Introduction to Discourse Studies PDF

Introduction to Discourse Studies New edition Jan Renkema Christoph Schubert John Benjamins Publishing Company Introduction to Discourse Studies Introduction to Discourse Studies New edition Jan Renkema University of Tilburg Christoph Schubert University of Vecht...

Introduction to Discourse Studies New edition Jan Renkema Christoph Schubert John Benjamins Publishing Company Introduction to Discourse Studies Introduction to Discourse Studies New edition Jan Renkema University of Tilburg Christoph Schubert University of Vechta John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia  TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 8 the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. doi 10.1075/z.219 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2018037181 (print) / 2018047917 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 0195 9 (Hb) / isbn 978 90 272 0196 6 (Pb) isbn 978 90 272 6310 0 (e-book) © 2018 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · https://benjamins.com  Table of contents Advisory board for Introduction to Discourse Studies xi Preface xIII Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 A rough definition of discourse studies 1 1.2 Aim and structure of this book 2 1.3 The presentation of the material 5 Questions and assignments 7 Bibliographical information 8 Part I. General orientation Chapter 2 The pragmatic framework 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 The Organon model 13 2.3 Speech act theory 16 2.3.1 Types of speech acts and felicity conditions 16 2.3.2 Illocutions in discourse 18 2.4 The cooperative principle 21 2.5 Relevance theory 24 2.6 Politeness theory 28 2.7 Summary 34 Questions and assignments 36 Bibliographical information 39 Chapter 3 Discourse in communication 41 3.1 Introduction 41 3.2 Pragmatics and semiotics 41 3.3 Social rules for symbolic interaction 44 vi Introduction to Discourse Studies 3.4 Sender and receiver in communication theory 46 3.5 The discourse situation 49 3.6 The socio-semiotic approach of Functional Grammar 52 3.7 What makes discourse discourse? 55 3.8 Summary 58 Questions and assignments 60 Bibliographical information 63 Part II. Backpacking for a journey into discourse studies Chapter 4 Discourse classification 67 4.1 Introduction 67 4.2 Typologies of discourse 67 4.3 Written language and spoken interaction 72 4.4 Genre theory and analysis 74 4.5 Multimodality 78 4.6 Electronic discourse 84 4.6.1 General characteristics of computer-mediated discourse 84 4.6.2 Hypertext 88 4.6.3 Online genres 90 4.7 Summary 92 Questions and assignments 94 Bibliographical information 98 Chapter 5 Structured content 101 5.1 Introduction 101 5.2 Propositions 101 5.3 Sentence and discourse topics 105 5.4 Macrostructures 109 5.5 Superstructures 113 5.6 Concept-based approaches to discourse content 115 5.7 Summary 119 Questions and assignments 120 Bibliographical information 123  Table of contents vii Chapter 6 Discourse connections 125 6.1 Introduction 125 6.2 Cohesion 125 6.2.1 Types of cohesive ties 126 6.2.2 Referential elements 129 6.3 Coherence 132 6.4 Rhetorical Structure Theory 136 6.5 Discourse relation research 138 6.6 Connectivity theory 140 6.7 Summary 143 Questions and assignments 145 Bibliographical information 149 Chapter 7 Contextual phenomena 151 7.1 Introduction 151 7.2 Approaches to context 152 7.3 Deixis 154 7.4 Information management 158 7.4.1 Staging 158 7.4.2 Given and new information 161 7.5 Perspectivization 163 7.6 Implicit meaning 167 7.6.1 Presuppositions 168 7.6.2 Inferences 171 7.7 Summary 174 Questions and assignments 175 Bibliographical information 179 Chapter 8 Style and stylistics 181 8.1 Introduction 181 8.2 Form, content and situation 181 8.3 Views on style 184 8.4 Normative and objective analysis 187 8.5 Everyday and literary language 191 8.6 Contemporary approaches to stylistics 194 8.6.1 Corpus stylistics 194 8.6.2 Pragmatic stylistics 197 viii Introduction to Discourse Studies 8.6.3 Cognitive Poetics 201 8.7 Summary 206 Questions and assignments 208 Bibliographical information 211 Part III. Special modes of communication Chapter 9 Conversation analysis 215 9.1 Introduction 215 9.2 Transcription methods 215 9.3 The turn-taking model 217 9.4 Sequential organization 221 9.5 Discourse markers 225 9.6 Summary 228 Questions and assignments 229 Bibliographical information 231 Chapter 10 Informative discourse 233 10.1 Introduction 233 10.2 Academic writing as informative discourse 233 10.3 Readability in a formula 237 10.4 The measurement of understanding 240 10.5 Judging discourse quality 242 10.6 The improvement of documents 246 10.7 Summary 248 Questions and assignments 250 Bibliographical information 252 Chapter 11 Narratives 253 11.1 Introduction 253 11.2 A philological approach to fairy tales 253 11.3 Sociolinguistic and interactional approaches 255 11.4 The psycholinguistic approach 259 11.5 The organizational approach 261 11.6 Summary 264 Questions and assignments 265 Bibliographical information 266  Table of contents ix Chapter 12 Argumentation and persuasion 267 12.1 Introduction 267 12.2 The structure of argumentation 268 12.3 The pragma-dialectical approach 270 12.4 The social-psychological approach 273 12.5 The quality of argumentation in relation to persuasion 278 12.6 Summary 281 Questions and assignments 282 Bibliographical information 284 Part IV. Special interests Chapter 13 Discourse and cognition 287 13.1 Introduction 287 13.2 Reading and prior knowledge 288 13.3 Aspects of processing 292 13.4 Models of comprehension 297 13.5 Models of text production 301 13.6 Product and process analysis 304 13.7 Summary 308 Questions and assignments 309 Bibliographical information 312 Chapter 14 Discourse and institution 315 14.1 Introduction 315 14.2 Aspects of institutions 316 14.3 Politics 318 14.4 Law 322 14.5 Bureaucracy 327 14.6 News media 331 14.7 Health care 337 14.8 Summary 340 Questions and assignments 341 Bibliographical information 343 x Introduction to Discourse Studies Chapter 15 Discourse and culture 345 15.1 Introduction 345 15.2 Linguistic relativity 346 15.3 Critical Discourse Analysis 348 15.4 Gender and sexuality 352 15.5 Racism 355 15.6 Cross- and intercultural communication 359 15.7 Summary 363 Questions and assignments 364 Bibliographical information 366 Key to the questions 369 References 421 Index 449  Advisory board for Introduction to Discourse Studies Chapter Researcher Affiliation 2 Francisco Yus University of Alicante (Spain) 3 John A. Bateman University of Bremen (Germany) 4 Janet Giltrow University of British Columbia (Canada) 5 Richard Watson Todd University of Technology Thonburi (Thailand) 6 Wilbert Spooren University of Nijmegen (The Netherlands) 7 Anita Fetzer University of Augsburg (Germany) 8 Dan McIntyre University of Huddersfield (England) 9 Jack Sidnell University of Toronto (Canada) 10 Heidrun Dorgeloh University of Düsseldorf (Germany) 11 Alexandra King’s College London (England) Georgakopoulou 12 Marianne Doury French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Paris (France) 13 Max Louwerse University of Tilburg (The Netherlands) 14 Andrea Mayr Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland) 15 Ruth Wodak University of Lancaster (England)  Preface The present textbook is based on two preceding editions. In 1993, Jan Renkema published his volume Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook, which was updated under the present title Introduction to Discourse Studies in 2004. After several reprints and translations into Spanish, Japanese and Korean, it recently became obvious that another update was necessary, owing to the tremendous advances in the area of discourse studies. The result is this thoroughly revised and expanded new edition, now co-authored by Jan Renkema and Christoph Schubert. In order to broaden the perspective on current research developments, an international advisory board of fourteen leading experts in discourse studies was assembled. Each chapter was thus critically reviewed by an authority in the respective field with regard to structure, bibliographical references and topicality of content. The main intention of the revision is to point out recent research and new strands in contemporary discourse studies. While the general organization of the textbook has remained untouched, numerous sections and paragraphs have been inserted or rearranged, and a few outdated passages have been abridged or re- moved. For better and quicker orientation within the book, each chapter now con- tains an introduction, which provides definitions and an outline of the sections, as well as a concluding summary. In line with inductive reasoning, emphasis has been placed on supplementary examples that illustrate new theoretical concepts and definitions. As far as new research is concerned, areas such as the following have been added or expanded: impoliteness studies, pragmatics of computer-mediated com- munication, features of hypertext and new genres on the Internet, multimodal discourse, content-based approaches to discourse topics, connectivity theory, ad- ditional types of deixis and context, stylistics from pragmatic, cognitive and cor- pus-based perspectives, characteristics of informational academic discourse, new approaches to interactional and organizational storytelling, news values, populist discourse, variational pragmatics and the discursive construction of sexual identi- ties. By including a wide variety of topics and research traditions, we aim to of- fer a comprehensive panorama of discourse studies. Through this encyclopedic xiv Introduction to Discourse Studies approach, students are given the opportunity to explore diverse sub-disciplines and schools combined in one coherent volume. A large number of new references have been added to the final bibliography and to the sections on recommended readings at the end of the single chapters. The index has been expanded by numerous additional keywords which docu- ment the updated and extended terminology. Furthermore, the revised edition offers updated assignments and new study questions accompanied by answer keys, which underline the suitability of the textbook for self-study purposes. It would have been impossible to compose this most extensive introduction in the broad field of discourse studies, covering all the different approaches, without the help of specialists in the great variety of research traditions and new related areas. We are very grateful that so many outstanding colleagues accepted our in- vitation to join the advisory board. In giving us suggestions for improvement and updates in new research, all members made very useful comments for their indi- vidual chapters. Of course, we could not incorporate all their suggestions in this already voluminous introduction. But we are of the opinion that we answered to the gist of all the comments made in the process of revision, with a focus on ap- proaches that can be expected to stand the test of time. Needless to say, all short- comings are entirely our own. We would like to thank Inka Lange and Lukas Feldhaus from Vechta University for their invaluable contribution to copy-editing and bibliographical referencing. We are very grateful to Esther Roth from John Benjamins Publishing for her kind encouragement and her continued belief and interest in the volume. Moreover, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of the advisory board. Without these colleagues, the volume could not have been realized in the present form. Finally, we would like to express our heartfelt thanks to our families for their unwavering support and understanding. This course book addresses anyone interested in discourse studies and related or overlapping domains such as communication sciences, pragmatics, rhetoric, stylistics, text linguistics, conversation analysis and graphic design. The chapters of this book provide a research framework that serves as a navigation system for the winding paths through the jungle of discourse studies. Ideally, our readers are enabled to stand on our shoulders and see the academic horizon from a more elevated vantage point. Hopefully, we have managed to transfer our joy of lecturing into the pages of this book, so that future generations of students continue to find interest in the in- vestigation of discourse. If lecturers consider this introduction a helpful textbook for their courses that can take half of the work out of their hands, then we have done a useful job. We would like to encourage readers to send us any comments or suggestions that might arise from using this textbook. All contributions are  Preface xv welcome. In any case, we sincerely hope that all our readers spend insightful and stimulating hours with our introduction to discourse studies. Jan Renkema Christoph Schubert University of Tilburg University of Vechta Summer 2018  Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 A rough definition of discourse studies Discourse studies is the discipline devoted to the investigation of the relationship between form and function in verbal communication. This short but rough defini- tion is the point of departure for this book. The definition prompts the following questions: 1. What is meant by the relationship between form and function? 2. Is it really necessary to have a separate discipline for the investigation of this relationship? Answers to these two questions are given in this section. The aim and structure of this book are discussed in the next two sections. What is meant by the relationship between form and function? Consider the following example of a fragment of verbal communication. (1) A: Say, there’s a good movie playing tonight. B: Actually, I have to study. A: Too bad. B: Yes, I’m sorry. A: Well, I guess I don’t need to ask you if you want me to pick you up. In this example, A’s first utterance is in the form of a statement that there is a good movie playing that night. The function of this statement, however, is that of an in- vitation to B. B knows that A’s statement is meant to be an invitation. B could have responded by simply saying, “That’s nice” or “I didn’t know that.” But B responds with a statement in turn expressing a need to study that evening. B’s response counts as a refusal of the invitation. A’s statement of regret shows that this inter- pretation is not mere conjecture. In this fragment the form statement has the function of an invitation (first ut- terance of A) and a refusal thereof (first utterance of B). Below is another example: a passage from a statement concerning a newly built office complex and the same passage in a slightly different form. 2 Introduction to Discourse Studies (2) a. The new office complex is situated in the old city center. The architectural firm of Wilkinson and Sons designed it. b. The new office complex is situated in the old city center. It was designed by the architectural firm of Wilkinson and Sons. The active voice is used in the second sentence in (2a): “The firm designed the new office.” Whereas in (2b) a passive variant is used: “The new office was designed by the firm.” What is the difference in function between these two sentences? In the active form the informational starting point is the firm that provided the design. In the passive form the office complex is elaborated on. When different forms are used for getting across approximately the same content, they often lead to differ- ences in function. The aim of discourse studies is to provide an explanatory de- scription of the intricate relations between forms of discourse elements and their functions in communication. The second question is more difficult to answer. Why should there be a sepa- rate discipline discourse studies? To many researchers the best answer is that the investigation of the relation between form and function requires contributions from different disciplines such as linguistics, rhetoric, stylistics and pragmatics as well as other fields concerned with verbal communication such as communication science, psychology, sociology and philosophy. Discourse phenomena cannot be studied adequately from just one of these perspectives. Because the concepts deal- ing with these phenomena are taken from many disciplines, a common ground is necessary. Discourse studies is this common ground. It serves as an inter- or multidisciplinary approach that enables different research schools to have the nec- essary interaction so that specific contributions can be made to research into the relationship between form and function in verbal communication. 1.2 Aim and structure of this book The aim of this book is to familiarize prospective students with the most impor- tant concepts and the major issues in the field of discourse studies. Knowledge of the basic concepts will serve as an academic “toolkit” that the student can use in advanced courses in discourse studies. This introduction is also meant as a step- ping stone to further reading in handbooks on different discourse topics and to studying research results in academic journals on discourse. This book consists of fifteen chapters spread over four parts. The ordering is inspired by the metaphor of the student who is supposed to be undertaking a journey into discourse studies. After this introductory chapter, Part I provides information about the basic characteristics of this journey through the diverse  Chapter 1. Introduction 3 landscapes of discourse studies. Part II invites students to fill their backpacks with some essential traveling material. In Part III the different ways of making an academic journey are presented. In Part IV some specific domains of interest can be chosen. In Part I, Chapters 2 and 3 provide a general orientation towards the field. The focus is on the last part of the rough definition given earlier: discourse studies is the study of verbal communication. Chapter 2, The pragmatic framework, is the most philosophical chapter in this book. It tries to answer questions like: What is (verbal) communication? What are the principles governing the use of the instru- ment “language”? What are the strategies that are brought to bear when we com- municate? Verbal communication is presented as the performance of acts which must have some relevance for partners involved in it. This chapter stimulates the student to think of what verbal communication is about. Chapter 3, Discourse in communication, focuses on discourse as part of the situation in which people communicate. Discourse is no discourse at all without a sender and a receiver. Therefore, discourse cannot be studied adequately without the discourse situation being taken into account. Within this framework two basic discourse questions are answered: How can discourse best be studied in a perspective in which forms are related to functions in a discourse situation? What makes a string of sentences or a couple of utterances discourse? In Part II, Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 present the basic concepts for studying discourse. Chapter 4, Discourse classification, gives an overview of the variety of forms of discourse such as written (a tax form), oral (a doctor-patient conver- sation), electronic (an email), etc. It also discusses the attempts that have been made so far in putting the main categories into some sort of model that reflects the essential differences between them. The classic intriguing question behind this modeling is: What exactly are discourse types and genres? The discussion on con- structing a model is followed by the question of how to study new electronic com- munication situations in which combinations of modes (oral, written and visual) are used. Chapter 5, Structured content, presents the approaches to discourse with respect to the structuring of the message content. How can this structure be described for the different levels of discourse? Three levels are distinguished here: the global structure (the discourse as a whole), the mesostructure (the study of topics and themes) and the local structure (the smallest discursive units such as individual clauses). The central question in Chapter 6, Discourse connections, is the follow- ing: What are the formal ties that keep the different content elements together? Descending from a global structure, an overview of different knots and links to connect content elements is given. Special attention is paid to linguistic techniques of referring back- and forward in discourse and to so-called discourse relations 4 Introduction to Discourse Studies and their markers. Chapter 7, Contextual phenomena, deals with discourse ele- ments from both the production and the perception side, which are directly linked to the social, linguistic and cognitive context. Examples are the fact that the mean- ing of “I” depends on the person using it or the possibility of putting some infor- mation more into the back- or foreground in order to produce a specific effect on readers or hearers. However, the link not only goes from discourse to context, it goes the other way round as well. We always deal with discourse on the basis of knowledge and attitudes that we already have. We are not black boxes. Otherwise we would all give exactly the same rendering after having seen the same movie; nevertheless these renderings do differ in content. In Chapter 8, Style and stylistics, the last chapter of this first part, an overview of stylistic variation in discourse is given, with a particular focus on literary texts. After a brief discussion of classical rhetoric, the concepts of style and register are clarified. Special attention is paid to stylistic phenomena that can easily be studied by students and to stylistic research that highlights the different manifestations of seemingly the same messages. Consider, for example, the different renderings of one movie again, now focusing on the differences in formulation. Literary style is shown to be capable of analysis by applying a wide range of methods from corpus linguistics, pragmatics and cognitive poetics. Part III deals with four central modes of communication. In everyday life we can “just talk” or make conversation intuitively without knowing the outcome, but we can also use language intentionally to give information, to tell a story or to try to convince someone. Chapter 9, Conversation analysis, gives insight into a more sociological way of discourse studies: conversation. Spoken dialogue is based on specific regularities and mechanisms and serves as a kind of glue between the members of a community or a society. Chapter 10, Informative discourse, focuses on the readability of information and the improvement of documents. Academic writing is highlighted as one characteristic instance of the informative discourse type. In this chapter traditional methods to measure readability are dealt with, as well as the notion of discourse quality in a more contemporary view. Chapter 11, Narratives, begins with a philological approach to fairy tales and illustrates how stories are studied from three different perspectives: sociolinguistic, psycholin- guistic and organizational. Chapter 12, Argumentation and persuasion, starts with approaches to analyzing the validity of reasoning in everyday language and presents a social-psychological framework for studying the way in which dis- course can be persuasive. In Part IV, Special interests, three important domains of discourse studies are presented. In Chapter 13, Discourse and cognition, the focus is on what goes on in our brain during the production and the perception of discourse. Cognitive psychologists have done extensive research into modeling the way we speak and  Chapter 1. Introduction 5 hear or write and read. Several models of text comprehension and production are presented here. Chapter 14, Discourse and institution, focuses on the insti- tutional aspects of discourse within the sociological approach. Some key studies are presented, dealing with institutions such as law, health care and news media. Chapter 15, Discourse and culture, presents the major topics in the study of dis- course from a societal point of view. The main question is: Can discourse tell us something about the way in which the producer views the world? This is made more concrete by addressing questions such as: Can discourse analysis reveal something about power relations in society or, for example, the representation of gender and ethnicity in a particular culture? These types of questions are of special importance in the study of cross- and intercultural communication. 1.3 The presentation of the material The material in this book has been organized to serve as a first introduction to discourse studies at university level. Inherent in the interdisciplinary nature of the field of discourse studies is the fact that each phenomenon can be looked at from different viewpoints. Moreover, the danger exists of trivializing theoretical concepts, as they are taken out of their disciplinary context. Special attention will therefore be paid to the origins of key concepts in discourse studies. Inter- or multidisciplinary discourse studies arose during the 1980s. However, it is rooted in classical rhetoric and language philosophy and in classic psycho- logical and sociological studies from both the Anglo-American and the European traditions. It is for that reason that relatively much attention is given to classic and influential landmarks in the field of discourse studies. When dealing with the conceptual arsenal, examples of practical applications are given whenever possible. The research examples chosen are not always the most recent ones. In this book attention is also paid to approaches upon which contemporary developments are based. In the bibliography numerous references date from the 20th century, as in this introductory textbook the focus is on con- cepts and approaches that have proved to be soundly based and not just trendy. After studying this book the student will have most of the fundamental apparatus to do his or her job. The index at the end of this book is a good basis for studying the most important concepts in the field. The index entries only refer to the page on which the concept in question is most elaborately explained. This makes it a concise and accessible “guide” to the major concepts in discourse studies. Obviously, an introductory work cannot delve very deeply into discussions about definitions of key concepts or elaborate on issues. For students who wish to study more specific topics, each chapter or section is accompanied by a list of 6 Introduction to Discourse Studies suggested readings. The main aim of this bibliographical information is to incite the reader to study the classic or key publications in the field. Books comprise about 80% of these references. The other 20% consist of what are considered semi- nal or synoptic articles. All the references in each chapter’s bibliographical infor- mation are listed at the end of the book, with reference to the specific section they refer to. Each chapter ends with questions and assignments. These are meant to stimu- late reflection upon and discussion of seemingly unproblematic topics, which may encourage students to initiate reasoned articulation of their own astonishment about (mis)communication. The key at the end of this book provides answers to these questions. The assignments can be seen as proposals for students to work on in the library at their own campus. The extent to which the assignments are to be worked out depends on conditions of time and curriculum and on special wishes the lecturer may have. The number of questions and assignments may vary per section, depending, for example, on the length of the section or the nature of the subject that the section deals with.  Chapter 1. Introduction 7 Questions and assignments Questions 1.1.1 Explain in your own words what discourse studies is. 1.1.2 Explain in terms of form and function what is going on in the following fragment of dinner conversation. A: Could you pass the salt? B: Of course. (B continues eating without passing the salt.) 1.1.3 Describe the differences in form and function between the following two passages: a. A general practitioner at our health center closed his practice yesterday after lo- cal demonstrations. He was suspected of molesting patients. b. A general practitioner at our health center, who was suspected of molesting pa- tients, closed his practice yesterday after local demonstrations. Assignments 1.1.1 One journal issue on discourse analysis can contain several papers that, according to their authors, all have to do with discourse. Explain how the following subjects could fit the definition of discourse studies that is given in the introductory chapter of this book. This assignment is inspired by a passage in Johnstone (2018). 1. Descriptive terms used to label the accused in the media coverage of a murder trial. 2. A discussion of differences between English and Japanese. 3. An analysis of expressions of identity in Athabaskan (Native American) student writing. 4. A discussion of sonnets by Shakespeare. 5. A paper about the epitaph of the spiritual master of a sect of Muslims. 6. A discussion on whether the pronoun I should appear in formal writing. 7. A study of political debate. 1.1.2 The bibliographical information of this chapter contains a list of the most widely known journals in the field of discourse studies. However, the notion discourse fre- quently occurs in all sorts of journals not specifically linked to discourse studies. Some examples are an article on the communication skills of people with dementia (in the Journal of Communication Disorders), one on text comprehension in relation to children’s narratives (in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology) and research into organizational changes as discourse (in the Academy of Management Journal). Select any issue of one of the journals mentioned in the bibliographical information of this chapter or find a journal comparable to the ones mentioned above. Look at the summary of one of the articles and try to determine whether it falls within the definition of discourse studies. Support your opinion. 8 Introduction to Discourse Studies Bibliographical information The article Discourse analysis by Zellig Harris (1952) is viewed by many as the starting point of discourse studies. Harris was the first to use the term discourse analysis in a research article. He discussed an advertisement text by analyzing the way in which sentences are linked and the way in which the text correlates with society and culture. A salient detail is the fact that in the first footnote Harris thanks his research assistant, who ended up developing the most influential theory on elements within a sentence: Noam Chomsky. In the decades following the year in which Harris wrote his article, a vast quantity of books and articles on discourse studies has been published. So it is obvious that this textbook is not the only introduction to this field of research. On the contrary, one of the aims of this book is to serve as a reference guide to a qualitative selection of other handbooks and readers. In this first bibliographical overview more general works are mentioned, whereas in the following chapters the references are more geared to specific aspects of discourse studies. Several important introductions to discourse studies were published in the early 1980s. The most widely used English-language publications of that time are De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Brown and Yule (1983), Stubbs (1983), Coulthard (1985) and Cook (1989). In the 1990s various new introductions were issued, which underlined the continued vitality of the broad field of discourse studies. The most important publications of that decade and around the turn of the century include the following: McCarthy (1991) is geared towards language teachers; Mann and Thompson (1992) introduces discourse description on the basis of a fund-raising text; Nunan (1993) covers a variety of spoken and written genres and comprises exercises; Salkie (1995) is a workbook, with exercises to detect various discourse phenomena; Goatly (2000) provides a clear introduction with practical exercises for developing critical awareness of the relationship between text production and consumption; Hoey (2001) focuses on written dis- course; Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2004) emphasize narrative aspects; Blommaert (2005) deals with discourse from a critical perspective, elaborating on issues such as ideology, identity and inequality. Widdowson (2007) presents an overview of discourse studies in a nutshell. The twenty introductory articles in Renkema (2009c) cover a wide range of issues, offering sugges- tions for future research as well as assignments with answer keys. More recent introductions include Paltridge (2012), which gives an accessible survey of the field, and Jones (2012), which places great emphasis on student activities and offers excerpts of key texts in the history of the discipline. The monograph by Strauss and Feiz (2014) stresses the multidisciplinary character of discourse analysis and adopts a multilingual approach, while Gee (2014) emphasizes socio-cultural aspects of discourse studies. Various areas of discourse studies are outlined within a pragmatic framework by Schneider and Barron (2014). Johnstone (2018) considers discourse analysis as a set of techniques, connecting discourse with six con- textual parameters that shape it: the world, people’s purposes, linguistic structure, participants, prior discourse and media. One particularly prominent and prolific sub-discipline is Critical Discourse Analysis, as recently emphasized by a comprehensive handbook (Flowerdew and Richardson, 2018). In addition to books, numerous journals from various research traditions have been found- ed in discourse studies. Below are the most widely known titles. Periodicals considered the core journals are marked with an asterisk. – Cognition – Cognitive Linguistics*  Chapter 1. Introduction 9 – College Composition and Communication – Computational Linguistics – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines – Critical Discourse Studies – Discourse & Communication – Discourse, Context & Media – Discourse & Society* – Discourse Processes* – Discourse Studies* – Human Communication Research – Information Design Journal – IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication – Information and Management – International Journal of Business Communication – Journal of Communication – Journal of Documentation – Journal of Language and Politics – Journal of Language and Social Psychology – Journal of Pragmatics* – Journal of Semantics – Journal of Sociolinguistics – Language and Cognitive Processes – Language & Communication – Language and Dialogue – Language in Society – Pragmatics – Research on Language and Social Interaction – Style – Text & Talk* – Written Communication* Teun van Dijk is viewed by many as the founding father of contemporary discourse studies. He founded a number of journals, including the above-mentioned periodicals Text & Talk, Discourse & Society and Discourse Studies. Moreover, he is known for editing the widely used handbook Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2011). Two other contempo- rary handbooks are the comprehensive Routledge handbook of discourse analysis by Gee and Handford (2014) as well as the exhaustive Handbook of discourse analysis by Tannen, Hamilton and Schiffrin (2015). Jaworski and Coupland (2014) give a collection of some thirty passages from seminal publications on discourse studies. A new library on discourse studies should un- doubtedly include these four works. Part I General orientation  Chapter 2 The pragmatic framework 2.1 Introduction The present chapter provides an outline of pragmatic approaches that constitute a fundamental framework for discourse studies. A seminal starting point for the discipline of pragmatics is the so-called “Organon model” from the 1930s, which considers language a strategic tool to pursue specific communicative goals (Section 2.2). One of the most influential pragmatic approaches is speech act theory, established in the 1950s and 1960s. Departing from the assumption that speakers “do things with words”, this philosophical theory identifies different types of verbal actions and discusses conditions for their successful performance (Section 2.3). The cooperative principle, developed in the late 1960s and 1970s, is dedicated to an indispensable prerequisite for interpersonal communication: interlocutors expect each other to act in a rational and constructive manner (Section 2.4). As a reaction to the cooperative principle, relevance theory in the 1980s argues that communication is chiefly based on the expectation and use of verbal contributions that can be regarded as contextually relevant (Section 2.5). In order to achieve dis- cursive goals and to prevent obstacles to smooth communication, speakers usually pay attention to each other’s “face”. Along these lines, politeness theory elaborates on verbal strategies that mitigate potentially face-threatening speech acts in dis- course (Section 2.6). 2.2 The Organon model The discipline of pragmatics is generally based on the assumption that com- munication is a type of action. However, this view of communication is already more than two thousand years old. One of the earliest works on language, Plato’s Cratylus (a dialogue on the origin of language written in about 390 B.C.), de- scribes speech as a form of action and words as instruments with which actions can be performed. 14 Introduction to Discourse Studies The German philosopher and psychologist Karl Bühler was referring to this work when he described language as a tool, “Organon”, which people use in order to communicate with one another. Bühler’s Organon model (1934/2011) has had a major impact on the way language is dealt with in discourse studies. Bühler stated that a sound can only qualify as a linguistic sign if a three-fold relationship exists connecting the sound to a sender, a receiver and an object that is being re- ferred to (Figure 1). Parallel to this three-pronged relationship, each linguistic sign (S) has three functions simultaneously: 1. A sign functions as a symptom as it says something about a sender, for ex- ample, whether the sender is female or male or what the intention of the utter- ance is. 2. A sign is a symbol because it refers to objects and states of affairs. 3. A sign serves as a signal because a receiver must interpret it or react to what has been said. This three-part division can be illustrated with any utterance. Below is an example. (1) Have you heard that strange story about the drunk who decided to play barber and cut off his friend’s ear? objects and states of affairs symbol symptom S signal sender receiver Figure 1. Bühler’s Organon model By asking this question, the speaker indicates that he or she wants information from the person who is being addressed. By using the word “strange”, the speaker is also expressing an opinion. This is the symptom aspect. In the utterance a refer- ence is made to a story, a real event. That is the symbol aspect. The question is an appeal to a hearer. A hearer is not expected to just answer “yes” or “no” and change the topic. Something along the lines of “No, tell me about it” or “Yes” followed by the hearer’s own reaction is expected. This is the signal aspect. In his Theory of Communicative Action, the German sociologist Jürgen Habermas (1981) also refers to Bühler. According to Habermas, speakers claim that their utterances are valid. In the case of predicting, for example, the speaker claims that the statement will come true in the future (Example 2). In the case of congratulating, the claim to validity is based on an expression of emotion on the  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 15 part of the speaker, namely, that the congratulations are sincere (Example 3). In the case of ordering, the speaker bases the claim to validity on assumed authority to issue the order (Example 4). (2) Tomorrow you are going to take a math exam. (3) Well done! Congratulations on your great achievement! (4) You need to work harder to pass the exam! Habermas based these validity claims on the Organon model and the three aspects of symbol, symptom and signal. Through the symbol aspect of an utterance, a claim is made as to the truth of the statement as in the prediction example. Through the symptom aspect, a claim is made regarding sincerity, as in the congratulation example. Through the signal aspect, a claim is made regarding legitimacy as in the order example. In this chapter the focus is on the basic assumptions of the Organon model, namely, that language is an instrument with which objectives can be achieved and that this instrument cannot be considered to be separate from speakers and hear- ers, or writers and readers, in performing communicative acts. Language, and therefore discourse, is a two-way instrument, an instrument for a speaker and a hearer or a writer and a reader. Or as the Danish linguistic phi- losopher Otto Jespersen wrote in the introduction to his Philosophy of Grammar (1924/2007): (5) The essence of language is human activity – activity on the part of one individual to make himself understood by another, and activity on the part of that other to understand what was in the mind of the first. If two parties use an instrument for an “activity”, then such an activity can only be successful if both parties adhere to general rules or principles and thereby uti- lize certain strategies. This can be illustrated with a non-linguistic example. If two people want to hang a painting (activity), they use a hammer, nails and a ladder (instruments), and they have to coordinate their actions. There will have to be some form of cooperation; while one is standing on the ladder, the other can hand the tools to the first, etc. Rules concerning politeness will also have to be followed; while one person is on the ladder, the other should not try to push the first off. One general principle of collective activity is cooperation and an often-used strategy to achieve this is politeness. This is also true in the case of verbal communication. On the basis of this cooperation principle and guided by so-called politeness strategies the communicators have to perform their communicative acts. But what precisely are those communicative acts? The theory, called speech act theory, provides an answer to this question. 16 Introduction to Discourse Studies 2.3 Speech act theory In speech act theory, language is seen as a form of acting. This theory stems from the school of philosophy that is called ordinary language philosophy. The propo- nents of this school, which flourished in England in the middle of the last century, wanted to analyze philosophical problems by looking at ordinary language and trying to ascertain what insights it could offer into reality. For example, the ethical question of why human activity is judged to be good or bad demands that the way individuals apologize for bad behavior also be studied. By examining how people perform speech acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering, etc., these “philoso- phers of ordinary language” wished to contribute to the solution of philosophical problems. Moreover, these scholars reacted to the contemporary trend of formal philosophy and its tendency to explain language exclusively through formal logic and the analysis of propositions (see Section 5.2). According to ordinary language philosophy, formal philosophy prevented a proper explanation of indirect speech acts (see Section 2.3.2) and conversational implicatures (see Section 2.4), which refer to meanings beyond what is literally expressed. 2.3.1 Types of speech acts and felicity conditions Speech act theory has had a strong influence on the field of discourse studies as this theory focuses on the question of what people are doing when they use lan- guage. Consider the next example. There is a striking difference between the fol- lowing two sentences. (6) It’s raining. (7) I promise that I will give you one hundred dollars tomorrow. In (6) a statement is made that may or may not be true. As for (7), however, it is not possible to say that it is true or that it is not true. With verbs such as to promise (in the first person), not only is something being said; more importantly, something is being done. In (7) an act is being performed through an utterance. By saying “I promise …”, a promise is made. But saying “It’s raining” does not make it rain. The English philosopher John L. Austin (1976) used the terms constative and performative to describe this difference. In constatives, such as sentence (6), something is stated about reality; in performatives, such as (7), an act is performed by the utterance itself. Austin was not successful, however, in establishing criteria for describing the difference between these two concepts. It can, after all, be ar- gued that an act is being performed in the case of constative utterances as well; a warning can be given or a statement might be made as in the case of (6).  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 17 This led Austin to the conclusion that all expressions of language must be viewed as acts. He distinguished three kinds of action within each utterance. First, there is the locution, the physical act of producing an utterance. Second, there is the illocution, the act that is committed by producing an utterance: by uttering a promise, a promise is made; by uttering a threat, a threat is made. Third, there is the perlocution, the production of an effect through locution and illocution, for example, the execution of an order by the addressee. Consider another example. In the statement “There is a draft in here”, the locu- tion is the production of the utterance. Depending on the situation, the illocution could be a request, an order, a complaint, etc. The perlocution could be that a door or window is closed or that the addressee replies that he or she is not a servant. It is important to emphasize that the reaction to an illocution, the so-called uptake that leads to a perlocution, can differ depending on the situation. Below is an ex- ample of four different uptakes of the same utterance. Table 1. Various uptakes of the same utterance Locution of the speaker Illocution Uptake by the hearer There’s a good movie tonight Invitation O.K. let’s go There’s a good movie tonight Advice O.K. I will go there There’s a good movie tonight Excuse Never mind There’s a good movie tonight Offer Thank you! In speech act theory the illocution is the focus of attention. Language philoso- phers have tried to give an overview of all possible illocutions, from assertives to requests, from promises to exclamations. This, however, proved to be a very difficult task, because it is by no means clear what exactly the characteristic dif- ferences between the proposed illocutions are. For example, a promise could be a threat in the locution “I promise, I’ll get you!” First, the phenomenon illocution itself has to be studied. Among the intriguing problems with illocutions, there is one that has drawn special attention, namely, the issue of successful illocutions. It is easy to see that certain minimum requirements must be met for an illocution to be successful. If anyone other than a church leader excommunicates someone, then the act of ex- communication has not been executed. If in a casino someone at the roulette table suddenly calls “Rien ne va plus!” (“No more bets!” or “Game over!”), this cannot be construed as being the illocution refusing if this person is not the dealer. The American philosopher John R. Searle (1969) formulated four felicity con- ditions that illocutions must meet. These four conditions are illustrated below us- ing the illocution to promise. 18 Introduction to Discourse Studies (8) Felicity conditions for to promise (speech act) a. the propositional content In the case of “promising”, the act that speakers commit themselves to (i.e. the proposition) must be a future act to be carried out by the speakers themselves. One cannot make a promise for someone else or promise to do something that has already been done. b. the preparatory condition This condition concerns those circumstances that are essential for the uptake of an illocution as the intended illocution. In the case of promising, these circumstances would require that the content of the promise is not a matter of course. Another preparatory condition is that the promise must be advantageous to the addressee; one cannot promise something that is solely disadvantageous. c. the sincerity condition Speakers must honestly be willing to fulfill the promise. Even if speakers are not willing, they can be held to their promise. d. the essential condition This is the condition that separates the illocution in question from other illocutions. In the case of “promising”, this means, among other things, that the speakers take upon themselves the responsibility of carrying out the act stated in the content of the promise. Searle used these felicity conditions to show that the successful exchange of illocu- tions is also bound by certain rules. In terms of form and function, this means that a form can only acquire a valid function given certain conditions. 2.3.2 Illocutions in discourse How does the more philosophical speech act theory in the previous section con- tribute to the study of discourse? First, it can provide insights into the require- ments that a form (the locution) must meet to ensure that the illocution and the intended uptake take place. This illocution serves as a prerequisite for the achieve- ment of the perlocution the speaker or writer has in mind. Second, this theory can serve as a framework for indicating what is required in order to determine the relationship between form and function, between locution, on the one hand, and illocution and perlocution, on the other hand. Among the many attempts at classifying illocutions, John Searle’s (1976) ap- proach is still the best-known and most influential one. He distinguishes between five main types of illocutionary acts, depending on their communicative functions (see Table 2).  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 19 Table 2. Searle’s taxonomy of illocutionary acts Type Illocutionary force Examples 1. Representatives commit the speaker to something’s being assert, claim, report, state, the case, to the truth of the expressed inform, conclude content 2. Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the ask, order, command, request, hearer to do something beg, plead, pray, invite, advise 3. Commissives commit the speaker to some future course promise, offer, threaten, of action pledge, guarantee, refuse 4. Expressives convey the speaker’s psychological attitude thank, congratulate, apolo- toward a state of affairs gize, condole, deplore, welcome 5. Declarations bring about an immediate correspondence excommunicate, nominate, between the expressed content and reality dismiss, christen, sentence There are a number of cases in which the utterance itself, the locution, provides an indication of the intended illocutions. John Searle (1969) calls these indications ifids, illocutionary force indicating devices. ifids include performative verbs, word order, intonation, accent, certain adverbs and the mode of the verb. If an ifid is present, the utterance is said to have an explicit illocution; in all other cases the utterance is said to have an implicit or indirect illocution. Below are a few ex- amples of explicit illocutions. (9) I request that you put out your cigarette. (10) He is putting out his cigarette. (11) Is he putting out his cigarette? (12) Are you going to put that cigarette out or not? (13) Would you please put out your cigarette? In (9) the performative verb “to request” makes the illocutionary intent explicit. The difference in word order between (10) and (11) is indicative of the illocution- ary intent, in this case “statement” and “question”, respectively. Rising intonation and an accent on the word “cigarette” can also convey an expression of surprise. In (12) the tag “or not” is indicative of the imperative character of the illocution. In (13) the modal verb “would” indicates that this is a request; the adverb “please”, depending on the intonation, can make this request either cautious or insistent. It is also possible to convert (13) into an order by placing a special accent on “please” and “cigarette”. 20 Introduction to Discourse Studies It should be noted that ifids do not always provide a definitive answer regard- ing illocutionary intent. The ifid if … then in the following two examples would suggest a conditional promise, but in fact only (14) contains a conditional promise. (14) If you take the garbage out, I will give you a beer. (15) If you keep this up, you will have a nervous breakdown. In (15) the ifid is not the only relevant factor; more background information is needed, specifically that a nervous breakdown is dangerous. Otherwise, it is im- possible to deduce why (15) is generally seen as a warning. If so much additional information is needed to determine the function of explicit language utterances, then it should be clear that this is even more difficult in the case of implicit or in- direct utterances. See the example in Table 1 of Section 2.3 again, “There is a good movie tonight”, which could function as an indirect invitation or excuse. Much knowledge is needed to link the right illocution to a locution. Consider the next example in the form of an interrogative. (16) Can you stop by in a minute? Why is this interrogative generally interpreted as a request? A request can be iden- tified by the following felicity conditions: (17) Felicity conditions for requests a. the propositional content The content must refer to a future act, X, which is to be carried out by the addressee. b. the preparatory condition 1. The addressee is capable of executing X and the speaker believes that the addressee is capable of doing it. 2. It is obvious to both conversational participants that the addressee will not perform the act without being asked. c. the sincerity condition The speaker actually wants the addressee to do what has been requested. d. the essential condition The utterance serves as an attempt to persuade the addressee to execute X. On the basis of rules in this definition, it can be said that the interrogative given in (16) possesses the illocutionary intent of a request. This does not, however, explain why this interrogative must be interpreted as an order when it is uttered by a super- visor to a subordinate. In this case the illocution is far from self-explanatory. For correct interpretation, knowledge of the discourse situation and knowledge of the relation between the participants are required. However, that is not all. Something like knowledge of the world is necessary as well. Compare the following examples.  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 21 (18) This panther has brownish-yellow spots. (19) Your left eye has brownish-yellow spots. Both cases can be viewed as simple statements, but (19) can also be intended as a warning if a situation is being described which could be viewed as dangerous. It could, on the other hand, also be seen as a sign of affection. So, an illocution (a simple form) can in many cases only be interpreted (have a function) when differ- ent kinds of knowledge are used. If the literally expressed illocution (the so-called “secondary” illocutionary act) does not match the contextually intended illocution (the “primary” illocutionary act), Searle (1975) calls this an indirect speech act. For instance, the declarative sentence in (20) literally indicates a representative illocution, an informative state- ment. However, in a specific context the actual illocution may be a directive, if the hearer is implicitly requested to leave. (20) There’s the door. When a form can have so many different functions, how can people communicate at all? If the interpretation of a locution depends on so many different factors – lin- guistic cues, knowledge of the discourse situation, knowledge of the world – could it be that in the exchange of illocutions more is involved to guide our interpreta- tion procedures and to prevent us from miscommunication? Yes, was the answer of another famous philosopher. 2.4 The cooperative principle An utterance often conveys more than the literal meaning of the words uttered. The following example is from the classic article Logic and Conversation (1975) by the English logician and philosopher Herbert P. Grice. (21) Suppose that A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies, “Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been to prison yet.” The form of this utterance does not say everything about the meaning and, there- fore, the function. A can derive from B’s remark that B does not hold a high opin- ion of C. In fact, B has basically said that C is a potential criminal. Yet, this cannot be derived from the literal meaning of B’s words. Why then can A draw these con- clusions? Because A can assume that there is some relevance to B’s, at first glance, superfluous addition concerning prison. The only reason B would add that remark is if B meant to imply that C is a potential criminal. 22 Introduction to Discourse Studies Grice called this derivation a conversational implicature. In fact, it is the meaning that an addressee has to deduce from the locution, considering the con- text of the utterance. By using the term implicature, Grice wanted to emphasize that it is not a logical implication such as the if-then relationship expressed by the formula “A→B”. The addition of the word conversational denotes that the deriva- tions being dealt with are an essential part of the information-transfer process in conversations. A speaker can only get such a meaning – in Example (21) that C is a potential criminal – across if the listener cooperates. To capture this notion, Grice formu- lated a general principle of language use, the cooperative principle: (22) the 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 speech exchange in which you are engaged. Grice distinguished four categories within this general principle. He formulated these in basic rules or maxims. In two categories he also introduced supermaxims. (23) Grice’s maxims I. Maxim of quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. II. Maxim of quality Supermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true. Maxims: 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. III. Maxim of relevance (originally labeled “relation”) Be relevant. IV. Maxim of manner Supermaxim: Be perspicuous Maxims: 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly. The maxims of the cooperative principle can be used to describe how participants in a conversation derive implicatures. Grice gives the following example. Bob is standing by an obviously immobilized car and is approached by Sue. The following exchange takes place:  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 23 (24) Bob: I am out of petrol. Sue: There is a garage round the corner. Bob can deduce from Sue’s reaction that she means that there is a garage around the corner that is open and sells gasoline. Sue, however, has not mentioned these facts. Bob can only make these assumptions if he assumes that Sue is acting in ac- cordance with the cooperative principle and is adhering to the maxim of relevance. It has been shown that such implicatures can be arranged on a continuum between the poles of strong and weak (Clark, 2013). In Example (25), Bev’s response is not a direct answer to Ken’s yes-no question. However, her utterance can be understood as a relevant reply if adequate implicatures are assumed. (25) Ken: Are you worried the price of petrol might go up in the budget? Bev: I don’t have a car. The implicatures in (25a–b) below are considered rather strong, because it would be difficult to regard Bev’s reply as relevant if they did not apply. By contrast, the implicatures in (25c–e) are relatively weak. They might possibly follow from her utterance but there is less evidence for them in Bev’s words. Potentially, these weaker implicatures are merely constructed by Ken beyond Bev’s intentions. (25) a. Bev does not buy petrol. b. Bev is not worried about the price of petrol going up in the budget. c. Bev does not think she needs to worry about car owners. d. Bev disapproves of people who own cars. e. Bev cares about the environment. In discourse studies the cooperative principle and its maxims are often referred to as they provide a lucid description of how listeners (and readers) can distill information from an utterance even though that information has not been men- tioned outright. This is of importance to research on the relationship between form and function. Grice did, however, have a number of additional comments concerning the cooperative principle. First, the maxims are only valid for language use that is meant to be informative. This excludes, for example, communicative activities such as small talk. Second, there are, from the esthetic or social point of view, other possible maxims. Grice suggests the maxim “Be polite”, but eventually does not include it in his model, in contrast to Geoffrey Leech’s approach to polite- ness, which takes into account not only conversational but also social parameters (see Section 2.6). Third, another principle is at work here. Consider the quantity maxim. An overabundance of information does not necessarily mean that it is this 24 Introduction to Discourse Studies maxim that is being violated, since it can also be seen as a waste of time and energy and thus as a violation of some efficiency principle. In addition, the Gricean maxims have been criticized for several reasons. Some maxims are rather vague. For example, how can it be determined which informa- tion is required (first maxim of quantity)? The four maxims have been presented as being of equal importance, but there are situations in which the maxim of quality is more important than the maxim of manner, and vice versa. Moreover, the cross- cultural validity of the maxims is highly debatable (see Chapter 15). Nevertheless, Grice’s cooperative principle has had a great impact on discussions in the field of dis- course studies. This is probably because Grice showed with everyday examples that communication, which seems to enroll without rules, is organized by basic rules. 2.5 Relevance theory In the literature on Grice’s maxims special attention is given to the maxim of rel- evance. One reason for this is that it is unclear how it can be determined whether a contribution to a conversation is relevant or not. A number of suggestions have been made in the direction of a clear description of relevance. It has, however, proved to be exceedingly difficult to determine exactly when the maxim of rel- evance has been disregarded. Consider the following example of a question and a number of possible answers: (26) Bob: Where’s my box of chocolates? Sue: a. Where are the snows of yesteryear? b. I was feeling hungry. c. I’ve got a train to catch. d. Where’s your diet sheet? e. The children were in your room this morning. Bob could react with surprise and ask why Sue is suddenly quoting a line of poetry, in the case of answer (a), or with “I was talking about chocolates and now you’re talking about the children”, in the case of answer (e). At first sight, it seems that Sue is not acting within the constraints of the maxim of relevance. However, if Bob as- sumes that Sue is adhering to the maxim of relevance, then any reaction Sue gives could be construed as being relevant. (27) a. Sue is not just quoting poetry; she is not really asking a question. Sue, by reacting the way she does, is simply making clear that the chocolates, like the snows of the past, have gradually disappeared and that there is no good answer to Bob’s question.  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 25 b. Sue is making clear that she has eaten Bob’s chocolates. c. Sue does not want to answer the question because she is in a hurry. Or, Sue is evading the question with an excuse; she knows more than she is revealing. d. Sue is postponing giving an answer; first she wants to know whether or not Bob should be eating chocolate. e. Sue is suggesting that the children ate the chocolates. Or, Sue is suggesting that the children know where the chocolates are. Obviously, numerous other possible reactions for Sue are conceivable. The main point is that every reaction can be construed as being relevant. It is, of course, possible to imagine contributions to conversations that would, at first sight, ap- pear to be irrelevant, but these usually end up sounding like excerpts from a comedy routine: (28) A: Would you care to dance? B: I’d love to. Do you know anyone else who would like to? (29) A: (teacher) You should have been here at nine o’clock. B: (student) Why? Did something happen? However, even in these examples, B’s reaction could be interpreted as being rel- evant if in (28) A is a waiter or if in (29) school does not start until 9:30. The prob- lem now is that it can be fairly objectively established when or whether the maxims of quality, quantity and manner are disregarded, but it seems quite impossible to determine when an utterance no longer counts as relevant. This makes it unclear what the value of the maxim of relevance is. The omnipresence of relevance in communication has led to the relevance theory of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson (1986/1995). They took a different starting point, and made the relevance concept the cornerstone of their view of communication. That is to say, they turned the disadvantage of the vagueness of relevance to the benefit of a clearer theory of what we mean by “understanding each other”. Although they use the same term as Grice, they propose a very differ- ent concept of relevance, so that their theory is sometimes called a “post-Gricean” approach. According to relevance theory, utterances create expectations of rele- vance and people judge the relevance of utterances without needing to resort to any kind of maxim. A good start to getting their point is to realize that language in use is charac- terized by what is called underdeterminacy or underspecification. We have al- ready seen that the example in Section 2.3, “There is a good movie tonight”, can be vague or ambiguous if one does not take into account the discourse situation. This can be seen as a form of underspecification. But even when the discourse situation 26 Introduction to Discourse Studies is known and the locution is clear, the locution is often underspecified. A good example is this notice often found on the door of a lecture hall: (30) Doors must be locked and windows closed when leaving this room. This locution can bear the meaning that students must lock up whenever they leave class for, say a toilet break, but obviously no student will interpret the utter- ance in that way. Almost anyone will understand that the notice only applies or is relevant when at the end of the day the last lecture has ended and people leave the room without returning. None of this extra information is included in the thus underspecified notice, and still this missing information is filled in and as a result the utterance is understood correctly. Sperber and Wilson argue that such ambiguities are dissolved in the right con- text on the basis of the relevance concept. While addressees interpret the meaning of an utterance such as in (30), they assume that it makes sense, that it is relevant and that it forms a coherent whole. The addressees only select the relevant features of the context and recognize whatever the addresser communicates as relevant. But how does that work, attaching relevance to contributions such as the movie example or Example (30)? It is important to recognize an utterance as an act of “ostensive communica- tion”, i.e., an act of making something mutually manifest to both interlocutors. Along these lines, communication must not be seen as just getting the thoughts of the speaker into the mind of the addressee but as a means of enlarging mutual “cognitive environments”. The cognitive environment is a set of facts perceptible in reality or inferable from knowledge about reality. Hearers and readers make sense of (a piece of) discourse, they interpret the connections between utterances as meaningful, drawing conclusions based on their background knowledge of the world: they use their cognitive environment and, as a result of interpreting the ut- terance, their cognitive environment is enlarged. If an addresser can assess the cognitive environment of an addressee by an act of ostensive communication, then he or she can predict what kind of assumptions the addressee will actually make in reaction to an utterance. In the case of (30) the addresser can foresee that the cognitive environment of an addressee in a lecture hall will be something like: ‘when I leave class for a toilet break, other people will stay there, I will return in a few minutes and continue listening to the lecturer’. The addresser will assess the addressee’s reaction to the utterance as something like: ‘there is no need to lock up and close the windows because of what I know about the situation’. And thus the addresser knows that a notice as in (30) will suffice in the given situation and will only be judged as relevant in the right context: at the end of the day when the lecture hall is definitively left.  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 27 The theory of Sperber and Wilson added two important notions to studying the way people understand each other: explicature and degree of relevance. These notions can be clarified in discussing the following passage from a “ticket buying interaction”, which is taken from Cutting (2008). (31) A: Well there’s a shuttle service sixty euros one-way. When do you want to go? B: At the weekend. A: What weekend? B: Next weekend. How does that work? You just turn up for the shuttle service? A: That might be cheaper. Then that’s fifty. The participants have to interpret the verbal acts of the other as attempts to change their mutual cognitive environment. This ostensive communication is the input for the explicature, which is the enrichment of the underdetermined locution or the formulation of the intended explicit content. This includes the process of fill- ing in missing information or adjusting information to meet the expectations of relevance. Accessing the explicature of an utterance may support the activity of unfolding a conversational implicature. This explicature, this specification of underspecified utterances, is ruled by the principle of relevance. Only that information is filled in that is relevant to the communication situation. In this conversation, B assumes that A will understand “At the weekend” to mean “Next weekend”. B assumes that this underspecification is relevant enough. However, since A is going to sell a ticket, he or she needs to verify if this is true. A’s last answer, “That might be cheaper. Then that’s fifty”, is not a complete answer. If A had wanted to be more explicit, he or she could have said: “If you purchase a ticket now, you have booked a seat, which costs 60 euros. If you buy the ticket when you turn up, it costs 50 euros.” A, however, presumes B to be able to infer all of this and fill in the missing words. Through this explicature it can be made reasonable that not all utterances are equally relevant and that not all utterances are equally successful. Utterances can- not strictly be divided into relevant or irrelevant utterances. There is a degree of relevance based on a cost-benefit scale. This degree of relevance of an utterance is determined by two factors: cognitive effects and processing effort. Cognitive ef- fects concern the way new information can interact with what is already known, i.e., everything that contributes to the addressee’s representation of the world. Processing effort pertains to the effort of decoding linguistic information and the effort of accessing information in the context to link the new information to. The degree of relevance can then be described as follows: the greater the cog- nitive effect and the less effort it takes to create that effect, the greater the relevance 28 Introduction to Discourse Studies is. So, in this example the utterance by B “At the weekend” has low relevance, be- cause the information cannot be clearly linked to what is already known, as can be seen by A’s reaction. The processing effort can only be successful when the exact weekend is known. And in this context the last utterance by A has a high degree of relevance. The new information “cheaper” and “fifty” can easily be linked to information that is already given in A’s first utterance. So much for a more philosophical-inspired theory about the foundations of communication. This theory has influenced the analysis of discourse mainly through the concept of underspecification and the focus on the relation between discourse and the situation. 2.6 Politeness theory Notions such as cooperation and relevance are mainly valid for informative lan- guage use. Language users are not, however, always interested in the effective transfer of information or relevance of an utterance. In the following examples the speaker wants the addressee to close the door. (32) a. Close the door. b. There’s a draft. c. Would you close the door? d. Would you be so kind as to close the door? According to the maxims of the cooperative principle, (32a) is sufficient. Language is, however, often used more indirectly, as in (32b). Sometimes certain politeness forms such as in (32c) and (32d) are applied as well. An important source of inspiration in the study of politeness phenomena is the work done by the Canadian-American social psychologist Erving Goffman (1956), who introduced the concept of face. By this he meant the self-image that people project in their social contacts with others. Face has the meaning as in the saying “to lose face”. In Goffman’s opinion, every participant in the social process has the need to be appreciated by others and the need to be free and not interfered with. Goffman calls the need to be appreciated “positive face” and the need not to be disturbed “negative face”. Goffman wanted social interaction, which includes verbal communication, to be studied from the perspective that participants are striving for stability in their relationships with others. For the sake of successful interaction, participants in conversations usually avoid damaging one another’s face. Refusing a request or reproaching someone is an action that can form a threat to the other’s positive or negative face. In the case of these “face threatening acts” (ftas), something is  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 29 needed which will reduce the violation of face to a minimum and, therefore, pre- serve stability as much as possible. This can be achieved by using “face work tech- niques”. Examples are broad circumspect formulations of refusals, which make it clear that the request made is impossible to grant. How does politeness fit into this approach? Politeness prevents or repairs the damage caused by ftas. The greater the threat to stability, the more politeness, face work technique, is necessary. Just as there are two types of face, there are two types of politeness. Face work that is aimed at positive face is called “solidarity polite- ness”; this kind of politeness is, for example, achieved by giving compliments. Face work that deals with negative face is known as “respect politeness”, and can be achieved by not infringing another’s “domain” in the communication. Below are a few examples. When a personnel manager has to turn down a job applicant who should not have applied in the first place owing to lack of education, this is an fta that threatens the positive face of the applicant, and that of the manager. For this reason the personnel manager will be more apt to write (33b) than (33a). (33) a. We do not understand why you bothered to apply. b. We have some doubts concerning your prior education. In the following interaction between an instructor and a student at the end of a tutoring session, the second variant is more polite as it is less damaging to the in- structor’s face and that of the student. (34) A: I’ve tried to explain this as clearly as possible. Now I have to leave as I have another appointment. I hope that the homework will be easier next time. B: a. I still don’t understand the material. b. If problems should arise, is it all right if I stop by tomorrow? Inspired by Goffman’s work, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978/1987) developed a theory on the relationship between the intensity of the threat to face and linguistically realized politeness. In their approach, positive face is defined as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interac- tants”. Negative face, on the other hand, is “the basic claim to territories, person- al preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition”. The intensity of the threat to face is expressed by a weight (W) that is linked to an fta. This weight is the sum of three social parameters: (a) the rate of imposi- tion, which is the “absolute weight” of a particular act in a specific culture; (b) the social distance between the speaker and the person addressed; (c) the power that the person being spoken to has over the speaker. The term absolute weight refers 30 Introduction to Discourse Studies to the fact that, for example, the request “May I borrow your car?” is in a category other than “May I borrow your pen?” The request to borrow a car is of course not quite such a great demand if the person requesting the car is the car owner’s broth- er. This illustrates that the factors distance and power influence the ultimate weight. The ultimate weight of an fta can be expressed by a value according to the formula: (35) Intensity of threat to face W(fta) = R + D + P Weight of Face Threatening Act = Rate of imposition + social Distance + Power Brown and Levinson did not indicate how values are to be assigned to R (rate of imposition), D (social distance) and P (power). But it should be clear that the value for P is different in the following examples. (36) a. Excuse me, sir, would it be all right if I close the window? b. Mind me closing the window? Utterance (36a) is more likely to be said by an employee to his or her boss, while in the same situation, (36b) might be said by the boss to the employee. In these examples parameters R and D have the same values. In their research on linguistically realized politeness, Brown and Levinson in- vestigated a number of languages. Their analyses indicate that there are many ways of committing an fta with a given weight. All of these variants can, according to Brown and Levinson, be reduced to five strategies: 1. without redressive action, baldly on record 2. positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action 4. off record 3. negative politeness 5. Don’t do the FTA Figure 2. Possible strategies for doing FTAs The fifth strategy is implemented when the risk of speaking is too great, when, for instance, an individual does not risk answering an impertinent and face-threat- ening question and simply remains silent. “Off record” means that the fta is not recognizable as such. An example of this is the (36c) variant of the request that is made in (36a/b). (36) c. I’m just so cold.  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 31 When the addressee replies “Then close the window”, the speaker can still main- tain that a request has not been made. “Redressive action” refers to an action that is meant to improve the stability between conversational partners and is, therefore, an action that minimizes or prevents a loss of face. Below are examples of different strategies for asking a person for a hundred dollars. (37) a. Lend me a hundred dollars. (baldly) b. Hey Bob, how about lending your old friend a hundred bucks? (positive politeness) c. I’m sorry I have to ask, sir, but could you possibly lend me a hundred dollars? (negative politeness) d. Oh no, I’m out of cash! I forgot to go to the bank today. (off record) The strategies are numbered according to their degree of politeness. (Strategy 5 is, from this point on, left out of consideration.) If the W of an fta is high, the speaker will choose a strategy with a higher number. This explains why grave ac- cusations or inconvenient requests are often formulated indirectly (strategy 4). The Goffman approach and Brown and Levinson’s theory provide an adequate research framework for determining gradations of politeness and for analyzing indirect language. The following question is an example of an indirect request: (38) Are you doing anything special tonight? The form of this utterance makes it clear that this is an inquiry about an indi- vidual’s planned activities. This question can, however, also be an invitation on the part of the speaker to the addressee to go out together. How can a question in this form have an entirely different function? According to Levinson (1983), the answer is that in some cases speakers first make a pre-re- quest in order to find out whether they will get a positive response to their request. Levinson describes this in an underlying structure consisting of four positions. Below are an example and the underlying structure. (39) A: 1. Are you doing anything special tonight? B: 2. No, not really. Why? A: 3. Well, I wanted to ask if you would like to go out to dinner with me. B: 4. I’d love to. (40) The underlying structure of (39): 1. Pre-request 2. “Go ahead” reaction 3. Request 4. Consent 32 Introduction to Discourse Studies Goffman’s work on face offers an explanation for the pre-request phenomenon. If B had given an evasive answer to the pre-request, then that would have eliminated the necessity of making the main request, preventing the loss of face of both par- ticipants. A does not have to deal with a refusal and B does not have to refuse the request in a direct manner; after the pre-request, B can claim to be extremely busy, which will soften the blow of the refusal. Indirect requests have certain similarities with pre-requests in that both are at- tempts to ascertain whether or not there are grounds for refusing a direct request. Consider the following example. A customer walks into a shoe store and asks: (41) Do you sell jogging shoes? This question is actually a preliminary check to see if the sales clerk will be able to give an affirmative response to a request to see an assortment of jogging shoes. In Levinson’s (1983) opinion, indirect requests can be viewed as pre-requests in an underlying structure consisting of four positions. (42) A: 1. Do you sell jogging shoes? B: 2. Yes. A: 3. Would you show me some, please? B: 4. I’ll go get them for you. In many cases the reaction to a pre-request is the same as to the direct request. (43) A: 1. Do you sell jogging shoes? B: 4. Yes, I’ll show you some. A: Thank you. This reduction can be explained with the politeness strategy. It ensures that the customer does not lose face; the customer is no longer obliged to formulate a di- rect request. Although Brown and Levinson’s face-based model has remained the most in- fluential pragmatic approach to politeness, it has met with criticism (Eelen, 2001). In particular, it has been shown that the claim of universality is not tenable, since politeness is ultimately a highly culture-dependent construct (see Chapter 15). Moreover, it is not reasonable to assume that specific expressions are inherently face-threatening irrespective of their context of use. For instance, direct orders in cases of emergency do not require any mitigation (e.g. Fire! Get out!). Finally, positive and negative politeness are by no means mutually exclusive. They may both work together in one utterance, if, for example, familiar address forms (e.g. daddy, sweetheart) are combined with the indirectness of modal verbs (e.g. would you mind …, could you …).  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 33 An alternative model of linguistic politeness was proposed by Geoffrey Leech (1983). Since Grice’s cooperative principle largely neglects the social aspects of interaction, Leech proposes a complementary “politeness principle”, which can be used to explain some cases in which speakers do not observe the conversa- tional maxims. For example, in order to be polite, interlocutors may disregard the maxims “be brief ” or “do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence”. Leech’s politeness principle is further divided into the six maxims of tact, generos- ity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. The pivotal tact maxim, for instance, says “minimize cost to other, maximize benefit to other” and can be il- lustrated by the following example. (44) a. Have another cookie. b. Give me a cookie. Accordingly, although both sentences are imperative clauses, (44a) can be judged as polite, as it expresses benefit to the hearer, while (44b) is impolite, as it imposes cost on the hearer. Since, however, in Leech’s approach the number of maxims is expanded and flouts of the maxims do not lead to implicatures as with the coop- erative principle, the theory has not gained a large following. More recently, research has increasingly focused on impoliteness, which can briefly be defined as face-aggravating discourse (Bousfield, 2008). On the one hand, impoliteness occurs whenever contextually expectable politeness strategies are missing. This is the case if a face-threatening speech act is carried out baldly, without any redressive action. On the other hand, impoliteness can be caused by adding explicit routines of rudeness that boost or maximize face damage. These are, among others, insults (e.g. you bastard), dismissals (e.g. get lost), silencers (e.g. shut up) or curses (e.g. go to hell). Three main communicative functions of impoliteness can be distinguished (Culpeper, 2011): (a) affective impoliteness: the speaker is under the emotional state of anger or distress. Since this feeling is supposedly caused by the addressee, negative evaluative labels are typically attributed to the hearer (Example 45); (b) coercive impoliteness: the speaker intends to gain and exercise power through utterances that denigrate and threaten the addressee. While the enforced activity is not in the hearer’s interest, the speaker benefits from its performance. At the same time, however, the speaker’s own positive face is damaged because he or she appears downright rude (Example 46); (c) entertaining impoliteness: the speaker intends to achieve amusement at the expense of a third party that functions as the target of hostile humor. For instance, this type may manifest itself in deprecating jokes about social or professional groups (Example 47). (45) You are such a nuisance. 34 Introduction to Discourse Studies (46) Move it, or I’ll kick your ass. (47) What’s the difference between a lawyer and a leech? When you die, a leech will stop sucking your blood and drop off. The subject of impoliteness has become topical in recent years also because of verbal aggression in online communication (see Section 4.6). Rudeness on the Internet is generally facilitated by the anonymity of participants and the lack of social context cues (Arendholz, 2013). Impolite utterances can occur in various forms on the web, such as “flaming”, which often comprises swearing and personal insults. While “trolling” includes deceptive and irritating posts in online commu- nities, “hate speech” is often politically motivated and typically includes discrimi- natory labels. 2.7 Summary The groundbreaking Organon model attributes three basic functions to the lin- guistic sign, which can be used for a broad classification of discourse types (see Section 4.2). In the tripartition of locution, illocution and perlocution, as estab- lished by speech act theory, the illocution has triggered most research. While the locution refers to the physical production and basic meaning of an utterance, the perlocution is difficult to grasp because it is not under the speaker’s control. The illocution, however, pertains to communicative goals and can thus be investigated from various perspectives. First, specific felicity conditions must be met for the successful performance of illocutionary acts. Second, illocutions can be classified into the five categories of representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations, which could also be used for a taxonomy of discourse types. Third, if the literally expressed illocution is not identical with its contextual function, this results in an indirect speech act. Since most illocutions, such as requests in the directive category, can be verbally performed in a great number of ways, there is generally a gradience of (in-)directness. The four conversational maxims of quantity, quality, relevance and manner, which add up to the cooperative principle, do not only indicate default expec- tations of interactants in communication; they also help to clarify why unex- pressed meaning in the form of implicatures is understood by hearers. Relevance theory marks a new start in pragmalinguistic philosophy. Defining the degree of relevance through the relation between cognitive effects and processing effort, it explains why one utterance may appear more relevant to a recipient than oth- ers. With its sociological foundation, the face-based approach to politeness offers insights into linguistic techniques used by speakers to mitigate face threatening  Chapter 2. The pragmatic framework 35 acts. By assessing the three parameters of rate of imposition, social distance and power relations, addressers are able to choose suitable politeness strategies. All in all, pragmatic approaches shed light on the ways in which interlocutors produce contextually adequate utterances and at the same time “read between the lines” during the comprehension process. 36 Introduction to Discourse Studies Questions and assignments Questions 2.2.1 Use the Organon model to distinguish the functions in the following utterance: This is quite an interesting model! 2.3.1 Formulate a possible illocution and a possible perlocution for the following utter-