxim of relation. Not following the maxims… Grice recognised that whilst we could choose not to follow a maxim, such a choice would be conscious and consequential. A speaker can choose to… ‘violate’ a maxim and be intentionally misleading. ‘opt out’ of a maxim and refuse to cooperate. ‘flout’ a maxim and be intentionally ironic. ‘Violating’ a Maxim In this BBC interview between Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard, the leader of the opposition violates the maxim of relation by not giving an answer that relates to the question: Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule? Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him. Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him? Howard: The truth of the matter is that. ‘Opting out’ Here, Paxman asks the Prime Minister a question; the minister opts out of the maxim of relation: Paxman: “When will war become inevitable?” PM: “Well I know you have to ask that question but it’s the kind of question I cannot answer.” ‘Flouting’ This is the most important ‘use’ of Grice’s maxims. Unlike ‘violating’, ‘flouting’ a maxim allows a speaker to signal that although they seem to be ‘violating’ a maxim, they are still co-operating. “Mmm… Do’nuts…” “Homie, those pants look awful tight to me.” Not observing maxims leads us very nicely on to Grice’s key idea of “Implicature”… ‘Conversational Implicature’ ‘Gricean Pragmatics’ – knowing what isn’t said What Grice called ‘implicature’ occurs when a speaker chooses not to observe a maxim. The listener, assuming that the speaker still intends being cooperative, looks for meaning other than that which is said. The intended meaning will be arrived at through the speaker working out the pragmatic force of the utterance rather than its semantic sense. POLITENESS If we really want co-operation… … we also need to be polite Goffman’s Face Co-operation is vital to conversation, but without politeness, all is lost. Erving Goffman was intrigued by what lay behind everyday expressions such as ‘losing face’, ‘saving face’ and ‘being shamefaced’. He saw that without politeness, conversation didn’t work and that the need for politeness was rooted in ‘saving face’: ‘[face is…] the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a personal contact’ Goffman recognised that whenever we talk, we need to feel ‘liked’. As a consequence, conversations are sites for potential ‘loss of face’ and that ‘face work’ must, therefore, be a part of talk if ‘loss of face’ is to be avoided and co-operation is to be maintained. ‘Negative’ and ‘Positive’ Face Brown and Levinson developed Goffman’s ideas into the concepts of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ face. ‘Negative’ Face The desire to feel unimpeded, i.e. the freedom from feeling imposed upon by the interaction. ‘Positive’ Face The desire to feel approved of , i.e. to maintain a positive and consistent self-image during the interaction. ‘Negative and Positive Face’ ‘Face Threatening Acts’ (FTAs) conversational turns that risk a ‘loss of face’. Positive politeness ‘face work’ addresses ‘positive face’ concerns, by showing concern for the other’s face. Negative politeness ‘face work’ addresses ‘negative face’ concerns, by acknowledging the other’s face is threatened. ‘Face Threatening Acts’ ‘Close your mouth when you eat, you fat swine’. ~ A bald ‘on record’ or ‘direct’ FTA ‘You have such beautiful teeth. I wish I didn’t see them when you eat.’ ~ An FTA using positive politeness ‘I know you’re very hungry and that steak is a bit tough, but I would appreciate it if you would chew with your mouth closed.’ ~ An FTA using negative politeness ‘I wonder how far a person’s lips can stretch yet remain closed when eating?’ ~ An ‘off record’ or ‘indirect’ FTA The ‘Politeness Principle’ Geoffrey Leech proposed the need for ‘politeness maxims’ as a prerequisite for conversational cooperation. In the absence of politeness, Leech suggested, it will be assumed that an attitude of politeness is absent. Each maxim has two forms: positive and negative. Each maxim has a lesser ‘sub-maxim’ that recognises the general law that negative politeness – that we seek to minimise discord – is more important than positive politeness – that we seek concord. Leech’s Politeness Maxims 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Tact Generosity Approbation Modesty Agreement Sympathy Leech’s Politeness Maxims 1. Tact: minimise the cost to others [‘submaxim’: maximise benefit to others] Commanding with interrogative sentence is considered more polite than using the command line, for example “Could I interrupt you for a half second – what was the website address?” Leech’s Politeness Maxims 2. Generosity: minimise benefit to self [maximise cost to self] For example, “Let me wash your clothes too. I have the same thing to be washed, really.” This utterance is considered polite because it minimizes the benefit for the speaker. Leech’s Politeness Maxims 3. Approbation: minimise dispraise of others [maximise praise of other] A person will be considered polite if the person maximizes praise to others or the hearer. For example, “I heard your English just now; your pronunciation is very good.” Leech’s Politeness Maxims 4. Modesty: minimise praise of self [maximise dispraise of self] For example, “I don’t think I will do it well. I am still learning”. This utterance is considered polite because the speaker maximizes dispraise of self. Leech’s Politeness Maxims 5. Agreement: minimise disagreement between self and others [maximise agreement between self and other] For example, “Good idea, I will wait for you at the restaurant”. This conversation shows that the speaker is able to build their agreement so that they will be polite to each other. Leech’s Politeness Maxims 6. Sympathy: minimise antipathy between self and others [maximise sympathy between self and other] For example, “I take a pity on hearing you didn’t pass the exam.” How do you interpret an utterance? The conventional meanings of words The cooperative principle & the 4 maxims Speech acts Theory Politeness Theory The linguistic and non-linguistic context of the utterance Items of background knowledge The fact that all of the above are available to both participants and they both assume this to be the case (interlocutors have a shared cultural knowledge) Macropragmatics The politeness principle The cooperative principle Speech act theory Abstract Theory of Politeness- formulated in 1978 and revised in 1987 by Brown and Levinson Politeness is interlocutors’ desire to be pleasant to each other through a positive manner of addressing. Base of Politeness theory: Interlocutors have face which they consciously project, try to protect and preserve. Politeness strategies are used to protect the ‘face’ of others when addressing them. Positive and negative face. Positive: reflects desire to be approved by others Negative: avoids being imposed on. Politeness strategies differ according to face. Face and strategies both vary from culture to culture. Cooperative Principle as Basis for Politeness Grice’s Cooperative Principle - a corner stone for the notion of politeness Lakoff links notion of politeness to indirectness, asserting that just as the CP explains how an addressee can understand more than is actually said from an utterance by abiding by or flouting certain maxims, CP serves as a starting point in ‘Politeness rule’. The clearer a message, the more one moves away from politeness. Clarity: Directness (boldness?) ; Politeness: Indirectness Theories of Politeness Four main approaches according to Fraser (1990) 1. Social Norm Approach 2. Conversational Contact Approach 3. Conversational Maxim Approach 4. Face-Management Approach Some of which relate the phenomenon to pragmatics and others to sociolinguistics-supports inference that it is socio-pragmatic phenomenon. Social Norm Approach Strongly relates politeness to sociolinguistics Based on the notion of social norm and convention Standards of behavior in any society according to which addresser’s politeness is measured. These standards are related to certain speech styles (Fraser) A higher degree of formality implies greater politeness This approach relates politeness to the whole discourse, not only to a particular utterance. Conversation Contact Approach Proposed by Fraser Interlocutors conduct a conversation to reach recognition of rights and obligations that govern the interaction which are negotiable, dynamic and changeable. The notion of rights and obligations can be related to the notion of power and social identity since they are not static. Change in social identity of interlocutor involves change in rights and obligations. Conversation Maxims Approach Based on Gricean notion of cooperative principle and its maxims Two major models adopt this approach 1. Lakoff’s Politeness Rules 2. Leech’s Politeness Principles Lakoff’s Politeness Rules Lakoff ranks among the earliest scholars who dealt with the concept of politeness in relation to pragmatics Based on Grice’s maxims distinguishes three types of politeness from a behavioral point of view (1) Polite behavior which is clear when interlocutors follow the politeness rules, whether or not expected. (2) Non – polite behavior which does not conform with politeness rules, where conformity is not expected. (3) Rudeness, where politeness is not transformed, although expected. Lakoff links notion of politeness to indirectness, asserting that just as the CP explains how an addressee can understand more than is actually said from an utterance by abiding by or flouting certain maxims, CP serves as a starting point in ‘Politeness rule’. The clearer a message, the more one moves away from politeness. Clarity: Directness ; Politeness: Indirectness Leech’s Politeness Principles The tact maxim The tact maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other." The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown and Levinson's negative politeness strategy of minimising the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. For example: Could I interrupt you for a second? If I could just clarify this then. Leech’s Politeness Principles The generosity maxim Leech's generosity maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs that express or imply benefit to self; maximize the expression of beliefs that express or imply cost to self." Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of the self. For example: You relax and let me do the dishes. You must come and have dinner with us. Leech’s Politeness Principles The approbation maxim The approbation maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other." It is preferred to praise others and if this is impossible, to sidestep the issue, to give some sort of minimal response (possibly through the use of euphemisms), or to remain silent. The first part of the maxim avoids disagreement; the second part intends to make other people feel good by showing solidarity. For example: I heard you singing at the karaoke last night. It sounded like you were enjoying yourself! Jana, I know you're a genius – would you know how to solve this math problem here? Leech’s Politeness Principles The modesty maxim The maxim of modesty is one of the six maxims proposed by Leech (1983) in his PP (politeness principle) meaning to minimize praise or to maximize dispraise of self. The modesty maxim states: "Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of dispraise of self." For example: Oh, I'm so stupid – I didn't make a note of our lecture! Did you? Leech’s Politeness Principles The agreement maxim The agreement maxim runs as follows: "Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other." It is in line with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies of "seek agreement" and "avoid disagreement", to which they attach great importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid disagreement. It is simply observed that they are much more direct in expressing agreement, rather than disagreement. For example: A: I don't want my daughter to do this, I want her to do that. B: Yes, but ma'am, I thought we resolved this already on your last visit. Leech’s Politeness Principles The sympathy maxim The sympathy maxim states: "minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between the self and other." This includes a small group of speech acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and expressing condolences – all of which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. For example: I am sorry to hear about your father. Face – Management Approach Brown and Levinson’s (1978, revised 1987) ‘Theory of Politeness’ adopts the notion of ‘Face’ as a basis which is a sociological term proposed by Goffman’s (1955) theory of interpersonal communication. Brown and levinson’s Theory is based on a field research on three Languages, namely, English, Tamil and Tzeltd. The notion of ‘face’ is defined by Goffman as: “The positive Social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved Social attributes”. According to Goffman, the concept of ‘Line’ refers to conduct or behavior. Brown and Levinson (ibid: 66) observe ‘Face’ as emotionally invested, thus, can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, thus must be continuously attended to in interaction. They observe that one’s face depends on others face being maintained through cooperation during an interlocution. Brown and Levinson’s ‘Face’ consists of two related aspects: 1.Negative face: Represents the claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition, 2. Positive face: represents the desire for approval and appreciation, the need to connect, to belong, to be accepted as a member of the group. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness strategies Brown and Levinson propose various strategies to perform the face – threatening acts (henceforth FTA) which tackle an instance when an interlocutor’s statement represents a threat to another interlocutor’s expectations, thus, threatens his ‘face’, i.e., self and public – image. In such a case the interlocutor may utter an utterance to decrease the possible threat to his / her ‘face’, which is labeled ‘face – saving act’. Positive Politeness An addresser can perform FTA while attending to the addressee's positive 'face wants', i.e., expresses approval or support. Brown and Levinson propose 15 positive politeness strategies, some of which are as follows: Strategy 1: Notice, attend to the addressee's needs, wants, etc. Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest (approval, sympathy, etc.). Strategy 3: Intensity (show interest to the addressee). Positive politeness strategies are not only used for FTA redress but also as a 'social accelerator' to indicate intimacy. Negative Politeness By choosing to perform FTA with a negative politeness, the addresser acknowledges that the addressee has negative face wants, i.e., having a preference not to be imposed on. Brown and Levinson propose 10 negative strategies. Out of which some are as follows: Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect. Strategy 2: Give difference. Strategy 3: Apologize Strategy 4: Impersonalize the addresser and the addressee. Speech Acts as Related to the Concept of Politeness Generally Speaking , Searle (1975, cited in Brown and Yule, 1983: 232) distinguishes between direct and indirect Speech Acts (henceforth SAs), defining direct speech Acts as expressing their illocutionary force directly, e.g., when the addresser needs information and directly, asks the addressee to provide it: Example – Can you close the door? Speech Acts as Related to the Concept of Politeness Indirect SAs are “cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another”, (Searle, ibid: 60).Yule (1996: 133) propose the following example: Example – could you pass the salt? He argues that the addressee would not mistake the utterance to question his/ her physical ability but would understand it as a request and respond to it. Indirect Speech Acts Indirect SAs are a device mainly used to express politeness, in order to avoid the unpleasant aspects of a message expressing requests, orders, blame, etc., i.e., to avoid the sensitivity of direct utterances. Criticism and Shortcomings of the Theory of Politeness Brown and Levinson's theory of Politeness has been criticized for not being universally valid by scholars involved in East – Asian Languages and cultures. Conclusion 1. Politeness is a socio-pragmatic phenomenon. 2. 'Politeness Theory' is not universally valid, since languages differ in their politeness scales and strategies, which may differ from one culture to another. 3. Face saving forms the basis of politeness principles. 4. Everyone's Face depends on the other's Face saving, to have one's Face saved in return on the basis of politeness. 5. Indirectness is a device of politeness, while directness is a device of impoliteness. 6. Pragmatics is concerned only with intentional indirectness. 7. The social aspect of politeness is related to the social identities of the interlocutors and the relation between them, while the individual part of politeness is related to the strategic use of politeness to achieve communicative goals. 8. Stylistic variation and levels of formality signify the level of politeness / impoliteness. 9. There is a correlation between the politeness strategy used and the social identity of the addresser in the interaction. 10. The use of 'positive politeness' signifies social equality; position correlates with the use of 'on record' strategy; 'negative politeness' conveys unfamiliarity and social distance; 'off record' politeness strategy implies imposition on the addressee. Politeness strategies  There are four politeness strategies used by people to maintain a balance in protecting the positive and the negative faces of each other and acting appropriately in social interactions. Starting with (1) the least direct (more polite) , and ending with (4), which is the most direct (least polite), here are the strategies:  1. Off-record (Least direct- Most polite)  2. Negative politeness  3. Positive politeness  4. On record baldly (Most direct- Least polite) If we view the strategies on a continuous line, they would look like this: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Off-Record Negative Politeness Positive politeness On –Record baldly Least direct Most Polite More direct Very polite More direct Polite Most direct Least polite Thus, the less direct you are, the more polite you seem to be. Conversely, the more blunt in stating your wants and needs in interactions, the less polite you seem to be. Thus, if you want to borrow your neighbor’s vacuum cleaner, this is how you may ask: OFF-Record: “Our vacuum cleaner just broke down! The floors are very dusty!” -No mention of an act to be requested. -Need is only hinted, not mentioned -Left for the hearer to infer the need Question: Why is this strategy considered the most polite? Why is it the least threatening of all strategies to the hearer’s negative face? Negative Politeness: “Could I, please, borrow your vacuum cleaner for just an hour?” -Act is mentioned: “borrow you vacuum cleaner” -Use of yes-or-no question -Use of the modal ‘could’ -Use of ‘please’ -Use of the possessive determiner ‘your’ -Minimizing the imposition by using the prepositional time phrase ‘for just an hour’ Positive Politeness: -Use of nick name ‘Susu’ -Use of a term of endearment ‘dear’ -Use of the time expression ‘right away’ Susu, dear, I need to borrow the vacuum cleaner right away! These three linguistic features show closeness of speaker to hearer. On-Record Baldly: -Explicit mention of act -Use of direct order: Imperative syntactic structure Get the vacuum cleaner ! Exercises: A. Name the politeness strategy used in the following utterances. B. Support your choice by linguistic features used in the utterance: 1. ‘Interesting book! Pity I don’t have 30 SR on me!’ 2.“I don’t want to be a nuisance, but could you possibly tell me the address for the website they were talking about this morning?” 3. “Sorry to bother you. I couldn’t borrow $30, could I?” 4. “Mary, sweetie- I’d really appreciate it if you’d tell me the address of the website they were talking about this morning.” 5. “I know you hate parties, Jen, but come on any way. We’ll all be there, and it’ll be cool seeing you! Come on- get a life!” 6. The door-handle is falling off. Fix it.

Document Details

Related

Full Transcript