MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM

ENGLISH FACULTY
—--------------------

PRAGMATICS
Politeness and Interactions; Deixis and Distance
Course instructor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kiều Thị Thu Hương

GROUP 4

FULL NAME STUDENT ID

Nguyễn Tuấn Huy NNA48A10631
Nguyễn Khánh Huyền NNA48A10634
Hoàng Thu Hằng NNA48A10614
Lưu Thị Hương NNA48A10630
Bùi Thuý Huyền NNA48A10637

Ha Noi, March 12th 2024

 WORK DISTRIBUTION

Members Student ID Parts

Nguyễn Tuấn Huy NNA48A10631 The concept of face and
face wants/ Face
threatening acts and
Face - saving acts/
Negative and positive
face

Nguyễn Khánh Huyền NNA48A10634 Self and other: say

nothing/ Say something:
on and off record

Hoàng Thu Hằng NNA48A10614 Positive and negative

politeness/ Strategies/
Pre - sequences

Lưu Thị Hương NNA48A10630 Pre - sequences/

Introduction of Deixis
and distance/ Person
deixis

Bùi Thuý Huyền NNA48A10637 Spatial deixis/ Temporal

deixis/ Deixis and
Grammar
 I. Politeness and Interaction
1. The concept of face and face wants
As a technical term, “face” means the public self-image of a person. It refers to
that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone
else to recognize.
Showing awareness for another person's face when that other seems socially
distant is often described in terms of respect or deference.
The example of this can be found in a student's question to his teacher, shown as
[ia]:
[i] a. “Excuse me, Mr Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute?”
Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often
described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.
The example of this can be found in the friend's question to the same individual,
as in [ib]:
[i] b. “Hey, Bucky, got a minute?”

It follows from this type of approach that there will be different kinds of
politeness associated (and marked linguistically) with the assumption of relative
social distance or closeness.

In most english-speaking contexts, the participants in an interaction often have

to determine, as they speak, the relative social distance between them, and
hence their 'face wants'.

2. Face-threatening acts and Face-saving acts

In this discussion, let's assume that the participants involved in interactions are
not living in a context which has created rigidly fixed social relationships.
Within their everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their
expectations concerning their public self-image, or their face wants, will be
respected.

If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual's

expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face threatening act.
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.
Imagine a late night scene, where a young neighbor is playing his music very
loud and an older couple are trying to sleep. One of them, in [2] proposes a face
threatening act and the other suggests a face saving act.

[2] Him: I'm going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon because it's
getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep.

Because it is generally expected that each person will attempt to respect the face
wants of others, there are many different ways of performing face saving acts.

3. Negative and Positive face

When we attempt to save another's face, we can pay attention to their negative
face wants or their positive face wants. A person's negative face is the need to
be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others.

The word 'negative' here doesn't mean 'bad', it's just the opposite pole from
'positive'. 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 are shared by others. In simple terms, negative face is the need to be
independent and positive face is the need to be connected.

So, a face saving act which is oriented to the person's negative face will tend to
show deference, emphasize the importance of the other's time or concerns, and
even include an apology for the imposition or interruption. This is also called
negative politeness. A face saving act which is concerned with the person's
positive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the
same thing, and that they have a common goal. This is also called positive
politeness.

4. Self and other: say nothing

One way to see the relevance of the relationship between these politeness
concepts and language use is to take a single speech event and map out the
different interpretations associated with different possible expressions used
within that event. For example, you arrive at an important lecture, pull out your
notebook to take notes, but discover that you don't have anything to write with.
You think that the person sitting next to you may provide the solution. In this
scenario, you are going to be 'Self', and the person next to you is going to be
'Other'.
Your first choice is whether to say something or not. You can, of course,
rummage in your bag, search rather obviously through your pockets, go back
into your bag, without uttering a word, but with the vague intention that your
problem will be recognized. This 'say nothing' approach may or may not work,
but if it does, it's because the other offers and not because the self asks, as in [3]
Self: (looks in bag)
Other: (offers pen) Here, use this.

Many people seem to prefer to have their needs recognized by others without
having to express those needs in language. When those needs are recognized, as
in [3], then clearly more has been communicated than was said.

5. Say something: off and on record

Even if you decide to say something, you don't actually have to ask for
anything. You can (perhaps after your search through your bag) simply produce
a statement of the type in [4a.] or [4b.].
[4] a. Uh, I forgot my pen.
b. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.

These, and other similar types of statements, are not directly addressed to the
other. The other can act as if the statements have not even been heard. They are
technically described as being off record. In casual descriptions, they might be
referred to as 'hints'. Once again, an off record statement may or may not
succeed (as a means of getting a pen), but if it does, it will be because more has
been communicated than was said.

In contrast to such off record statements, you can directly address the other as a
means of expressing your needs. These direct address forms are technically
described as being on record. The most direct approach, using imperative forms
such as those in [5], is known as bald on record. The other person is directly
asked for something.
[5] a. Give me a pen.
b. Lend me your pen.
These bald on record forms may be followed by expressions like 'please' and
'would you?' which serve to soften the demand and are called mitigating
devices.

It is tempting to equate the bald on record approach with all direct command
forms (i.e. imperatives). This would be misleading because imperative forms are
often used by close familiars without being interpreted as commands. Examples
would be a friend offering something to eat, as in [6a.], or trying to help you, as
in [6b.].
[6] a. Have some more cake.
b. Gimme that wet umbrella.

Emergency situations also occasion the use of direct commands, regardless of

who is being addressed, as when danger prompts use of the expressions in [7] a.
Don't touch that!
b. Get out of here!

There are, consequently, some social circumstances where using a direct

command as a bald on record expression is considered appropriate among social
equals.

However, generally speaking, bald on record expressions are associated with

speech events where the speaker assumes that he or she has power over the
other (for example, in military contexts) and can control the other's behavior
with words. In every- day interaction between social equals, such bald on record
behavior would potentially represent a threat to the other's face and would
generally be avoided. Avoiding a face threatening act is accomplished by face
saving acts which use positive or negative politeness strategies.

II. Positive and negative politeness

1. Positive and negative
A positive polite strategy leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, and
even friendship, via expressions such as those in [8]
[8] a. How about letting me use your pen?
b. Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me use your pen.
(The speaker has proposed a question, as in the examples, to achieve their goal
by considering the situation, evaluating the interlocutor to express their own
objectives while still paying attention to the listener's reaction)

These on record expressions do represent a greater risk for the speaker of

suffering a refusal and may be preceded by some ‘getting to know you’ talk, of
the kind presented in [9], designed to establish the necessary common ground
for this strategy.

[9] Hi. How’s it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same
crazy stuff. You take a lot of notes too, huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me
use one of your pens
(The speaker has employed quite a few indirect sentences to guide their
purpose/goal/desire towards their own wish, yet still demonstrates concern for
the other party in achieving their own desire.)

However, in most English-speaking contexts, a face saving act is more

commonly performed via a negative politeness strategy. The most typical form
used is a question containing a modal verb such as [10a]
[10] a. Could you lend me a pen?
b. I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something?
c. I know you’re busy, but might I ask you if — em— if you happen to
have an extra pen that I could, you know — eh — maybe borrow?
(The speaker wants to achieve their own goal and still demonstrates appropriate
respect through their words in this situation, but actually shows that the speaker
doesn't really care whether the other person is bothered or not.)

Using this strategy also results in forms which contain expressions of apology
for the imposition of the type shown in [10b]. More elaborate negative
politeness work can sometimes be heard in extended talk, often with hesitations,
similar to that shown in [10c]
It is worth noting that negative politeness is typically expressed via questions,
even questions that seem to ask for permission to ask questions ( for example
‘Might I ask…?’) as in [10c]. On the answer in the negative to the question
without the same refusal effect of responding with a negative to the questions
without the same refusal effect of responding with a negative to a direct
imperative (This distinction is an important motivation for the distinction
between direct and indirect speech acts, discussed already).
Even more relevant for our concern with the pragmatics of language in use , the
availability of the bald in record form, as well as off record forms, means that
the use of a face - saving on record form represents a significant choice. The
choice of a type of expression that is less direct, potentially less clear, generally
longer, and with a more complex structure means that the speaker is making a
greater effort, in terms of concern for face (i.e. politeness), than is needed
simply to get the basic message across efficiently.
(Pragmatics, George Yule, 1996, P64, P65)

2. Strategies
The tendency to use positive forms, emphasizing closeness between speaker and
hearer, can be seen as a solidarity strategy. This may be the principal operating
strategy among a whole group or it may be an option used by an individual
speaker on a particular occasion. Linguistically, such a strategy will include
personal information, use of nicknames, sometimes even abusive terms
(particularly among males), and shared dialect or slang expressions. Frequently,
a solidarity strategy will be marked via inclusive terms such as “we” and “let’s”,
as in the party invitation in [11].
(How to get a pen from someone else, following Brown and Levinson, p7)
Politeness strategy is divided into 5 strategies, those strategies are described
below:

Figure 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.
69)
And the following picture provides example of each strategy:

Figure 2.2 How to get a pen from someone else (following Brown and Levinson
1987) as stated from (Yule, 1996, p. 66)

We have an example here, so if the speaker wants to get a pen from someone
else, it will lead to 2 options: “Say something” whether “say nothing”. So if the
speaker choose to say something it can come to 2 situations: First is “off
record”, the speaker can express themself by saying ‘i forgot my pen’, so the
opposite “off record” is “on record”, in this we also got 2 sides: ‘face saving
acts’ and ‘bald on record’, in ‘bald on record, the speaker will directly say
“Give a me pen”, and the other ‘Face saving acts’, we have ‘negative politeness’
that speaker can say ‘How about letting me use your pen?’ or ‘positive
politeness’ can say ‘ Could you lend me a pen?’

[11] Come on, let’s go to the party. Everyone will be there. We’ll have fun.

The tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing the hearer’s right to
freedom, can be seen as a deference strategy. It can be the typical strategy of a
whole group or just an option used on a particular occasion. A deference
strategy is involved in what is called ‘formal politeness’. It is impersonal, as if
nothing is shared, and can include expression that refer to neither the speaker
nor the hearer ( for example, ‘Customers may not smoke here, sir’). The
language associated with a deference strategy emphasizes the speaker’s and the
hearer’s independence, marked via an absence of personal claims, as in [12], an
alternative version of the party invitation in [11].

3. Pre-sequences
As already suggested, the concept of face-saving may be helpful in
understanding how participants in an interaction inevitably understand more
than is said. The basic assumption, from the perspective of politeness, is that
face is typically at risk when the self needs to accomplish something involving
other. The greatest risk appears to be when the other is put in a difficult position.
One way of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to halt the
potentially risky act. For example, rather than simply make a request, speakers
will often first produce what can be described as a pre-request. We already
noted one example in discussing speech events earlier, at the end of Chapter 6.
Another is presented as [13], along with one analysis of the structure of this
interaction.

[13] Her: Are you busy? (=pre-request)

Him: Not really. (=go ahead)

Her: Check over this memo (= request)

Him: Okay (=accept)

The advantage of the pre-request element is that it can be answered either with a
"go-ahead" response, as in [13], or with a "stop" response, as in [14]

[14] Him: Are you busy? (pre-request)

Her: Oh, sorry. (stop)

The response in [14] allows the speaker to avoid making a request that cannot
be granted at the time. Understanding that it is a response to a pre-request also
allows us to interpret the expression "sorry", not only as an apology about being
busy, but also as an apology about being unable to respond to the anticipated
request.

There is, however, a general pattern of pre-requests actually being treated as

requests and being responded to, as in [15], with the (unstated, hoped for) action
being performed.

[15] Her: Do you have a spare pen?

 Him: Here. (hand over a pen)

This "short-cut" process of going from pre-request to granting of request helps

explain the literal oddness of the common pattern in [16]

[16] Her: Do you mind if I use your phone?

Him: Yeah, sure.

As a literal response, "yeah" or "yeah, sure" would be the equivalent of "I do

mind" and wouldn't count as allowing use of the phone. However, these forms
are normally interpreted as a positive response, not to the pre-request, but to the
unstated request.

Pre-sequences are also commonly used in making invitations.

As illustrated in [17], with a “go-ahead”, and [18] with a “stop”, inviters tend to
ask a pre-invitation question and receivers tend to recognize their function.

[17] 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)

In this example, The speaker initiates the interaction with a pre-invitation

question, asking about the listener's plans for a specific time. The listener
responds positively, indicating availability with "Hmm, nothing so far," thus
giving the go-ahead signal. Subsequently, the speaker extends the invitation to
come over for dinner, and the listener accepts it with enthusiasm. This sequence
demonstrates how pre-sequences can be used to gauge the other person's
availability and willingness to participate in the proposed activity, leading to a
successful invitation.

[18] Him: Are you doing anything later? (= pre-invitation)

Her: Oh, yeah. Busy, busy, busy. (=stop)

Him: Oh, okay. (=stop)

In [18], the speaker initiates a pre-invitation question, asking about the listener's
plans for later. The listener responds negatively, indicating that they are busy,
thus signaling a stop to the potential invitation. The speaker acknowledges this
response with "Oh, okay," indicating acceptance of the listener's unavailability.
This example illustrates how pre-sequences help both parties in the interaction
understand the function of the exchange, allowing for smooth communication
even when the invitation is declined.

Children often use pre-announcements to check if their parents are willing to

pay attention, as in example [19]

[19] 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)

In example [19], there are two pre-announcements, neither of which receives a “

go-ahead”. The initial pre-announcement is met with silence, which is generally
interpreted as a ‘stop’. The child’s second attempt must be based on an
interpretation that the parent did not hear the first attempt. The final response
has to be interpreted as a ‘stop’, but noticeably it is expressed, in face-saving
terms, as a postponement.

Throughout this discussion of politeness in interaction, we have been assuming

a well-known and easily recognizable structure for the interaction. That
structure must now be analyzed because it is our comfortable familiarity with its
regularity that allows a great deal to be communicated that is never said.

I. Deixis and Distance

1. Introduction
Deixis is a technical term 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 immediate context. Deictic
expressions are also sometimes called indexicals.
There are three types of indexicals, which are

- Person deixis: used to indicate people (‘me’, ‘you)

- Spatial deixis : used to indicate location (‘here’, ‘there’)

 - Temporal deixis : used to indicate time (‘now’, ‘then’)

All these expressions depend, for their interpretation, on the speaker and hearer
sharing the same context.

Indeed, deictic expressions have their most basic uses in face-to-face spoken
interaction where utterances such as [1] are easily understood by the people
present, but may need a translation for someone not right there.

[1] I'll put this here.

(Of course, you understood that Jim was telling Anne that he was about to put
an extra house key in one of the kitchen drawers.)

Deixis is clearly a form of referring that is tied to the speaker's context, with the
most basic distinction between deictic expressions being "near speaker" versus
"away from speaker".

In English, the "near speaker", or proximal terms are typically interpreted in

terms of the speaker's location, or the deictic center, so that "now" is generally
understood as referring to some point or period in time that has the time of the
speaker's utterance at its center. Discal terms can simply indicate "away from
speaker", but, in some languages, can be used to distinguish between "near
addressee" and "away from both speaker and addressee". Thus, in Japanese, the
translation of the pronounce "that" will distinguish between "that near
addressee" "sore" and "that distant from both speaker and addressee" "are" with
a third term being used for the proximal "this near speaker" "kore".

1. Person deixis
The distinction just described involves person deixis, with the speaker (I) and
the addressee (you) mentioned. The simplicity of these forms disguises the
complexity of their use.

Each person in a conversation shifts from being “I” to being “you” constantly.
All young children go through a stage in their learning where this distinction
seems problematic and they say things like “Read you a story” (instead of me)
when handing over a favourite book.

Person deixis clearly operates on a basic three-part division, exemplified by the

pronounces for the 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 ('du/Sie') and Spanish ('tú/Usted'). The choice of
one form will certainly communicate something (not directly said) about the
speaker's view of his or her relationship with the addressee. In those social
contexts where individuals typically mark distinctions between the social status
of the speaker and addressee, the higher, 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. When social change is taking place, as
for example in modern Spain, where a young businesswoman (higher economic
status) is talking to her older cleaning lady (lower economic status), how do
they address each other? I am told that the age distinction remains more
powerful than the economic distinction and the older: woman uses 'tu' and the
younger uses 'Usted'.

The Spanish non-familiar version ('Usted') is historically related to a form

which was used to refer to neither first person (speaker) nor second person
(addressee), but to third person (some other). In deictic terms, third person is not
a direct participant in basic (I-you) interaction and, being an outsider, is
necessarily more distant. Third person pronouns are consequently distal forms
in terms of person deixis. Using a third person form, where a second person
form would be possible, is one way of communicating distance (and
non-familiarity). This can be done in English for an ironic or humorous purpose
as when one person, who's very busy in the kitchen, addresses another, who's
being very lazy, as in [2].

[2] Would his highness like some coffee?

In example [2], "Would his highness like some coffee?" is a sarcastic or
humorous way of addressing someone who is being lazy or acting entitled.
Theuse of "his highness" instead of directly addressing the person as "you"
creates a sense of distance and formality.

The phrase "his highness" is typically used to address royalty or someone of

high status, but in this context, it's used ironically to mock the laziness or
entitlement of the person being addressed. By using "his highness," the speaker
is emphasizing the absurdity or exaggerated importance they perceive in the
behavior of the addressee.

The distance associated with third person forms is also used to make potential
accusations (for example, 'you didn't clean up') less direct, as in [3a.], or to
make a potentially personal issue seem like an impersonal one, based on a
general rule, as in [3b.].

[3] a. Somebody didn't clean up after himself.

b. Each person has to clean up after him or herself.

In example [3.a], "Somebody didn't clean up after himself," the use of

"somebody" and the third person pronoun "himself" creates a sense of distance
and indirectness. The speaker avoids directly accusing any specific individual
by using a general term "somebody." This construction makes the accusation
less personal and confrontational.

Similarly, in example [3.b], "Each person has to clean up after him or herself,"
the speaker uses a general rule to address what could be a potentially personal
issue. By using "each person" and "him or herself," the speaker creates a sense
of universality and impersonality, framing the issue as a matter of following a
rule rather than singling out any specific individual.

Of course, the speaker can state such general 'rules' as applying to the speaker
plus other(s), by using the first person plural ('we'), as in [4].

[4] We clean up after ourselves around here.

Example [4], "We clean up after ourselves around here," demonstrates the use of
the first-person plural pronoun "we" to state a general rule that applies to the
speaker and potentially others. However, in English, there is ambiguity in such
uses of "we." It can be interpreted inclusively (including both the speaker and
the addressee) or exclusively (excluding the addressee).
This ambiguity allows the hearer to interpret the statement based on their
perception of their relationship with the speaker and their role within the group.
The hearer can either consider themselves as part of the group to whom the rule
applies (an addressee) or as an outsider to whom the rule does not apply (not an
addressee).

There is, in English, a potential ambiguity in such uses which allows two
different interpretations. There is an exclusive 'we' (speaker plus other(s),
excluding addressee) and an inclusive 'we' (speaker and addressee included).

In English, the ambiguity present in [4] provides a subtle opportunity for a

hearer to decide what was communicated. Either the hearer decides that he or
she is a member of the group to whom the rule applies (i.e. an addressee) or an
outsider to whom the rule does not apply (i.e. not an addressee). In this case, the
hearer gets to decide the kind of 'more' that is being communicated.

The inclusive-exclusive distinction may also be noted in the difference between

saying “Let’s go” (to some friends) and “Let us go (to someone who has
captured the speaker and friends). The action of going is inclusive in the first,
but exclusive in the second.

2. Spatial deixis
First, 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. Although 'yonder' (more distant from speaker)
is still used, words like 'hither' (to this place) and 'thence' (from that place) now
sound archaic. These last two adverbs include the meaning of motion toward or
away from the speaker. Some verbs of motion, such as 'come' and 'go', retain a
deictic sense when they are used to mark movement toward the speaker ('Come
to bed!") or away from the speaker ('Go to bed!').
One version of the concept of motion toward the speaker (i.e. becoming visible),
seems to be the first deictic meaning learned by children and characterizes their
use of words like 'this' and 'here' (= can be seen). They are distinct from 'that'
and 'there' which are associated with things that move out of the child's visual
space (= can no longer be seen).
 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.
Speakers temporarily away from their home location will often continue to use
'here' to mean the (physically distant) home location, as if they were still in that
location.
Speakers also seem to be able to project themselves into other locations prior to
actually being in those locations, as when they say 'I'll come later' (= movement
to addressee's location).
This is sometimes described as deictic projection and we make more use of its
possibilities as more technology allows us to manipulate location. If 'here'
means the place of the speaker's utterance (and 'now' means the time of the
speaker's utterance), then an utterance such as [5] should be nonsense.

[5] I am not here now.

However, I can say [5] into the recorder of a telephone answering machine,
projecting that the 'now' will apply to any time someone tries to call me, and not
to when I actually record the words.
Indeed, recording [5] is a kind of dramatic performance for a future audience in
which I project my presence to be in the required location.
A similar deictic projection is accomplished via dramatic performance when I
use direct speech to represent the person, location, and feelings of someone or
something else. For example, I could be telling you about a visit to a pet store,
as in [6].
[6] I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad
look on its face. It was like, 'Oh, I'm so unhappy here, will
you set me free?'
The 'here' of the cage is not the actual physical location of the person uttering
the words (the speaker), but is instead the location of that person performing in
the role of the puppy.
It may be that the truly pragmatic basis of spatial deixis is actually
psychological distance. Physically close objects will tend to be treated by the
speaker as psychologically close. Also, something that is physically distant will
generally be treated as psychologically distant (for example, 'that man over
there').
However, a speaker may also wish to mark something that is physically close
(for example, a perfume being sniffed by the speaker) as psychologically distant
'I don't like that'. In this analysis, a word like "that' does not have a fixed (i.e.
semantic) meaning; instead, it is 'invested' with meaning in a context by a
speaker.
Similar psychological processes seem to be at work in our distinctions between
proximal and distal expressions used to mark temporal deixis.

3. Temporal deixis
We have already noted the use of the proximal form 'now' as indicating both the
time coinciding with the speaker's utterance and the time of the speaker's voice
being heard (the hearer's 'now'). In contrast to 'now', the distal expression 'then'
applies to both past [7a. and future [7b.] time relative to the speaker's present
time.

[7] a. November 22nd, 1963? I was in Scotland then.

b. Dinner at 8:30 on Saturday? Okay, I'lI see you then.

It is worth noting that we also use elaborate systems of non-deictic temporal

reference such as calendar time (dates, as in [7a.)) and clock time (hours, as in
[7b.]). However, these forms of temporal reference are learned a lot later than
the deictic expressions like 'yesterday', 'tomorrow', 'today', 'tonight', 'next week',
'last week', 'this week'.
All these expressions depend for their interpretation on knowing the relevant
utterance time. If we don't know the utterance (i.e. scribbling) time of a note, as
in [8], on an office door, we won't know if we have a short or a long wait ahead.

[8] Back in an hour.

Similarly, if we return the next day to a bar that displays the notice in [9], then
we will still be (deictically) one day early for the free drink.

[9] Free Beer Tomorrow.

([9] Bia miễn phí vào ngày mai.)

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 English 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 immediate future as being close to utterance time
by using the proximal deictic 'this', as in 'this (coming) weekend' or 'this
(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 as in
[ioa.], and the past as

[10] a. I live here now.

b. I lived there then.
The present tense is the proximal form and the past tense is the distal form.
Something having taken place in the past, as in [1 ia.], is tvpically treated as
distant from the speaker's current situation.
Perhaps less obviously, something that is treated as extremely unlikely (or
impossible) from the speaker's current situation is also marked via the distal
(past tense) form, as in [ub.].

[11] a. I could swim (when I was a child).

b. I could be in Hawaii (if I had a lot of money).
The past tense is always used in English in those //-clauses that mark events
presented by the speaker as not being close to present reality as in [12].

[12] a. If I had a yacht,...

b. If I was rich,...

Neither of the ideas expressed in [12] are to be treated as having happened in

past time. They are presented as deictically distant from the speaker's current
situation. So distant, indeed, that they actually communicate the negative (we
infer that the speaker has no yacht and is not rich).
In order to understand many English conditional constructions (including those
of the form 'Had I known sooner...), 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.
 4. Deixis and grammar
The basic distinctions presented so far for person, spatial, and temporal deixis
can all be seen at work in one of the most 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 [13a.].

[13] a. Are you planning to be here this evening?

b. I asked her if she was planning to be there that evening.
When the context shifts, as for example in [13 b.], to one in which I report the
previous utterance, then the previous utterance is marked deictically as relative
to the circumstances of asking.
Note that the proximal forms presented in [13a.] have shifted to the
corresponding distal forms in [13b.]. This very regular difference in English
reported discourse marks a distinction between the 'near speaker' meaning of
direct speech and the 'away from 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.