Definition and background

Pragmatics is

  1. The study of what speakers mean, or ‘speaker meaning’.
  2. Concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker(or writer) and interpreted by a listener(or readers)

It has, consequently, more to do with the analyss of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.

This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said.nIt requires a consideration of how speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under what circumstances. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.

This approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated. We might say that it is the investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than it is said.

This perspective then raises the question of what determiines the choice between the said and the unsaid. The basic answer is tied to the notion of distance. Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance. These are four areas that pragmatics concerned with.

Invisible meaning

In many ways, pragmatics is the study of ‘invisible’ meaning, or how we recognize what is meant even when it isn’t actually said or written. In order for that to happen, speakers (or writers) must be able to depend on a lot of shared assumptions and expectations when they try to communicate. The investigation of those assumptions and expectations provides us with some insights into how more is always being communicated than is said. Alternatively, the sign may indicate a place where parking will be carried out by attendants who have been heated.


The words in the sign may allow these interpretations, but we would normally understand that we can park a car in this place, that it’s a heated area, and that there will be an attendant to look after the car.

So, how do we decide that the sign means this when the sign doesn’t even have the word car on it? We must use the meanings of the words, the context in which they occur, and some preexisting knowledge of what would be a likely message as we work toward a reasonable interpretation of what the producer of the sign intended it to convey. Our interpretation of the ‘meaning’ of the sign is not based solely on the words, but on what we think the writer intended to communicate. In the other picture, assuming things are normal and this store has not gone into the business of selling young children over the counter, we can recognize an advertisement for a sale of clothes for those babies and toddlers. The word clothes doesn’t appear in the message, but we can bring that idea to our interpretation of the message as we work out what the advertiser intended us to understand. We are actively involved in creating an interpretation of what we read and hear.


One kind is described as linguistic context, also known as co-text. The co-text of a word is the set of other words used in the same phrase or sentence. The surrounding co-text has a strong effect on what we think the word probably means. In the last chapter, we identified the word bank as a homonym, a single form with more than one meaning. How do we usually know which meaning is intended in a particular sentence? We normally do so on the basis of linguistic context. If the word bank is used in a sentence together with words like steep or overgrown, we have no problem deciding which type of bank is meant. Or, if we hear someone say that she has to get to the bank to withdraw some cash, we know from this linguistic context which type of bank is intended. More generally, we know how to interpret words on the basis of physical context.

The relevant context is our mental representation of those aspects of what is physically out there that we use in arriving at an interpretation. Our understanding of much of what we read and hear is tied to this processing of aspects of the physical context, particularly the time and place, in which we encounter linguistic expressions.

Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics

Syntax is the study of the relationship between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in sequence, and which sequences are well-formed.

Semantics is the study of the relationship between linguistics forms and entries in the world; that is, how words literally connect to things. Semantic analysis also attempts to establish the relationships between verbal descriptions and states of affairs in the world as accurate (true) or not, regardless of who produces that description.

Pragmatics is the study of the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. In this three-part distinction, only pragmatics allows human into the analysis.  The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk about people’s intended menaings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions (for example, request) that they are performing when they speak. The big advantag is that all these very human concepts are extremely difficult to analyze in a consistent and objective way. Two friends having a conversation may imply some things and infer some others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that we can point to as the explicit source of ‘the meaning’ of what was communicated. Example [I] is just such a problematic case. I heard the speakers, I knew what they said, but I had no idea what was communicated.

[I] Her: So-did you?

     Him: Hey-who wouldn’t?

Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it’s about how people make sense of each other lingiuistically, but it can be a frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.


Luckily, people tend to behave in fairly regular ways when it comes to using language. Some of that regularity derives from the fact that people are members of social groups and follow general patterns of behaviour expeted within the group. Within a familiar social group, we normally find it easy to be polite and say appropriate things. In a new, unfamiliar social setting, we are often unsure about what to say and worry that we might say the wrong thing.

Another source of regularity in language use derives from the fact that most people within a linguistic community have similar basic experiences of the world and share a lot of non-linguistic knowledge.


You would perhaps think that more was being communicated than was being said and that you were being treated as someone with no basic knowledgde (i.e. stupid). Once again, nothing in the use of the linguistic is inaccurate, but getting the pragmatics wrong might be offensive.


Deixis and Distance

Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things we do with utterances. It means “pointing via language. Any linguistic form used to accomplish this ‘pointing’ is called a deictic expression.

When you notice a strange object and ask, ‘What’s that?’, you are using a deictic expression (‘that’) to indicate something in the immedate context. Deictic expressions are also sometimes called indexicals. They are among the first forms to be spoken by very young children and can be used to indicate people via person deixis )’me’, ‘you’_, or location via spatial deixis (‘here’, ‘there’, or time via temporal deixis (‘now’, ‘then’)

Person Deixis

Person deixis clearly operates on a basic three-part division, exemplified by the pronouns for first person (‘I’), second person (‘you’), and third person (‘he’, ‘she’, or ‘it’). In many languages these deictic categories of speaker, addressee, and other(s) are elaborated with markers of relative social status (for example, addressee with higher status versus addressee with lower status). Expressions which indicate higher status are described as honorifics. The discussion of the circumstances which lead to the choice of one of these forms rather than another is sometimes described as social deixis. A fairly well-known example of a social contrast encoded within person deixis is the distinction between forms used for a familiar versus a non-familiar addressee in some languages. This is known as the T/V distinction, from the French forms ‘tu’ (familiar) and ‘vous’ (non-familiar), and is found in many languages including German and Spanish. The choice of one form will certainly communicate somthing about the speaker’s view of his or her relationship with the addressee. In those socail contexts where indiviaduals typically mark distinctions between the social status of the speaker and addressee, the higher, the older, and more powerful speaker will tend to use the ‘tu’ version to a lower, younger, and less powerful addressee, and be addressed by the ‘vous’ form in return.

Spatial deixis

The concept of distance already mentioned is clearly relevant to spatial deixis, where the relative location of people and things is being indicated. Contemporary English makes use of only two adverbs, ‘here’ and ‘there’, for the basic distinction, but in older texts and in some dialects, a much larger set of deictic expressions can be found.

In considering spatial deixis, however, it is important to remember that location from the speaker’s perspective can be fixed mentally as well as physically.

Temporal deixis

The psychological basis of temporal deixis seems to be similar to that of spatial deixis. We can treat temporal events as objects that move toward us (into view) or away from us (out of view). One metaphor used in Neglish is of events coming toward the speaker from the future (for example, ‘the coming week’, ‘the approaching year’) and going away from the speaker to the past for example, ‘in days gone by’, ‘the past week’. We also seem to treat the near or immedaite future as ebing close to utterance time by using a proximal deictic ‘this’, as in ‘this (coming) weekend’ or ‘thi (coming) Thursday’.

One basic (but often unrecognized) type of temporal deixis in English is in the choice of verb tense. Whereas other languages have many different forms of the verb as different tenses. English has only two basic forms, the present and the past. Example:

Present —> I live here now

Past       —-> I lived there then.

The present tense is the proximal form and the past tense is the distal form.

The past tense is always used in English in those if-clauses that mark events presented by the speaker as not being close to present reality as in example below:

If I had a yacht, …..

If I was rich, ….

In order to understand many English conditional constructions, we have to recognize that, in temporal deixis, the remote or distal form can be used to communicate not only distance from current time, but also distance from current reality or facts.

Deixis and Grammar

The basic distinctions presented so far for person, spatial, and temporal deixis can all be seen at work in one of themost common structural distinctions made in English grammar – that between direct and indirect (or reported speech). As already described, the deictic expressions for person (‘you’), place (‘here’), and time(‘this evening’) can all be interpreted within the same context as the speaker who utters the example bellow:

  1. a.       Are you planning to be here this evening?
  2. b.      I asked her if she was planning to be there that evening.

This very regular difference in English reported discourse marks a ditinction between the ‘near speaker’ meaning of indirect speech. The proximal deictic forms of a direct speech reporting communicate, often dramatically, a sense of being in the same context as the utterance. The distal deictic forms of indirect speech reporting make the original speech event seem more remote.

It should not be a surprise to learn that deictic expressions were all to be found in the pragmatics wastebasket. Their interpretation depends on the context, the speaker’s intention, and they express relative distance. Given their small size and extremely wide range of possible uses, deictic expressions always communicate much more than is said.

In conclusion Deixis

There are some very common words in our language that can’t be interpreted at all if we don’t know the context, especially the physical context of the speaker. These are words such as here and there, this or that, now and then, yesterday, today or tomorrow, as well as pronouns such as you, me, she, him, it, them. Some sentences of English are virtually impossible to understand if we don’t know who is speaking, about whom, where and when. For example: You’ll have to bring it back tomorrow because she isn’t here today. Out of context, this sentence is really vague. It contains a large number of expressions (you, it, tomorrow, she, here, today) that rely on knowledge of the immediate physical context for their interpretation (i.e. that the delivery driver will have to return on February 15th to 660 College Drive with the package labeled ‘flowers, handle with care’ addressed to Lisa Landry). Expressions such as tomorrow and here are obvious examples of bits of language that we can only understand in terms of the speaker’s intended meaning. They are technically known as deictic expressions, from the Greek word deixis (pronounced like ‘day-icksis’), which means ‘pointing’ via language. We use deixis to point to things (it, this, these boxes) and people (him, them, those idiots), sometimes called person deixis. Words and phrases used to point to a location (here, there, near that) are examples of spatial deixis, and those used to point to a time (now, then, last week) are examples of temporal deixis. All these deictic expressions have to be interpreted in terms of which person, place or time the speaker has in mind. We make a broad distinction between what is marked as close to the speaker (this, here, now) and what is distant (that, there, then). We can also indicate whether movement is away from the speaker’s location (go) or toward the speaker’s location (come). If you’re looking for someone and she appears, moving toward you, you can say Here she comes! If, however, she is moving away from you in the distance, you’re more likely to say There she goes! The same deictic effect explains the different situations in which you would tell someone to Go to bed versus Come to bed.


Reference and Inference

Reference is clearly tied to the speaker’s goals (for example, to identify something) and the speaker’s beliefs (i.e. can the listener be expected to know that particular something?) in the use of language. For successful reference to occur,

we must also recognize the role of inference. Because there is no direct relationship between entities and words, the listener’s task is to infer correctly which entity the speaker intends to identify by using a particular referring expression. It is not unusual for people to want to refer to some entity or person without knowing exactly which ‘name’ would be the best word to use. We can even use vague expressions (for example, ‘the blue thing’, ‘that icky stuff’, ‘ol’what’s his name’, ‘the thingamajig’), relying on the listener’s ability to infer what referent we have in mind. Speakers even invent names. There was a man who delivered package to our office whose ‘real’ name I didn’t know, but whose identity I could infer when the secretary referred to him as in.

Example: Mister Aftershave is late today.

The example above may serve to illustrate that reference is not based  on an objectively correct (versus incorrect) naming, but on some locally successful (versus unsuccessful) choice of expression. We might also note from example that successful reference is necessarily collaborative, with both the speaker and the listener having role in thinking what the other has in mind.

So,reference as an act by which a speaker (or writer) uses language to enable a listener (or reader) to identify something. To perform an act of reference, we can use proper nouns (Chomsky, Jennifer, Whiskas), other nouns in phrases (a writer, my friend, the cat) or pronouns (he, she, it). The words Jennifer or friend or she can be used to refer to many entities in the world. As we observed earlier, an expression such as the war doesn’t directly identify anything by itself, because its reference depends on who is using it. We can also refer to things when we’re not sure what to call them. We can use expressions such as the blue thing and that icky stuff and we can even invent names. For instance, there was a man who always drove his motorcycle fast and loud through my neighborhood and was locally referred to as Mr. Kawasaki. In this case, a brand name for a motorcycle is being used to refer to a person.


For example, in a restaurant, one waiter can ask another, Where’s the spinach salad sitting? and receive the reply, He’s sitting by the door. If you’re studying linguistics, you might ask someone, Can I look at your Chomsky? and get the response, Sure, it’s on the shelf over there. These examples make it clear that we can use names associated with things (salad) to refer to people, and use names of people (Chomsky) to refer to things. The key process here is called inference. An inference is additional information used bythe listener to create a connection between what is said and what must be meant.

Referential and Atributive uses

It is important to recognize that not all referring expressions have identifiable physical referents. Indefinite noun phrases can be used to identify a physically present entity as in example 2a, but they can also be used to describe entities that are assumed to exist, but are unknown, as in 2b, or entities that, as far as we know, don’t exist as in 2c.

2. a. There’s a man waiting for you

b. he wants to marry a woman with lots of money.

c. We’d love to find a nine-foot-tall basketball player.

It would be distinct from a referential use whereby I actually have a person in mind and, instead of using her name or some other description, I choose the expression in 2b, perhaps because I think you’d be more interested in hearing this woman has lots of money than that she has a name.

The point of this distinction is that expressions themselves cannot be treated as having reference 9as is often assumed in semantic treatments), but are, or are not, ‘invested’ with referential function in context by speaker or writer. Spekares often invite us to assume, via attributive uses, that we can identify what they’re talking about, even when the entity or individual described may not exist.

Names and References

The version of reference being presented here is one in which there is a basic ‘intention-to-identify’ and a ‘recognition-of-intention’ collaboration at work. This process need not only work between one speaker and one listener; it appears to work, in terms of convention, between all members of a community who share a common language and culture. That is, there is a convention that certain referring expressions will be used to identify certain entities on a regular basis. It is our daily experience of the succesful operation of this convention that may cause us to assume that referring expressions can only designate very specific entities. For example, it would not be strange for one student to ask another question in 4a and receive the reply in 4b.

4         a.Can I borrow your Shakespeare?

b.Yeah, it’s over there on the table.

There appears to be a pragmatic connection between proper names and objects that will be conventionally associated, within a socio-culturally defined community, with those names. Using a proper name referrentially to identify any such object invites the listener to make the expected inference.

The role of co-text

In many of the preceding examples, our ability to identify intended referents has actually depended on more than our understanding of the referring expression. It has been aided by the linguistic material, or co-text, accompanying the referring expression.

Of course, co-text is just a linguistic part of teh environment in which a referring expression is used. The physical environment, or context, is peerhaps more easily recognized as having a powerful impact on how referring expressions are to be interpreted.

Anaphoric reference

The preceding discussion has been concerned with single acts of reference. In most of our talk and writing, however, we have to keep track of who or what we are talking about for more than one sentence at a time. After the initial introduction of some entity, speakers will use various expressions to maintain reference.


We usually make a distinction between introducing new referents (a puppy) and referring back to them (the puppy, it).

We saw a funny home video about a boy washing a puppy in a small bath.

The puppy started struggling and shaking and the boy got really wet.

When he let go, it jumped out of the bath and ran away.

In this type of referential relationship, the second (or subsequent) referring expression is an example of anaphora (‘referring back’). The first mention is called the antecedent. So, in our example, a boy, a puppy and a small bath are antecedents and The puppy, the boy, he, it and the bath are anaphoric expressions. Anaphora can be defined as subsequent reference to an already introduced entity. Mostly we use anaphora in texts to maintain reference. The connection between an antecedent and an anaphoric expression is created by use of a pronoun (it), or repetition of the noun with the (the puppy), or the use of other nouns that are related to the antecedent by inference, as in the following examples.

We found a house to rent, but the kitchen was very small.

I caught a bus and asked the driver if it went near the downtown area.

In the first example, we must make an inference like ‘if X is a house, then X has a kitchen’ in order to interpret the connection between antecedent a house and anaphoric expression the kitchen. In the second example, we must make an inference like ‘if X is a bus, then X has a driver’ in order to make the connection between a bus and the driver. In a context where both speakers easily make these types of inferences, it is possible to hear someone complain: I was waiting for the bus, but he just drove by without stopping. When the antecedent is bus, we might expect it as the pronoun, but use of the pronoun he obviously assumes an inference involving the driver.


Presupposition and entailment

It is worth noting at the outset that presupposition and entailment were considered to be much more central to pragmatics in the past than they are now. In more recent approaches, there has been less interest in the type of technical discussion associated with the logical analysis of these phenomena. Without some introduction to that type of analytical discussion, however, it becomes very difficult to understand how the current relationship between semantics and pragmatics developed.

A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. AN entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentence, not speakers, have entailments.

Characteristic presupposes usually explain as constancy under denial is mean presupposes a pronouncement until constant (constant true) although that pronouncement sentence be denial. There are several type in presupposes that is :
Presupposes factive : usage special express take for be of the opinion truth information that obvious after that.
Presupposes non-factive : something of presupposes that assumption notv true. Example of verb like “dream”, “imagine”, and “pretend”.

Presupposes lexical : usage special express by speaker take for be of the opinion a another concept (not obvious).
Presupposes structural : structural of certain sentence alreadyv analysis as presupposes in a constant manner and conventional that part of structure already truth of assumption.
Presupposes counterfactual : that what be of the opinion mustn’t notv true but form be the opposite from true or be the opposite with reality.

What a speaker (or writer) assumes is true or known by a listener (or reader) /an assumption made by the speaker (or writer), can be described as a presupposition.

If someone tells you Your brother is waiting outside, there is an obvious presupposition that you have a brother. When did you stop smoking?, there are at least two presuppositions involved. In asking this question, the speaker presupposes that you used to smoke and that you no longer do so. Questions like this, with built-in presuppositions, are very useful devices for interrogators or trial lawyers.

One of the tests used to check for the presuppositions underlying sentences involves negating a sentence with a particular presupposition and checking if the presupposition remains true. Whether you say My car is a wreck or the negative version My car is not a wreck, the underlying presupposition (I have a car)  remains true despite the fact that the two sentences have opposite meanings.

This is called the ‘constancy under negation’ test for identifying a presupposition. If someone says, I used to regret marrying him, but I don’t regret marrying him now, the presupposition (I married him) remains constant even though the verb regret changes from affirmative to negative.

Factive:  I’m regret leave it >> I’m leave it
Non-factive : he pretend happily >> he not happily
Lexical: he planning escape >> he try to escape
Structural: when he die? >> he die
Counterfactual:  if I’m not sick >> I’m sick

There is something base hope that presupposition in simple sentence will be in right way when the simple sentence become a part in a complex sentence. This is one of the version from the common concept that the meaning from the whole sentence is combination from the part of each that part sentence, but, a part meaning from the presupposition is unable become the meaning from some complex sentence, and this is called projection problem.
Shirley : It’s so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant.
Jean : But he didn’t get her pregnant. We know that now.
If we combine two narration from (13), we can get the chronological, George regrets getting Mary pregnant; But he didn’t get her pregnant !

After we identify a different presupposition, we can see that presupposition in isn’t hold out like presupposition from the narratives that were be combined.
a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant ( = p )
b. George got Mary Pregnant ( = q )
c. p >> q
d. He didn’t get her pregnant ( = r )
e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant, but he didn’t get her pregnant ( = p & r )
f. p & r >> Not q

One of the method to analyze whole sentences which is presented in (14.e) is a narrative by somebody is reporting something happen in soap opera. That people didn’t assume the q presupposition is right.

Actually entailment is not m pragmatic concept (because is related by the speaker’s purpose), but it is regarded a logic concept, and it is symbolic by II -. There some example of entailment.
Rover chased three squirrels ( = p )
a. Something chased three squirrels ( = q )
b. Rover did something to three squirrels ( = r )
c. Rover chased of three something ( = s )
d. Something happened ( = t )
In preset a relationship between entailment and as p II–q, in simple way we can say that the narrative in sentence, the speaker must confess that the correctness in some back entailment.


The chapter before it said that speaker and listener are involved in a conversation. Generally they cooperate with each others. For example when someone says “my car”, automatically the listener assumes that the listener really has a car and the listener also plans to say the reality that he really has a car.
Implication is an addition purpose that is explained by the speaker. For example, when someone asks to his friend about hamburger, “How do you like a hamburger?” then his friend answers “Hamburger is hamburger”. The implication is the speaker thinks that all hamburgers are same.

Think that you are sitting on the bench in a park and there is a dog under it, then a man comes to you and asks you “does your dog bite?” and you answers “No, my dog doesn’t bite!” then the man touch the dog feathers and the dog bites him. The man says to you “Hey’ you said that your dog doesn’t bite!” and you says “yes, my dog doesn’t bite, but that is not my dog”.
The story above shows us that you and the man are right. But the problem is from the understanding of the man that thinks the dog under the bench is your dog although not. The man needs more information than you give about the dog. It is a misunderstanding.
The point is the cooperation principle must give a good understanding to the speaker and the listener. Cooperation principle can be divided by 4 subs. Here are the subs:
1. Maxim of quality
• Don’t say what you believe to be false
• Don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence
A friend’s father considers whether or not to buy your friend a new car, and you are aware that the old car has broken down before.
A : should I buy my son this new sport car?
B improper : I do not know if that is such a good idea, his car runs fine.
B proper : yeah, that sounds like a good idea, his car has broken down before.
2. Maxim of quantity
• Make your contribution as informative as is required
• Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
A man stops his vehicle in the middle of the road to briefly ask you for directions.
A : where is the post office?
B improper : there are two in town, but the closest one is brand new. Down the road, about 50 meters past the second left. Also, you should not stop your car in the middle of the road anymore.
B improper : continue on, and make the second left up there. You will see it.
3. Maxim of relation
• Be relevant
A : ugh, I wonder what time it is…..
B improper : it is 6.30
B proper : it is 6.30. So, you have the whole night ahead of you! Have you eaten at Hardy’s before?
4. Maxim of manner
• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity
• Be orderly.
A : can you take out the trash?
B improper : well, it is probable that I would take out the trash more often if someone were not flagrantly wasteful, such that, the majority of trash was not always coming from that person.
B proper : Sure, but we need to talk about how we are assigning the chores around here when I get back.
The basic assumption of conversation is the members should follow the maxim rules in a conversation. For example:
Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.
Dexter : Ah, I brought the bread.
After knowing the response of Dexter, Charlene automatically realized that Dexter only brought the bread. He didn’t bring the cheese. Dexter only said that he brought the bread without saying that he didn’t bring the cheese in order to make Charlene assume that he didn’t bring the cheese.
This implication is more general than conversation implication because it is not specific. For example:
Someone says: “I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looks over the fence”

The implication shows that the garden and the child are not his. If the garden and the child are his, he will says “my garden” and ”my child”.
This implication is decided by value scale. The information that is explained implies the value of scale. For example:
Someone says: “I am studying linguistics and I have completed some of the required course”
The speaker uses word “some” shows us that the speaker has not finished all the linguistics courses. We will know more about the implication if the speaker explains more about the linguistics, for example:
He says: “They are sometimes really interesting”.
It shows that speaker is not only has not completed the courses, but also he is sometimes interested in linguistics.
This implication needs a private knowledge. For example:
Rick : Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom : My parents are visiting
To make Tom’s answer becomes relevant, Rick must have a little knowledge that is assumed that Tom has another activity tonight. It also shows that Tom won’t join the wild party because his parents will visit him. And it won’t be wild.

This implication is real using the words are spoken. Not hidden. It is free. The words that are usually used are “but and even”. For example:
Roger : Marry suggested black, but I choose white.
The implication is the sentence “I choose white”. It shows the implication. The implication is real and not hidden.


In attempting to express themselves, people perform actions via those utterances. Utterance can be used to perform the act of ending your employment. However, the actions performed by utterances do not have to be as dramatic or as unpleasant. The action can be quite pleasant, as in he compliment performed, the acknowledgement of thanks, or the expression of surprise. For the examples, “You’re so delicious”, “You’re welcome”, “You’re crazy”.
Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request.
These descriptive terms for different kinds of speech acts apply to the speaker’s communicative intention in producing an utterance. Speaker and hearer are usually helped in this process by the circumstances surrounding the utterance. These circumstances, including other utterances, are called the speech event. In many ways, it is the nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as performing a particular speech art. If the same utterance can be interpreted as two different kinds of speech act, it also means that there is more to the interpretation of a speech act that can be found in the utterance alone.
On any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance will consist of three related acts. There is first a locutionary act, which is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression.
Mostly we don’t just produce well-formed utterances with no purpose. We form an utterance with some kind of function in mind. This is the second dimension, or the illocutionary act. The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance.
We do not, of course simply create an utterance with a function without intending it to have an effect. This is the third dimension, the perlocutionary act.
Indeed, the term ‘speech act’ is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance. The illocutionary force of an utterance is what it ‘counts as’.
How can speakers assume that the intended illocutionary force will be recognized by the hearer? That question has been addressed by considering two things: illocutionary Force Indicating devices and Felicity conditions.
While other devices, such as lowered voice quality for a warning or a threat, might be used to indicate illocutionary force, the utterance also has to be produced under certain conventional conditions to count as having the intended illocutionary force.

In very general terms, we can usually recognize the type of ‘action’ performed by a speaker with the utterance. We use the term speech act to describe actions such as ‘requesting’, ‘commanding’, ‘questioning’ or ‘informing’.We can define a speech act as the action performed by a speaker with an utterance. If you say, I’ll be there at six, you are not just speaking, you seem to be performing the speech act of ‘promising’.

There are certain expected or appropriate circumstances, technically known as felicity conditions, for the performances of a speech act to be recognized as intended.
In every context among ordinary people, there are also preconditions on speech acts. There are general conditions on the participants, for example, that they can understand the language being used and that they are not play-acting or being nonsencial. Them there are content conditions. For example, for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance must be about a future event.
The preparatory conditions for a promise are significantly different from those for a warning. When I promise to do something, there are two preparatory conditions: first, the event will not happen by itself, and second, the event will have a beneficial effect. Related to these conditions is the sincerity condition that, for a promise, the speaker genuinely intends to carry out the future action, and for a warning, the speaker genuinely believes that the future event will not have a beneficial effect.
Finally, there is the essential condition, which covers the fact that by the act of uttering a promise, In the other words, the utterance changes my state from non-obligation to obligation. This assential condition thus combines with a specification of what must be in the utterance content, the context, and the speaker’s intentions, in order for a specific speech act to be appropriately (felicitously) performed.
One way to think about the speech acts being performed via utterances is to assume that underlying every utterance (U) there is a clause, similar to “I (Vp) you that…”, containing a performative verb (Vp) which makes the illocutionary force explicit. This is known as the performative hypothesis and the basic format of the underlying clause in “I (hereby) Vp you (that) U”.
“I hereby order you that you clean up this mess.”, in that clause, this underlying clause will always make explicit. Unlike, “ Clean up this mess!”, in utterances is implicit.
“I hereby order you that you clean up this mess.”, are used by speakers as explicit performatives. “ Clean up this mess!”, are implicit performatives, sometimes called primary performatives.
The advantage of this type of analysis is that it makes clear just what elements are involved in the production and interpretation of utterances.
Another advantage is to show that some adverbs such as ‘honestly’, or adverbial clauses such as ‘because I may be late’, in “What time is it, because I may be late?”, naturally attach to the explicit performative clauses rather than the implicit version.
There are some technical disadvantages to the performative hypothesis. For example, uttering the explicit performative version of a command has a much more serious impact than uttering the implicit version. It is also difficult to know exactly what the performative verb (or verbs) might be for some utterances, it would be very strange to have an explicit version.
The really practical problem with any analysis based on identifying explicit performatives is that, in principle, we simply do not know how many performative verbs there are in any language. Instead of trying to list all the possible explicit performatives, and then distinguish among all of them, some more general classifications of types of speech acts are usually used.
One general classification system lists fives types of general function performed by speech acts, declaration, representatives, expressive, directives, and commisive.
1. Declaration are those kind of speech acts that change the word via their utterance.
When use it, the speaker change the world with words.
2. Representative is are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker belief as issues or not.
Example :
a. the earth is flat
b. chomsky didn’t write about peanuts
c. it was a warm sunny day
to using a representative, the speaker makes the words fit the world (of belief).
3. Expressive are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels.
I’m really sorry!
In using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feeling).
4. Directives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speakers use to get someone to do something.
Example :

Could you lend me a pen, please?
Don’t touch that.
In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the hearer).

5. Commisive are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speakers use to commit themselves to some future action. They express what the speaker intends.
I’ll be back
We will not do that.
In using the commisive, the speaker understake to make the world fit the words (via the speaker).
There is a simple recognized relationship between the three structural forms (declaratives, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative function (statement, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/request).
Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act.
Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and function, we have an indirect speech art.
Thus, a declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act, but a declarative used to make a request is an indirect speech act. When it is used to make a statement, it is a direct speech art.
When it is used to make a command/request, it is functioning as an indirect speech art.
It’s cold outside.
Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct speech art.

We usually use certain syntactic structures with the functions listed beside them in the following table.

Structures                           Functions

Did you eat the pizza?    Interrogative                    Question

Eat the pizza (please)!   Imperative                          Command (Request)

You ate the pizza.                            Declarative                         Statement

Whenan interrogative structure such as Did you . . .?, Are they . . .?or Canwe . . .? is used with the function of a question, it is described as a direct speech act. For example, when we don’t know something and we ask someone to provide the information, we usually produce a direct speech act such as Can you ride a bicycle? Compare that utterance with Can you pass the salt? In this second example, we are not really asking a question about someone’s ability. In fact, we don’t normally use this structure as a question at all. We normally use it to make a request. That is, we are using a syntactic structure associated with the function of a question, but in this case with the function of a request. This is an example of an indirect speech act. Whenever one of the structures in the set above is

used to perform a function other than the one listed beside it on the same line, the result is an indirect speech act.

It is possible to have strange effects if one person fails to recognize another person’s indirect speech act. Consider the following scene. A visitor to a city, carrying his luggage, looking lost, stops a passer-by.

VISITOR: Excuse me. Do you know where the Ambassador Hotel is?

PASSER-BY: Oh sure, I know where it is. (and walks away)

In this scene, the visitor uses a form normally associated with a question (Do you know . . .?), and the passer-by answers that question literally (I know . . .) . That is, the passer-by is acting as if the utterance was a direct speech act instead of an indirect speech act used as a request for directions. Failure to recognize indirect speech acts can lead to some bizarre interactions. The main reason we use indirect speech acts seems to be that actions such as requests presented in an indirect way (Could you open that door for me?) are

generally considered to be more gentle or more polite in our society than direct speech acts (Open that door for me!). Exactly why they are considered to be more polite is based on some complex social assumptions.
Asking about preconditions technically is not count as making a request, but does allow the hearer to react as if is the request has been made. It is better in most social circumstances, for the speaker to avoid direct imposition via a direct request. When the speaker asks about preconditions, no direct request is made. A speech event is an activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome. The analysis of speech events is clearly way to studying how more gets communicated than is said.


A linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. Factors which relate to social distance and closeness are established prior to interaction. They typically involve the relative status of the participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and power. We take part in a wide range of interactions ( mostly with strangers ) where the social

distance determined by external factors is dominant. However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition or degree of friendliness, which are often negotiated during in interaction. These are internal to the interaction and can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as less, or more, during its course. These internal factors are typically in the process of being worked out within the interaction. Both types of factors, external and internal, have an influence not only on what we say, but also on how we are interpreted. Recognizing the impact is normally carried out in terms of politeness.
Within interaction, however, there is a more narrowly specified type of politeness at work. Face means the public self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of selfs that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Politeness can then be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face. Showing awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially distant is often described in terms of respect or deference. If you say something that represents a threat to another person’s self-image, that is called a face-threatening act. For example, 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. If you don’t actually have that social power (e.g. you’re not a military officer or prison warden), then you are performing a face-threatening act. 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. Whenever you say something that lessens the possible threat to another’s face, it can be described as a face-saving act.

Face Wants
Within their everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their expectations concerning their public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. Alternatively, given the possibility that some action might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is called a face saving act. Because it is generally expected that each person will attempt to respect the face wants of others, there are many different ways of performing gace saving acts.
Negative and Positive Face
A person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. A person’s positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants to shared by others.
Self and other : say nothing
One way to see the relevance of the relationship between this politeness concepts and language use is to take a single speech event and map out the different interpretation associated with different possible expressions used within that event.
For Example : – self : ( Looks in bag )
– other : ( offer pen ) Here,use this.
Say something : off and on record
Example :
a. Uh,,,I forgot my pen.
b. Hmm,,,I wonder where I put my pen.
{ They are technically described as being off record. }
An address forms are technically described as being on record my be followed by expressions like ‘ please ‘ and ‘ would you?’.
Example :
– Have some more cake.
– Give me that wet umbrella.

However, generally speaking, bald on record expressions are associated with speech events where the speaker assumes that he or she has a power over the other ( for example, in military contexts ) and can control the other’s behavior with words.
Positive and Negative Politeness
A positive politeness is a face saving act which is concerned with the person’s positive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speaker want the same thing, and that they have a common goal. For example : ( How about letting me use your pen? ). Meanwhile a negative politeness is a face saving act which is oriented to the person’s negative face will tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the others time or concerns, and even include an apology for the imposition or interuption. For example : ( I’m sorry to brother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something?).
A solidarity strategy will be marked via inclusive terms such as ‘ we ‘ and ‘ let’s ‘. For example : – Come on let’s go to the party. Everyone will be there. We’ll have fun. The language associated with a deference strategy emphasizes the speaker’s and the hearer’s independence, marked via an absence of personal claims.

For example : – There’s going to be a party, If you can make it. It will be fun.
These general types of strategies are illustrated here via utterances which are actually central to the speech event ( for example, invitation ). Face saving behavior, however, is often at work well before such utterances are produced, in the form of pre-sequences.
The basic assumption, from the perspective of politeness, is that face typically at risk when the self needs to accomplish something involving other. The advantage of the pre-request element is that it can be answered either with a ‘ go ahead ‘ response. For example ; him : Are you busy? (= pre-request)
her : Oh, sorry. (=stop)
Pre-sequences are also commonly used in making invitations.
For example ; him : What are you doing this Friday ? (=pre-invitation)
her : Hmm, nothing so far. (=go ahead)
him : Come over for dinner. (=invitation)
her : Oh, I’d like that. (=accept)
Children often use pre-announcements to check if their parents are willing to pay attention.
For example ;
child : Mom, guess what happened ? (=pre -announcement)
mother : ( silence )
child : Mom you know what ? (=pre-announcement)
mother : Not right now, Jacy, I’m busy. (=stop)
Throughout this discussion of politeness in interaction, we have been assumsing a well-known and easily recognizable structure for the interaction.


The word interaction can be applied to some social meeting with a various kinds. The kinds of conversation is maybe look different depend on its different interaction context. The structure of conversation is anything that we have been assumption as something that we already know well by discussion first.CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
There are a lot of allusions that used to describe the structure of conversation. They can say that a conversation is like a dance, or traffic current on the cross road, that involve alloy of kinds of movements. But, the analytical approaches that have been used most are based on the analogy. On that part there is an extinct commodity that called a chance to talk ”floor” that usually we define it as a right to talk or turn. And when someone tries to take control of that situation we called it the taking over of turn, it is as a form of social action. The possibility of turn changing problem is called with TRP (Transition Relevance Place). The interaction designs of conversation are different from one social group to another.
Most of conversations are involve 2 persons or more. Overlap is both speakers try to talk at the same time. If two persons try to talk but doesn’t find a flow or rhythm, it means that they have more understanding than words to talk. You can see the first the example of conversation that shows miscorrelations.
1. Mr. Straits : What’s your major Dave?
Dave : English-well I haven’t really decided yet. (3 seconds)
Mr. Straits : So-you want to be a teacher?
Dave : No-not really-well not if I can help it. (2, 5 seconds)
Mr. Straits : What-//Where do you-go ahead?
Dave : I mean it’s a-oh sorry// I-emm-.
• The short interval (-) show a form of uncertainty, while the long one become silence. Two or the last line shows overlap with a conventional way. And signed with (//) on the first conversation.
The second Example shows a silence between both speakers because of each speaker doesn’t take their part well.
2. Jan : Dave I’m going to the store. (2 seconds)
Jan : Dave? (2 seconds)
Jan : Dave-is something wrong?
Dave : What? What’s wrong?
Jan : Never mind.
Most of speakers (younger).overlap speaking usually appear in the language use function. The third example shows an effect from the speaker that overlaps and makes a sense comparison of two voices that gather in harmony.
3. Min : Did you see him in the video?
Wendy : Yeah-the part on the beach.
Min : Oh my God//he was so sexy.
Wendy : He was just being so cool.
Min : And all the waves//crashing around him.
Wendy : Yeah that was really wild.
• In the example above an overlap shows a close relation between both speakers.
4. The next example, overlap shows a competition.
Joe : When they were in//power last-wait CAN I FINISH?
Jerry : That’s my point I said.
• In the fourth example the speakers look like to talk, but actually they are in competition to get their each right to talk. The first speaker wants some rules of conversation structure.
The TRP signs that very conspicuous are the structural of intervals. Anyone who wants a right to speak must wait for the TRP possibility before come in. They must realize the existence of interval in the last of syntax unit. The fifth example shows that each speaker has filled their each interval, and put it inside of syntax unit. In this example we can see that the speakers were tried to defend their turn.

5. I wasn’t talking about-um his first book that was-uh really just like a start and so-uh isn’t-doesn’t count really.
There’s another way to defend a right to talk. You can see that in the sixth example.
6. a. There are three points I’d like to make first…
b. There’s more than one ways to do this-one example would be…
c. Didn’t you know about Melvin? Oh-it was the last October…
d. Did you hear Cindy’s new car?-She got it in…
• The statements in the (6a) and (6b) are related with the fact or opinion, while the statements in (6c) and (6d) was the beginning.
There are some different kinds of ways to show that they were hearing such as smile, expression and another signs. But, the most common vocal indication is backchannel signals, like in the example below.
7. Caller : If you use your long distance service a lot then you’ll…
Marry : Uh-uh
Caller : Be interested in the discount I’m talking about, because…
Marry : Yeah
Caller : It can only save your money to switch to a cheaper service.
Marry : Mmmm
• These kinds of signals (‘uh-uh’, ‘yeah’, ‘mmm’) give feed back to the speaker that speak, the listener follow what they’ve said and not refuse it.
There are some variations that can create some misunderstanding. Some of individual hope that their role in the conversation will be very active. So that most of the speakers will relatively fast, almost without interval between the turn of speak. These kinds of speaking style called with high involving style. It means that the speaker use slower way, hoping for long intervals between the turn of speak. These kinds of speaking style called high solidarity style, where no need interruption and force.
There are many kinds in the structure of dialogue,t hat are greeting, Introduce, etc.
Example: Anna: Hello Bill : Hi
Anna: How are you? Bill : Fine
Anna: See you! Bill :Bye
The name of automatic formation like that is Adjacency Pairs. There are two parts of pairs ,that are first part and second part which expression by to different peoples, and there is empty statement in the second part.
Example: First part Second part
A: How are you? B: The usual
A: What’s up? B: Nothing much
The others example of adjacency pairs is expressing of gratitude and offering/service help.
Example: First part Second part
A:Thanks B:You’re welcome
A:Could you help me with this? B:Sure
Sometimes, not all first part accept part two because there is others statement include in there, so the pattern is:
Agent: Do you want the early flight? (Q-1)
Client: What time does it arrive? (Q-2)
Agent: Nine forty-five. (A-2)
Clint: Yeah that’s great. (A-1)

In the structure of preference, second part divided two, that are social measure which like and social measure which dislike.
First part Second part(like) (Dislike)
Value Agree Disagree
Inviting Accept Refuse
Offering Accept Refuse
Proposal Agree Disagree
Request Accept Refuse
The answer for second part which like of the request, offering, value or proposal is agree and accept.
Example: First part Second part
A. Can you help me? Sure
B. Isn’t that really great? Yes, it is
• It’s an example that the speaker given’t like answer.
Sandy : But I’m not sure they’ll have good food there. Hmmm I guess the food isn’t great.
Jack : People mostly go for the music.
• It’s an example that the second speaker give disagree statement.
Cindy : So chiroprodists do hands I guess.
Julie : Wel out there they mostly go for the music.
• It’s an example that the second speaker which dislike is uncertain in the offering statement.
Becky : Come over for some coffee later.
Wally : OH.. I’d love to-but you see –I’m supposed to get this finished-you know.

The chapter before, Interpretation based on the structure of conversation, especially aspect procedure to take serve to string the speaker, aftr the speaker get it, speaker must stact the structure and what they want their speak, they must summarize their message what they get or didn’t get it by hearer, if speaker decide to write the message, so they must to face to give bait interactive back.
In result, must depend on mecanism structural more explicite to stack their text. Speaker have 2 function that used to language they are:
1. Tectual Function that compose a text that fit and good row.
2. Idealisional Function are describe think and experience.
Survey about range space that more wide than form and function that spoken and writen, if analysis limit into elements linguistic matter, so it’s focus in process note (Oral or Writen) where language used to context to clarify desire.
Generally, Interest wide in word struture this perspektif stuctural focus in topic. Example : Context explisite between sentence into text that compose a cohesion or element to arrange text are identify explain. Specifically, study focus in

aspect about how to spoken and writen, we must understand the social interaction matter and analyze conversation to memorize the form and structure text.

Coherence in spoken and written discourse how to create it and how to describe.
Generally, user wide language are assumption coherence. It’s containing meaning of experience certain with individual because experience would be certain with familiriaty and expect.
Pressing of familiriaty and knowledge as coherence elements was needed because made interpretation was not observe with another alternative.
Example :
Man Robs Hotel with sandwich
If you made an interpretation to that sandwich (may be into bag) sandwich used as weapon, consider that as knowledge background was espect by writer.
Our ability to interpretation are otomatis that didn’t write or not oral based on the first knowledge structure. The function of stucture are intimate point from the old experience used to interpretation new experience. The term generally is skema. Skema are knowledge structure before on the mind.
If any fixed design, that sure schema, it means frame. Frame that haved together by every people on social group will became prototype version. And then, if the characteristic of schema type more dynamic considered, so the type more always described as script. Script is knowledge structure before that involve rotation system of incident. We use script for making interpretation about the happened of incident. Another case became the rotation of incident that assumption for having together is background of knowledge.
A script concept according to simple recognize from some act rotation that hope on an incident. Because every part of script explanation that assumption ready to know, may be the explanation didn’t revealed. For member that have some culture, about script assumption that have together will give wide road for reveal without said. But the member for different culture, this assumption may be it can became false accomplish.
Almost can not avoid if background knowledge structure, our schema to explain the world, will be fixed by culture. We are develop culture schema in experience context base of us.
Different study hope based on culture schema, is part of wide folded room that common know as pragmatic flash culture. Concept and terminology may be give based analytic skeleton, but realization of concept may be different according to substantial. The different approach to connect between quality and quantity on knowing pragmatic that more comprehensive. Study about culture way different pronounce sometimes means contrastive pragmatic. The research focus according to more special to communicative act from people that not the original pronouns, while try for communication on their second language. The study like that more reveal if we speak with something called dialect pragmatic, is aspect that showing something that we assumption can understand without said.



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: