Study Guide In ELS 201 PDF

STUDY GUIDE IN ELS 201 Main Topic 2: Speech Acts 1 Who is JL Austin? Austin is the person usually regarded as the one who generated interest in what has now come to be known as pragmatics. Despite Austin’s ideas on language being similar to those of the ideas...

STUDY GUIDE IN ELS 201 Main Topic 2: Speech Acts 1 Who is JL Austin? Austin is the person usually regarded as the one who generated interest in what has now come to be known as pragmatics. Despite Austin’s ideas on language being similar to those of the ideas of the philosopher G.E. Moore and Wittgenstein’s works, only Austin’s made an impact. There are four factors which may explain the influence of Austin’s work. Firstly, Austin’s collection of papers (How to do things with words, published after his death in 1962) was released alongside the growing frustration within linguistics with the limitations of truth conditional semantics. Second, his writings were clear and accessible. Thirdly, his work represents a consistent line of thought despite years of refinement and modifications among his ideas. And lastly, his work foreshadowed issues which have major importance to pragmatics today. Austin was a philosopher working at Oxford University in the 1940s and 1950s. Despite his impact in linguistics, he was not a linguist himself. Working at Oxford, Austin, along with his almost equally influential pupil H.P Grice and his like- minded philosophers working alongside him, came to be known as ‘ordinary language philosophers’. His ideas on language were sent out through his lectures at Oxford University from between 1952 and 1954. He later delivered a version as the William James Lectures at Harvard in 1955. At his death in 1960, his lectures were compiled into a book by J.O Urmson, using Austin’s lecture notes and recordings. 2 Ordinary language Philosophy One needs to know and understand Austin and his group's beliefs in order to know the significance of Philosophy and Ordinary Language. It is a philosophical approach that views classical philosophical issues as the result of philosophers misinterpreting or disregarding the everyday meanings that words have in circumstances outside of philosophy. The meaning of words can or must reside in their ordinary usage/uses, while philosophers often taken words to abstraction, causing too much confusion. 3 Logical Positivism and Truth Semantics Logical positivism and truth conditional semantics deals with aspects of word or sentence meaning and its truthfulness in different aspects that will be discussed further. There is disagreement between the philosophers of the two languages. Logical positivism is a broader philosophical stance that deals with the nature of sentence meaning that needed, can or emphasizes empirical and analytical verification. In simpler terms, it maintains the only meaningful statements can be tested. The philosophers of this type of language were concerned and focused with the properties of a sentence that can be evaluated in terms of truth and falsity.  On the other hand, truth-conditional semantics focuses on the relationship between the language and word, and how the truth is determined by the state of affairs in world. It analyses meanings of sentences in natural language (how factual it is based on the real life state or situation), rather than a broader philosophical position about the nature of its meaningfulness. 4 The Performative Hypothesis Examining the performative hypothesis reveals how Austin’s ideas developed, demonstrating the difference between truth-conditional approach to meaning and Austin’s view of ‘words as actions’ or how and why pragmatics came into being. In Austin’s How to do things with words, he took the first step by revealing that there are utterances that have no truth conditions. Austin termed this as ‘performative verbs’, which are not statements or questions but rather actions. 4.7.1 The Grammatical Distinctiveness of Performatives Austin initially had a grammatical basis (see 2.4) to distinguish a performative verb against other utterances, which was not sustained. Performatives can be plural or singular and can be either spoken or written. However, Austin later realized that performatives does not need to be in first person. J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory is a foundational concept in the philosophy of language and linguistics that examines how language is used to perform actions rather than merely convey information. Introduced in his book "How to Do Things with Words" (1962), Austin challenged the traditional view that language is simply a means of making true or false statements. Instead, he argued that when we speak, we often perform actions through our words. Austin’s theory distinguishes between different types of speech acts, each with its own role in communication. Key Concepts of Austin’s Theory: Constative vs. Performative Utterances: Constative Utterances: Statements that describe a situation and can be evaluated as true or false (e.g., “The sky is blue.”). Performative Utterances: Sentences that perform an action just by being spoken and cannot be judged as true or false. For example, saying, “I apologize,” is not just describing an apology; it is the act of apologizing. Types of Speech Acts: Austin categorized speech acts into three main components: Locutionary Act (The Actual Words): This refers to the literal act of saying something. It includes the utterance itself and its literal meaning. Example: "The door is open." (A simple statement about the state of the door.) Illocutionary Act (The Speaker’s Intention): This is what the speaker intends to achieve with their utterance—an intention to inform, request, promise, warn, apologize, or command. Example: "The door is open" (Could be a request to someone to close the door or an invitation to enter.) Perlocutionary Act (The Effect on the Listener): This refers to the effect that the utterance has on the listener, whether it causes them to feel a certain emotion or perform a particular action. Example: "The door is open" (The listener might respond by getting up to close the door, or they may feel concerned about security.) Illocutionary Forces: One of Austin’s major contributions is his emphasis on the illocutionary force of an utterance. This means that what a speaker intends to do with their words is often different from the literal meaning. For example, “Can you pass the salt?” is not really a question about the listener’s ability but rather a polite request for the salt. Conditions for Successful Speech Acts: Austin introduced the concept of "felicity conditions"— rules that determine whether a performative act is successful. For a speech act to be effective, the speaker must have the appropriate authority, intentions, and context. For example, the phrase “I hereby declare you husband and wife” only works if spoken by someone legally authorized to perform marriages. Why Is Speech Act Theory Important? Austin’s Speech Act Theory is crucial because it highlights that language is not just about stating facts but also about doing things in the world. It helps us understand the multiple layers of meaning in communication, the role of context, and how speakers use language strategically to achieve their goals. Main Topic 3: Conversational Implicatures Who is H.P Grice? Herbert Paul Grice was a philosopher of language. He developed the Cooperative Principle in the 1960s partially in response to philosophers at the time who claimed that natural, ordinary language is too ambiguous and too illogical to rigorously analyse. He developed a system that allowed for researchers to analyse everyday human discourse logically. He called this system conversational logic, and the Cooperative Principle is a basic part of it. His work has been foundational in the subfield of pragmatics. As a language philosopher, Grice’s objective in developing the Cooperative Principle was not to give extensive empirical observations about human discourse. Rather, his goal was to give a more general sketch of how conversational logic might work. There are places in his writing where things are intentionally vague, as many of his thoughts were meant to be introspections rather than a fully developed system. His musings were based largely on English, and unsurprisingly, he was never really clear about whether his maxims were meant to apply to non-English conversations. In this textbook we have taken the interpretation that there is cross- linguistic and cross-cultural variability in the Cooperative Principle. However, we also do not deny the fact that Gricean theories of pragmatics have contributed to the perception that (educated, white) English is somehow the “norm” and somehow culturally “neutral” (Ameka & Terkourafi 2019). IMPLICATURE Implicature refers to the idea of conveying meaning indirectly through conversations, where the actual meaning is inferred based on contextual clues and conversational principles rather than explicit statements. Conventional implicature and conversational implicature are the two types of implicature that Grice distinguishes. What both of them have in common is that they both communicate at a level of learning above and beyond the literal meaning of the words said. The way they differ is because conversational implicature applies different implicatures depending on the context of the utterances, while traditional implicature always conveys the same implicature regardless of the context. Conventional implicature is part of a lexical items or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression. CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE Conversational implicature is the process by which a speaker suggests or implies meaning without saying it out loud. When someone says, "I have a book I've been meaning to read," in response to the question, "Do you have any plans tonight?" the implied statement is that the person has no plans and plans to spend the evening reading the book. This is an example of conversational implicature. Conversational implicature, sometimes referred to as implication, is the process by which a speaker makes a statement that is meant to be understood indirectly and calls for interpretation. IMPLICATURE AND INFERENCE It begins by pointing out that implicature is only applicable in pragmatics, whereas inference has broad application in psychology and logic. It then makes three distinctions: (1) between implicature and inference in a narrow and broad sense; (2) between implicature and inference; and (3) between implicature and inference as a process and a product. The creation of implicatures within Gricean and post-Gricean accounts is then covered.  The Cooperation Principle described by Paul Grice implies that there has to be a broad practical rule in a normal and ideal communication system. According to Grice, there is what is presumed when people communicate, and this is that everybody is eager to get business or talk over. This approach also embraces that the ones who are propagating can mean something, while the ones who are listening should be able to get something from the said statement, even if one does not really have to spell out what they really meant, and that everybody has to be important. Grice provided four conversational maxims to further clarify this idea: The quality factors labeled as primary in the study are as follows: 12 relevant—available, coherent, structured, scope, rich, candid, or real—of the report. THE FOUR MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE The Maxim of Quality In a conversation, you say what you believe to be true, and only say what you have sufficient evidence for. The Maxim of Quantity In a conversation, don’t be more informative than is needed by the purpose of the conversation, and don’t be less informative than is needed by the purpose of the conversation, either. You need to be as informative as is required. The Maxim of Relation Make your contributions to the conversation relevant to what is being discussed. The Maxim of Manner Be as clear, brief, and as orderly as possible when you make your contributions in a conversation. Main Topic 4: Approaches to Pragmatics Problems with Grice’s Theory Ambiguity in Cooperative Principle and Maxims Effective communication is guided by the Cooperative Principle and its Maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. It can be challenging to consistently follow these maxims in actual situations upon conversing or communicating with others considering that they might be ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation. The maxims seem overly idealized for the complicated nature of real conversations, given that what counts relevant or enough information differs depending on the individual and the context that frequently results in ambiguity. Cultural and Contextual Variability Grice's theory presumes that communication rules are universal but cultural standards vary since some practices and norms are done differently across cultures. What is considered cooperative as well as evident in one culture may not be in another depending on the contexts or situation. Grice's maxims, such as being clear and relevant don't necessarily apply accurately everywhere because communication styles shift throughout cultures. Implicature and Cognitive Overload According to Grice's theory of implicature, listeners are capable of figuring out implicit or indirect meanings from spoken words without difficulty. But this inference process can be mentally demanding, or it could be said that it requires a concentration to be able to determine the hidden meaning, particularly in conversations that move quickly. Grice's theory might not be able to fully clarify how communication functions in all situations due to the major concentration involved in creating and interpreting implicatures. This can be particularly relevant when there is disturbance or distractions in the area, or when the speaker has less encounters, leading to a challenge for listeners to understand and interpret the intended meaning. Exceptions and Flouting of Maxims According to Grice's theory of conversational maxims, to communicate successfully, people often follow by a set of principles called maxims. Yet, there are situations when speakers "flout" these phrases, which means they intentionally violate them in order to indicate meanings other than the implicature. It may be challenging for listeners to recognize whether the speaker is misinterpreting the conversation, or whether they are intentionally violating a maxim to express a concealed idea. It fails to get into much detail on how listeners should respond to circumstances in which the speaker seems to be flouting a maxim. It might be difficult to determine whether someone is simply not paying attention to the conversation or if they are flouting the rules of relevance by stating something irrelevant when they say a statement that seems to go against the rules. Searle’s Formal Approach of Speech Acts John Searle, influenced by the work of J.L. Austin, formalized the approach of speech acts. His proposal contributed a significant development in the philosophy of language and linguistics, extending and formalizing Austin’s ideas about how language functions not just to convey information but to perform actions. He proposed that speech acts could be described using a system of constitutive rules, which define the conditions and structures necessary for performing different speech acts, but in his attempt, he failed to do so. Searle's approach to pragmatics is distinct from traditional grammar, which includes phonology, syntax, and semantics. While grammar deals with rules that govern language structure, pragmatics is concerned with how language is used in context and involves principles or maxims that guide effective communication. Rules vs. Principles Searle (1969: 38) proposed that speech acts could be understood through a system of "constitutive rules," asserting that speaking a language involves performing speech acts according to these rules: “the hypothesis of this book is that speaking a language is a matter of performing speech acts according to systems of constitutive rules. ”Searle intended to provide a systematic account of how speech acts work when using the rule-approach that is traditionally employed for the characterization of syntactic properties of language. Leech (1983a: In section 8 and 21ff, he draws five contrasts between rules and principles, each of which demonstrates why a rule-governed approach to pragmatics is unattainable: 1. Rules are absolute, while principles operate on a spectrum. Grammar does not allow for bends in it; one has to follow the grammar for it to be grammatically correct. Nevertheless, the principles of pragmatics can be violated or even perverted in order to enable many types of communicative action that are sensitive to context. 2. Rules are mutually exclusive, whereas principles can coexist. Rules of grammar do not complement each other; they cancel each other out most of the time. However, as in pragmatics, there are several principles that may be active at any given time, and the speakers have to decide how these principles may be applied in the course of the communication. 3. Rules are constitutive, while principles are regulative. While the constitutive rules are necessary for making language, for instance, syntactic rules for the formation of sentences, the regulative rules have to do with the right use of language in society. Consequently, pragmatics is anchored to regulative principles in dealing with social norms and other aspects of discourse. 4. Rules are definitive, whereas principles are probabilistic: grammar will have clear-cut answers regarding the acceptability or otherwise of a particular sentence, whereas pragmatics is more or less likely and often may be either of them depending on the given context of conversation and the intention behind the particular turn taken. 5. Rules are conventional, while principles are motivated. A grammatical rule is more or less a conventional rule because it is not made up on one’s own but is made up by society and is in practice. Cooperative-interaction principles are derived from the fact that communication must be effective and be initiated by social, cultural, or situational factors. Main Topic 5: Pragmatics and Indirectness 1. Illustrating indirectness This section delves into the complexities of indirectness in communication, focusing on its intentional use, risks, and underlying assumptions. Indirectness, while common, is a nuanced form of expression that often requires careful interpretation by the listener. The discussion highlights the challenges and advantages of using indirect language, examining why speakers may choose this approach even when it is more time-consuming and prone to misunderstandings. Additionally, the concept of expressibility and its role in indirect communication is explored, along with practical examples that illustrate how indirectness functions in real-life interactions. 1.1 Intentional Indirectness This section begins by focusing on intentional indirectness, where a speaker deliberately communicates indirectly. Not all instances of indirect speech are intentional, as unintentional indirectness can occur when someone forgets a word or struggles with linguistic inadequacies. Such cases do not generate implicatures, which are inferences about the speaker's intended meaning. In pragmatics, the primary interest lies in intentional indirectness, as it involves the speaker consciously choosing to imply something rather than state it outright. 1.2 Indirectness is Costly and Risky Indirectness is not always efficient. It is considered costly because it takes more time and effort for both the speaker to produce and the hearer to process. It is also risky because there is a chance that the hearer may misinterpret the intended meaning. For example, if a host indirectly suggests that they want to listen to something other than a guest’s preferred music, the guest might misinterpret the statement as a genuine question, leading to confusion. Despite the potential for misunderstanding, indirectness is still commonly used. 1.3 Assumption of Rationality There is an assumption that speakers use indirectness rationally, even though people may sometimes behave irrationally. When people use indirect speech, they often do so to achieve social or communicative benefits, such as avoiding confrontation or softening a request. The behavior may appear irrational at first, but it often serves a logical purpose. For instance, people may use indirectness to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or to navigate social norms without appearing pushy or demanding. 1.4 The Principle of Expressibility This principle suggests that anything that can be meant can be expressed through language, meaning that human beings generally find ways to articulate their thoughts. While there may be limitations due to linguistic inadequacies or difficulty expressing certain emotions, most people agree that ideas can be communicated. However, in some cases, complex emotions or abstract concepts may require indirect means of expression, such as metaphors, poetry, or figurative language, as direct expression might be challenging. 1.5 An Illustration of Indirectness An example is provided to illustrate the practical use of indirectness. A secretary sent a note to a student, implying that the student should look after an arriving guest without directly stating it. The student understood the implied request and followed through with the expected actions. This example shows how indirectness can work effectively, especially in situations where a direct request might seem inappropriate or too forceful. Indirect communication, when used skillfully, can achieve the desired outcome while maintaining social harmony. 2. How indirect can people be In this section, the author examines how indirectness in communication is influenced by various universal factors, though its application differs across cultures and individuals. The key proponents of these ideas include Erving Goffman, who introduced the concepts of "free" and "non-free" goods, and various researchers who have explored the roles of power, social distance, and other dimensions in communication. Power:According to the author, people generally employ more indirectness with those who hold power over them. This idea is supported by Erving Goffman’s notions of power dynamics, such as reward and coercive power. For instance, someone might be more indirect when addressing an employer compared to a family member. Examples illustrate how power manifests in different contexts, including workplace hierarchies and authoritative settings, showing how directness varies based on the speaker’s position relative to their interlocutor. Social Distance: Social distance, as described by Geoffrey Leech and others, refers to the degree of familiarity or closeness between interlocutors. This concept suggests that more indirect communication is used with individuals who are less familiar or close. Studies in sociolinguistics and pragmatics, including those by Brown and Gilman, explore how social distance affects language use, showing that people are more direct with close acquaintances compared to strangers. Size of Imposition:Erving Goffman’s concept of "free" and "non-free" goods provides a framework for understanding how the size of the imposition affects indirectness. Small requests typically require less indirectness, while larger requests demand more nuanced communication. For example, asking someone to pass a newspaper involves less indirectness than requesting a significant favor. This dimension highlights how social norms and the perceived magnitude of a request influence the level of indirectness. Rights and Obligations:This factor explains why major requests may sometimes be made with minimal indirectness, especially when the speaker has a right or obligation to make the request. For example, a bus passenger might directly ask for a stop at an official location but use more indirect language for a non-official stop. This dimension helps clarify situations where the level of indirectness is influenced by the speaker's perceived rights and obligations. Negotiation of Pragmatic Parameters:The negotiation of pragmatic parameters involves adjusting language use to manage power, rights, and social distance dynamically. The author provides examples showing how speakers modify the perceived significance of requests or alter social relationships through language. This perspective aligns with the work of pragmaticists who study how language is used to influence and negotiate social interactions, highlighting the strategic nature of communication in maintaining or changing social relationships. These concepts collectively illustrate the nuanced ways in which indirectness is employed in communication, influenced by a range of factors and varying across different cultural and social contexts. 3. Measuring Indirectness In this section, the author discusses the measurement of indirectness in communication, focusing on how indirectness can be assessed and understood through various theoretical frameworks. 3.1 Defining Indirectness Dascal (1983), Dascal and Weizman (1987), and Weizman (1989):These scholars highlight that indirectness involves a deliberate gap between a speaker’s intended meaning and the literal utterance meaning. This gap can be intentional, aiming to convey a meaning that diverges from the direct expression of the utterance. Indirectness is thus not just about using ambiguous language but involves intentional strategies to create a difference between what is said and what is meant. 3.2. Measuring Indirectness Propositional Transparency/Opaqueness (Weizman 1985): Indirectness can be measured in terms of how transparent or opaque an utterance is. This involves evaluating both the propositional content and the illocutionary force. For example: - Example 17: "Stand!" is a direct imperative (total propositional transparency). - Example 18: "Would you like to stand?" is a polite request form (conventionalized but still relatively transparent). - Example 19: "I think we would sing better if we stood" requires more interpretation (less direct and more opaque). - Wilson and Sperber (1981): They propose that the degree of indirectness correlates with the amount of cognitive effort required by the hearer. This involves deducing the speaker’s meaning from indirect or complex utterances: - Example (i): "No, I won't marry you" is direct and requires no additional inference. - Example (ii): "I don't respect you and I could never marry a man I don't respect" implies the refusal but requires deductive reasoning. - Example (iii): "I could never marry a clergyman" requires knowledge of Mr. Collins’s occupation to infer the refusal. - Example (iv): "I refuse to marry a complete buffoon" involves constructing an additional premise about Mr. Collins being a "complete buffoon," which complicates the inference. 3.3. Context and Belief in Interpreting Indirectness - Activity Type Expectations: The interpretation of indirectness can be influenced by the perceived norms of the activity type. For instance, Mr. Collins misinterprets Elizabeth’s refusal due to different cultural norms about rejection and acceptance. - Beliefs and Misinterpretations:The speaker's and hearer's beliefs affect how indirectness is understood. Mr. Collins’s hubris leads him to misinterpret Elizabeth’s comments due to his own erroneous beliefs about social norms. - Background Knowledge: Understanding an utterance often requires shared background knowledge. For instance, a joke about Oxford and Jurassic Park may not be understood without familiarity with both references. 3.4. Co-text and Goals - Co-text: The surrounding linguistic context constrains interpretation. For example, responses to a Yes/No question are expected to be directly related to the query. - Goals of Indirectness (Leech 1983): The complexity of the path from illocutionary act to illocutionary goal affects indirectness. For example: - Direct Request: "Switch on the heater!" (short path, less indirect). - Indirect Suggestion: "Cold in here, isn't it?" (longer path with more processing). This section emphasizes that indirectness involves both the explicit and implicit aspects of communication, with measurement often relying on the cognitive effort required to interpret the speaker's true intent. The theoretical contributions from scholars such as Dascal, Weizman, Wilson, and Sperber provide a basis for understanding and analyzing indirectness in various communicative contexts. 4. Why use Indirectness In discussing the pervasive use of indirectness in communication, several key reasons are highlighted: 4.1. Interestingness: Indirectness can make language more engaging and entertaining. For example, a WWII pilot's description of a Shackleton aircraft as "20,000 rivets flying in loose formation" is more vivid than simply stating it was poorly constructed. Similarly, Jane Austen's indirect descriptions in *Sense and Sensibility* add depth and interest to her writing. 4.2. Increasing the Force of One’s Message: Indirectness can amplify the impact of a message by requiring the listener to actively engage with and interpret the message. Examples include: - A humorous response in *The Guardian* about a chimpanzee and Shakespeare. - Neil Kinnock’s ironic comment on the British economy during the Thatcher era. - Andrew Marvell's poem *To His Coy Mistress*, which uses indirect and poetic language to convey a message more powerfully than a direct statement would. 4.3. Competing Goals: Indirectness often arises when communicators have conflicting objectives, such as needing to be truthful while avoiding hurting someone's feelings. For instance: - A teacher may use indirectness to gently address a student's subpar work without discouraging them. - In a cross-cultural context, a Chinese tour guide might fabricate a story about a garden being torn down to avoid trouble with factory management, while a Western tourist might perceive this as a lie. These reasons illustrate how indirectness serves various communicative functions, from enhancing interest to managing sensitive interactions.