Pragmatics-1 PDF

Chapter One: What is Pragmatics? ★ Another branch of linguistics. ★ A practical response. ★ The language and meaning in use. ★ It is all about the speaker’s intentions or the hidden messages within the speaker’s utterance in context. ★ Meaning in interaction. This reflects the view t...

Chapter One: What is Pragmatics? ★ Another branch of linguistics. ★ A practical response. ★ The language and meaning in use. ★ It is all about the speaker’s intentions or the hidden messages within the speaker’s utterance in context. ★ Meaning in interaction. This reflects the view that meaning is not something that is inherent in the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer alone. Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance. ★ It is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker/writer and interpreted by a listener/hearer/reader. ★ It is the study of the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. Humans are involved in the analysis, as one can talk about people's intended meaning, assumptions, purposes, and kinds of actions they are performing when they speak. ★ It necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said. ★ It necessarily explores how listeners can make interferences (guesses) about what is said in order to arrive to an interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. To understand pragmatics, we have to: 1. Know the meaning of the words. 2. Know the context in which they occur. 3. Have some pre-existing knowledge, i.e., experience. Context: 1. Linguistic context (co-text): ★ it is what has been said before (in a conversation or text) ★ Co-text: is the set of other words used in the same phrase or sentence, as the surrounding co-text has a strong effect on how we interpret the meaning of a word.  EX: Bank as a homonym could mean two different things, but we understand it from the context. 1. If we hear someone say that she needs to go to the bank to get some cash, we could figure out which kind of bank (building) is meant just by looking at the linguistic context. 2. If we read words like steep or overgrown, we will know that it means the land alongside or sloping down to a river or lake. 2. Physical context: the PLACE and TIME, in which the conversation happens. Terms we’ll need later: 1. Speech situation (context): the social setting where the speech/conversation takes place, such as parties and religious cermonies. 2. Speech act: speech means talking and act means doing, so it is when the speaker’s using utterance to perform an action. 3. Speech event: it is the conversation/lecture/joke itself. (A series of interrelated speech acts that form a unit.) Levels of Meaning: 1. The first level is Abstract/literal/dictionary meaning. 2. The second level is Contextual/utterance meaning: : people mean what they say. EX: Thank you. 3. The third level is Force of an utterance. (speaker’s intentions): People can mean something quite different from what their words say. EX: You break my expensive iphone and I sarcastically comment saying “Great! Thank you!” ★ To move from level 1 to 2, we have to resolve any ambiguities regarding: 1. Sense 2. Reference 3. Structure EX: 1. What’s wrong with the cat? 1- abstract meaning: the animal. 2- contextual meaning: could mean a whip or a catalytic converter.  2. Handout: 1- A student who comes to ask a professor for a handout probably wants lecture notes. 2- the tramp who asks for a handout means that he wants financial aid. 3. The Pearsons are on coke: Abstract meaning: 1. Coca-Cola, 2.cocaine or 3. a coal derivative. Thus, the words actually meant on the occasion in question could only be determined in context. Assigning sense in context: Sense of Lump: 1- a shapeless mound. 2- a hard swelling. 3- a heavy, dull person; to put up with/ tolerate. But could mean another thing in context: A : What's this lump they're always on about? B: Read it out. A : [Reads aloud from paper] Inland Revenue crack down on lump. B: Oh, isn't it something to do with casual labour on building sites? The way they're paid—tax evasion and that? ★ The example means that strict measures will be taken against building workers who say that they are self-employed in order to avoid paying tax, even though they are directly employed. Problems in assigning sense: 1- In order to understand the word in context, you have to have a cultrual background; however, you could understand the abstract meaning. Ex: roundabout could mean traffic island, merry-go-round, indirect. The cultural meaning: -The magic roundabout (children's television programme). 2- Homographs: words that have the same spelling but different pronunciation and meaning. EX: Lead, as in take the lead or lead as the metal. 3- Homophones: words that have the same pronunciation, but different spelling and meaning, such as cell/sell. Assigning reference in context: In everyday life, it is perfectly possible to understand the sense of every word a speaker utters, yet still not understand what the speaker refers to. EX: Danger! Do not touch! It is understood by everyone, but for the warning to work well, it's important that the reader clearly understands what the notice is talking about, specifically what they should not touch. Resolving structural ambiguity: Ex: the Bishop walked among the pilgrims eating their picnic lunches. In this case the source of the ambiguity is syntactic. The hearer has to decide whether it was the Bishop or the pilgrims who ate the sandwiches. Interaction of sense, reference, and structure: The following example shows how structural ambiguity can lead to ambiguity of sense. A well-known radio presenter, was discussing with the Foreign Secretary the reluctance of Britain's EEC partners to support the U.K/s proposal to impose sanctions on Syria: “Was it because the EEC men were not all there?” Not all there is structurally ambiguous, as it could be analysed as either an adverbial or an adjectival complement. Analysing it as an adverbial would give you the meaning absent (from the talks, physically). Analysing it as an adjectival complement would give you the meaning; out of their minds or insane. So we assign sense and reference to a word/ phrase/ sentence and resolve any structural ambiguity to understand the meaning in context. Level 2: contextual meaning/ utterance meaning: 1. It is the first component of speaker meaning, as we could understand nothing from abstract meaning. 2. a sentence-context pairing. (sentence+context) Level 3: Force/ speaker’s communicative intention: Force: a concept introduced by the philosopher J. L. Austin, is the second component o f speaker meaning. EX: Is that your car? There are no ambiguities of sense or reference, that the word that indicates a unique entity (your car) and your refers to you. So, although you have no problem in understanding the utterance meaning (the first level of speaker meaning), yet still you might not understand the force behind the question. 1)Is the speaker expressing admiration or expressing scorn? 2)Is it a complaint that your car is blocking the drive? 3)Is the speaker requesting a lift into town? Interrelationship of utterance meaning and force: It is frequently (but not always) the case that we derive force from utterance meaning but we can, for example, 1. use paralinguistic features (such as intonation and tone of voice) 2. non-linguistic features (such as gestures/body language) in order to work out the intended force. 3. Or we may rely mainly or entirely on context. There are four cases in this interrelation ship: 1. Understanding both utterance meaning and force. 2. Understanding utterance meaning but not force. 3. Understanding force but not utterance meaning. 4. Understanding neither utterance meaning n or force. Examples: 1- What's wrong with the cat? (First case) In practice, the hearers had no problem in understanding what the speaker meant. The cat in question was the cat-nine-tails and the speaker's intention was to advocate the reintroduction of corporal punishment as a legal sanction. 2- 'Don't stop doing what you're doing, man. We're all inspired by you.' (second case) It was not the meaning of the utterance that caused the man problems, but what the other man meant (intention) by those words. Was he being sarcastic, sincere, flattering? It is this level of communication that is often so difficult to understand. 3- Is that your car? (second case) We said that we understand the utterance meaning but not the force. 4- It's my shout. (in a restaurant) (third case) It's my treat or I'll pay and clearly had the force of an offer, but the utterance meaning is not understood. 5- Don't have a cow! (third case) Said by a boy to his friend, he wants him to calm down (intention and constituted a piece of advice), but the utterance meaning was not understood. 6- A group of British and American linguists were discussing the work of another linguist, who was not present. Speaker A (British) said: 'Her work has become very popular.” (foruth case) He thought of the book in question, and correctly interpreted popular as meaning non-academic. The intended force of the utterance is criticism. The Americans agreed that it was indeed popular, but they interpreted popular as meaning well-received/having a lot of success. They therefore incorrectly interpreted the intended force of the utterance as praise. ★ Thus, the two components of speaker meaning are closely related, but not inseparable and it would be a mistake to conflate or confuse them. Chapter two: First part: Speech Act Theory/illocutionary acts by J.L Austin: Speech act: speech means talking and act means doing, so it is when the speaker’s using utterance to perform an action. Austin‘s theory involves three main notions: 1) Distinction between constatives and performatives 2) abandoning the distinction (all utterances are performatives (distinguish between explicit and implicit performatives) 3) utterances can perform three kinds of acts: a) Locutionary b) Illocutionary c) Perlocutionary ★ Distinction between constatives and performatives: 1. Constatives: making descriptive statements. 2. Performatives: performing an action (the act is done). Examples: 1. There are seven words in this sentence. 2. She has three pets. 3. She walked out of the room. 4. I drive a white car. The verbs in these sentences are constatives. Why? - Because they could be true or false; they are evaluative in terms of truth conditions that depend on external tests. - They are used to make statements. 5. I promise to come. 6. Thank you. 7. I bet you 3 dollars 8. I apologize. 9. I name the ship Titanic. The verbs in these sentences are performatives. Why?  - The acts are comitted/ done, as once they are uttered, the action is performed. - They cannot be judged true or false, but are best understood as performing an action. - They are evaluative in terms of felicity conditions (successful/unsuccessful) (appropriate/ inappropriate). - They cannot be written. To differentiate between them we apply the “Hereby Test." ★ Hereby means by virtue. 1. I hereby drive a car. X 2. I hereby announce you a husband and wife. ✔ 3. I hereby apologize. ✔ - if it sounds weird or makes no sense, it is a constative verb. Yet the test is not infallible. (could be wrong) The key differences between them is that the Performatives: 1. use or should be in 1st pronoun (I/WE). 2. should be in present simple tense. 3. The sentence in which it lies should be declarative or an order (affirmative sentence). 4. should be active. Types of performatives: 1. Metalingusitc performatives: - They are self-referential (the verb refers to what the speaker is doing). - They are self-verifying, they contain their own truth conditions - Non-falsifiable: they can never be untrue (they have no felicity conditions). - They are always successful; this, they are not evaluative in terms of felicity conditions. - They do not depend on external conditions. EX: - I say - I predict - I withdraw (my complaint) - I protest - I declare (the meeting open) - I object - I plead (not guilty) - I apologize - I vote (to abolish vivisection) - I deny - I move (that exams be abolished) - I promise - I thank (the audience for their attention) a: I object to the licensing hours being extended. b: I do not want the licensing hours to be extended. a: I apologize for deceiving the auditors. b: I'm sorry I deceived the auditors. ★ All the a sentences are self-verifying, all the b sentences are subject to truth conditions. ★ We would expect b to be produced by speakers who are opposed to the extension of licensing hours. They just produced statements that describe themselves/ opinions (constatives). ★ All we can say for sure about the speakers of a is that they have formally opposed something.  ★ In a similar way, people seem logically to respond differently to I apologize and I’m sorry. 2. Ritual performatives - They have to follow some sort of procedure in order for them to be true. - They can be successful or not, depending on the person performing the act. Does he have authority or not? - They are evaluative in terms of felicity conditions (successful/unsuccessful) (appropriate/ inappropriate). - They are highly culturally dependent. EX: sentence-absolve-baptize-name Felicity conditions: 1) There must be a conventional procedure having a conventional effect. - legal marriage. 2) The circumstances and people must be appropriate. - Like a church and a priest. 3) The procedure must be executed 1- correctly and 2- completly 1- Do you accept her as a wife? - I do not/ I will/ why not? 2- all steps of marriage must be done (signing a contract). Ex: renaming a ship. - it would make no sense to respond to such an act of renaming the ship, The Albatross, by saying: 'That is not true! yet it would be perfectly reasonable to say: You have no right to do that! Thus, the 'felicity conditions' are not observed, the performative may be infelicitous (or they may 'fail' or be unsuccessful') 3. Collaborative performatives - There must be some sort of collaboration between the speakers for it to be successful, i.e., AN INTERACTION or it will not be guranteed. Examples: - I bet/wager you five pounds... - I challenge you to pistols at dawn ★ As with a bet, a challenge is only successfully made when the other person accepts the challenge And, in English law (it might well be different under other legal systems). 4. Group performative - They are only successful if the are uttered by a group/ agreed upon b a group. Ex: 1) a communique from a summit conference. 2)a report from a committee. 3) a verdict from a jury. ★ Performatives and culture: Some performatives are culturally specific, like ritual pefromatives. Ex: The verb to divorce: in Britain, divorce exists, and we have a verb to divorce, but (no matter what your religion), you cannot felicitously use the utterance I divorce you to separate yourself legally and permanently from your spouse. And even in countries where Sharia law operates, its interpretation may vary. Second Part: Collapse of Performative Hypothesis: - All verbs are performatives. Hence, the difference between constatives and performatives cannot be realized. - Every utterance has a performative verb in its deep structure (i.e. its logical form), even if that verb is not expressed in the surface structure (what is actually uttered). EX: 1. Sit down: I command you to sit down 2. Clean up the mess: I order you that you clean up this mess ★ I (hereby) V. performative you (that) Utterance I hereby command you to sit down. I hereby order you that you clean up this mess. 3 reasons for the collapse: 1. There is no grammatical rule to distinguish between them. - Performatives can be plural as well as singular. - They can also be written as well as spoken. Ex: I hereby resign. - They can be in passive form too. Ex: Your employment is hereby terminated with immediate effect. - They do not have to be in present simple tense. Ex: I am denying that. 2. The performative verb does not guarantee that the action prescribed will be performed (all of them are not self-referential) refers to the verb being performed. (‘Ritual' and 'collaborative' performatives may 'fail' because the requisite felicity conditions do not exist. However, it also became apparent that the supposedly self-verifying 'metalinguistic' performatives may also fail.) Ex: I promise I will come and hit you. Here the action is being performed is a threat. Thus, not all utterances are \self-referential as some conflicts happen between the performative and the utterance as they deliver different meanings/ perform different actions. 3. There are ways of “doing things without a performative verb,” as there are some certain utterances that cannot be conveyed through a performative verb, such as 'incriminating oneself, 'putting one's foot in it', 'treading on someone's corns'. - People do not say: I hereby let the cat out of the bag; I hereby tread on your corns. - Language is frequently used to insult, but it would be impossible to say: I (hereby) insult you! - Also, it is unusual to use words like: invite you to perform the act of inviting and it is the same for verbs like offering, hinting, boasting, or expressing an opinion. To sum up, the main functions of performatives are: 1. To bring about an action. 2. Change the world in some way. (make a change.) - However, constatives can do the same as they perform the action of saying. They give you information and change your status, so they are also performatives as they change the current state of affairs (radically- simply). ★ Austin introduced a distinction between primary performatives (explicit performatives) and implicit performatives. - An explicit performative (of the I hereby... kind, which we have looked at so far) can now be seen to be a mechanism which allows the speaker to remove any possibility of misunderstanding the force behind an utterance. - For an utterance to have an explicit performative, the subject and the verb must be there. 1. We remind you that all library books are due to be returned by 9th June. (explicit performative) 2. This is to remind you that all library books are due to be returned by 9th June. (Subject is missing: implicit performative.) 3. You are reminded that all library books are due to be returned by 9th June. (Subject is missing: implicit performative.) 4. All library books are due to be returned by 9th June. (both the verb and the subject are missing: implicit performative.) 5. Stop talking (implicit performative) 6. I order you to stop talking. (explicit performative) ★ Explicit performatives are preferable because: 1. Stylistic choices. (I am sorry: I apologize: sounds more formal.) 2. Emphasis ( I sent the application on time: I assure you, I did send them on time) 3. Eliminate doubt. (I love you: I swear I love you.) 4. resort - If a sentence is true, then it is successful, but if it is not, then it is unsuccessful.  ★ Utterances are actions: - what is now needed is to distinguish between the meaning of the speaker's words and their illocutionary force. Utterances can perform three types of acts: 1. Locution: the actual words uttered. 2. Illocution: the force or intention behind the words. 3. Perlocution: the effect of the illocution on the hearer. Ex: It's hot in here! (locution), meaning/intention: I want some fresh air! (illocution), and the (perlocutionary) effect might be that someone opens the window. ★ There is a close and predictable connection between locution and perlocutionary effect as in the following example: A man and a woman enter an art gallery. The man is carrying a plastic carrier bag. The woman goes to buy the admission tickets, while her husband has gone ahead into the gallery. - Official: Would the gentleman like to leave his bag here? - Woman: Oh no, thank you. It's not heavy. - Official: Only... we have had...we had a theft here yesterday, you see. The illocutionary force of the official's first utterance is to request the woman'snd to leave his bag, but the woman interprets it as an offer. Part of the problem stems from the fact that the same locution could have a different illocutionary force in different contexts. Another example: - What time is it? It could mean any of the following, depending on the context of utterance: 1. The speaker wants the hearer to tell her the time. 2. The speaker is annoyed because the hearer is late. 3. The speaker thinks it is time the hearer went home. - The term 'speech act' is used to mean the same as 'illocutionary act'. in fact, you will find that the terms speech act, illocutionary act, illocutionary force, pragmatic force, or just force, are all used to mean the same thing. Classification of speech acts according to Searle: 1. Declarations: They change the world via their utterance (the subject must have authority). Ex: Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife. 2. Representatives: They state what the speaker believes to be the case or not, such as statements of facts, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions. These let the speaker make the words fit the world. Ex: -The baby is crying. - The soldiers are struggling on the snow. 3. Expressives: They state what the speaker feels (psychological states). Ex: - I’m really sorry! - Congratulations! 4. Directives: The speaker uses them to direct order, or get someone to do something. They are commands, orders, requests, and suggestions. In other words, what the speaker wants. Ex: - Do not touch that. - Can you lower your voice? - Why don’t we go to the park? 5. Commissives: They express what the speaker intends to do in the future. The speech acts that the speaker uses to commit himself to future actions, such as promises, threats, refusals, and pledges. Ex: - I will be back. - I promise I will be back. - I will ground you. - No, I will not be back. Direct and indirect speech acts: To distinguish between types of speech acts can be made on the basis of syntactic structure using the three basic sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and the three general communicative functions: statement, question, command, and request. Ex: - Can you pass me the salt? It is an indirect speech act. Why? Because I am not asking about the recipient's ability to pass the salt. Thus, there is a mismatch between the sturcutre/ form and the function. - Pass me the salt. (direct: Because it is imperative and its function is to make a command.) - Can you play chess? (direct: form: interrogative, function: question) - You left the door open. (indirect: form: declarative, function: request/command) - Tell me where the bank is. (direct: form: imparative, function: order) - You are standing in front of the TV. (indirect: form: declarative, function: request) ★ Indirect speech is used to be more polite. Chapter three: Paul Grice’s Conversational implicature theory: - Grice's theory is an attempt at explaining how a hearer understands from what is said, what is meant, from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning. ★ Grice distinguished two different sorts of implicature: conventional implicature and conversational implicature: 1. Conventional implicature means the same (traditional) implicature (the additional meaning) is conveyed regardless of the context. (There is no need for me to explain any context cause I understand it.) For example: but, even, therefore, yet. They always carry the same implicature. - She plays chess well, for a girl. (all girls can’t play chess, except for this girl.) - My friends are poor, but honest. (it means that all poor people are not honest; however, his friends are not.) - The main actress was 37, but still attractive. (that women get less attractive despite that she is old) 2. Conversational implicature means conveying an additional level of meaning that the speaker conveys using language beyond the semantic meaning of words by means of language. Ex: - ‘We must remember your telephone bill', she said, hinting that Louise had talked long enough. She is hinting that she wants to close the telephone conversation. - On Christmas Eve 1993, an ambulance is sent to pick up a man who has collapsed in Newcastle city center. The man is drunk and vomits all over the ambulance man who goes to help him. The Ambulance man says: 'Great, that's really great! That made my Christmas!' The ambulance man means exactly the opposite of what his words say.  ★ Implicature vs. Inference: - Implicture is to imply, hint, suggest, or convey some meaning indirectly by means of language, which is done by the speaker. It maybe understoode or not be understood by the hearer. Ex: We must remember the phone bill. - Inference is to deduce something from evidence; it is done by the hearer. ★ To understand how the process of conversational implicature operates, Grice introduced: 1. The cooperative principles (CP): say, respond properly in the right situation in the correct manner without irrelevant answers so there will be no additional meaning. 2. The four conversational maxims: a) Quantity: Do not make your contribution more or less informative than is required. Ex: A: Do you need a coat? B:No, I prefer to stand here in the cold weather and shiver until I die. b) Quality: Do not say what you believe to be false (lie). Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. (you must have evidence.) c) Relation: be relevant. d) Manner: avoid obscurity of an expression, amibiguity, any unnecessary prolixity (talking for too long without giving any info). Be brief and orderly. Observing the maxims: Husband: Where are the car keys? Wife: They're on the table in the hall. - The wife has answered clearly (Manner) truthfully (Quality), has given just the right amount of information (Quantity) and has directly addressed her husband's goal in asking the question (Relation). Non-observance of the maxims: There are five ways of failing to observe a maxim: 1. Flouting a maxim (most important one) 2. Violating a maxim 3. Infringing a maxim 4. Opting out of a maxim 5. Suspending a maxim - People may fail to observe a maxim because, for example, they are incapable of speaking clearly, or because they deliberately choose to lie. The most important category which generates an implicature is flouting. 1. Flouting a maxim: the speaker deliberately breaks the rules to generate an implicature and the hearer is going to understand. It will cause a clash/crash between maxims. A. Flouting quality (lie): - Using a metaphor (comparing two things without using as/like) or simile (comparing two things by using as/like). Ex: My flat is a fridge in winter. - Using sarcasm/ irony Ex: - My boyfriend calls me once every month - What a catch! He is a keeper. - Using hyperbole (exaggeration) Ex: I called you a hundred times. - Giving unexpected answer to seek attention Ex: - Who are you? - Queen of the UK.  B. Flouting the maxim of quantity. (not giving the required answers) (Giving more or less) Ex: - How do I look? - Your shoes are cool. - Boys are boys. (tautology is an expression or phrase that says the same thing twice.) C. Flouting the maxim of relation. (giving irrelevant answers) Ex: - Has your boss talked to you? - Let’s go get coffee. - I want to get out tonight. - Don’t you have an exam tomorrow? D. Flouting the maxim of manner. - Giving ambiguous answers. Ex: - Today is about metaphor. Unclear. - (Metaphor is…) Clear. - A:Is there any where I can powder my nose?(I need a toilet) - Spelling out words. Ex: - let’s get I.C.E C.R.E.A.M Other examples: Ex: - Who was the killer? - It was either Ali or Ahmed, but I don’t think it was Ahmed. The maxim of quality is flouted, as his answer lacks evidence and quantity, as he has given more information than required. - A: Is he nice? - B: She seems to like him. The maxim of quantity, as he has given less information than required. Other ways to not observe the maxims: 1. Violating (misleading the hearer intentionally.) Ex: A: Did you see this man before? B: No. (lying to deceive the judge) A: Have you been studying all day? B: Yes. (lying to deceive his dad) 2. Infringing (give unexpected answers because I have an imperfect linguistic performance) Ex: - Chicken or beef? - Yes. (he is not lying or saying things wrong intentionally.) 3. Opting out (refusing to answer, but not changing the topic) Ex: - I cannot say. It’s confedntial. - No comment/ none of your business. 4. Suspending (relating to specific occasion) Ex: - poetry (language is not clear): Suspending the maxim of manner by being ambiguous. - Praise a person all the time: Suspending the maxim of quality. - Sending messages on Telegram: Suspending the maxim of quantity. Exercise: 1. I can jump higher than the Empire State Building. 2. This meal is delicious. ( the food is not delicious) 3. A: I’ll watch Titanic now B: What about the exam you have tomorrow? 4. A: She did a P.G.C.E in T.E.S.O.L as they call it T.E.F.L nowadays. B: Sorry I don’t understand. 5. Teacher : What time is it? ( near the end of the class) Student: 10: 44: 33. (seconds) 6. A: How are you? B : I am dead 7. Student: Tehran is in Turkey, isn’t it? Teacher: and London is in America, I suppose. 8. A: I’m the top of my class. B:Yeah, and I’m the Queen of England 9. A: What are you reading? B: a book 10. A: Do you like linguistics? B: Well, let’s say I don’t jump for joy before class. Chapter Four: Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory: What is politeness? - It means simply being tactful, modest, and nice to other people. - Politeness can be defined as showing awareness and consideration of another person’s face. - The study of politeness is related to the concept of “face.” What is face? - Face is defined as the public self-image of a person. - This is the emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Aspects of Face wants: 1. Negative face wants: freedom of choice or action; freedom from imposition on one’s privacy; the need to be independent and having hedges (boundaries). 2. Positive face wants: to feel connected and accepted (rapport , friendliness, camaraderie , or solidarity) as a member of a group, to be praised by others, to know that his wants are shared by others. (between friends) Face-Threating Acts (FTAs): ★ If you say something that represents a threat to another person’s self-image, that is called a face-threatening act. Ex: if you use a direct speech act to get someone to do something (Give me that paper!), you are behaving as if you have more social power than the other person, then you are performing a face-threatening act. Or when you use insults, accusations, disrespect, challenges, belittling, contradictions, contempt, ridicule, and disagreements. Politeness Stratigies: 1. Say nothing: Ex: You can rummage in your bag, searching for a pen, go back into your bag without uttering a word, but with the vague intention that your problem will be recognized. A: (looks in bag). B: (offers pen) Here, use this. 2. Say something (off or on record): - Being off record is done by using "hints.” Ex: - Uh, I forgot my pen. - Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen. - Being on record is by directly addressing others as a means of expressing your needs. a. The most direct approach is “Bald on record”: using imperative forms. Ex: - Give/ lend me your pen. b. Face-Saving Acts: using an indirect speech act in the form associated with a question (Could you pass me that paper?) removes the assumption of social power. You’re only asking if it’s possible. This makes your request less threatening to the other person’s face. Thus, whenever you say something that lessens the possible threat to another’s face, it can be described as a face-saving act. ★ Negative politeness: a face-saving act that emphasizes a person’s negative face will show concern about imposition through: 1. The most typical form used is a question containing a modal verb. Ex: a. Could you lend me a pen? b. I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something? c. I know you’re busy, but might I ask you if you... 2. Apology for imposition Ex: - I’m sorry to bother you... I know you’re busy, but...  3. Hesitations such as "em,” “umm,” and “uh”. 4. Using hedges (it’s kind of, I suppose, I think, in a way, I fancy, perhaps, it seems to me) - Can you, perhaps, move to the right? ★ Positive politeness: A face-saving act that emphasizes a person’s positive face. It is a strategy that leads the requester to appeal to: 1. Using nicknames/ honorifics (forms of address), abusive language (male participants) - Patricia → Trish Come here, Johnny 2. Tag Questions: - Hey dude, lend me two bucks, will you? 3. Using jokes (jokes are based on mutual shared knowledge) (A and B are friends; B bought a new car.) A: How about lending me this old heap of junk? 4. Using group jargon/slang (Speaker (S) makes hearer (H) feel they belong to same group and share specific wants, goals, and values; so he claims common ground.) - Hi, how’s it going? Is it okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same crazy stuff. 5. The speaker takes notice of H’s possessions and changes. - What a beautiful vase this is! Where did you get it? - Goodness, you cut your hair! Wow lovely! By the way, I need some pens. 6. Inclusive terms such as “we” and “let’s” - Come on, let’s go to the party Exercises: Identify the politeness strategy used in the following utterances:- Reminder: The strategies are off- record, bald-on-record, negative politeness, and positive politeness 1. Teacher to students: Open your books at page 45. 2. A friend to a friend: Hey, mate, how‘s it going? 3. A tourist is calling after a man dropped his wallet: -Excuse me sir, you dropped your wallet. 4. Patient to receptionist in the dentist’s waiting room: - It’s quite chilly in here, don’t you think? 5. A: Would you mind switching on the AC? It is very cold in here. B: Sure 6. Alex: Get out of my room Robin: Damn you! 7. A: Could you, er, perhaps, somewhat turn down the music? 8. A: I’m sorry to bother you, but can you lend me your book for a week? 9. A: Hey sweetie! What’s wrong? Why are you crying? 10. Customer to waitress in a restaurant A: Two sandwiches 11. Friend to friend: I want some beer. 12. A: Is it okay if I use one of these pens? 13. The boss to an employee in an office - You are fired, and I don’t want to see you again 14. A addresses himself: Hmm! I don’t have a pen. 15. A: Johnny dear, lend me your car for one hour, would you? 16. A: Help me with that bag, will you, buddy?