Pragmatics:

Meaning of Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics that studies how context influences the interpretation of meaning in
language. Unlike semantics, which focuses on the inherent meaning of words and sentences, pragmatics considers
the ways in which meaning is shaped by the circumstances in which language is used.
The study of how context influences the interpretation of meaning in communication. It goes beyond the literal
meaning of words to understand implied meaning.
Ex. Speaker: "It's cold in here."
Pragmatic Meaning: The speaker might be indirectly requesting to close the window.
Charles Morris (1938) "Pragmatics is the study of the relation of signs to interpreters."
Foundations of the Theory of
Signs
John L. Austin (1962) "Pragmatics is concerned with the theory of speech acts, which are the basic
units of language use."
How to Do Things with Words
Scope of Pragmatics
The scope of pragmatics encompasses various aspects of how language is used in context and its relationship
with meaning. Pragmatics deals with the dynamic interaction between language, speakers, and context, focusing
on meaning beyond the literal interpretation. Below are the key areas covered under the scope of pragmatics:
1. Deixis: Deixis refers to words or phrases that need context to be understood because their meaning
changes depending on who is speaking, where they are, and when they are speaking.
Simple Examples:
1. Person Deixis: Words like "I," "you," "he," "she," "we."
o Example: If I say "I am happy," "I" refers to me, but if you say "I am happy," "I" refers
to you.
❖ Person Deixis are three categories:
1. Speaker -I
2. Addressee-You
3. Other -He, she, they, it
➢ Social deixis: Social deixis refers to words or expressions that indicate social relationships,
roles, or status between speakers or in a social context. These often show respect, formality,
or familiarity.
Example: Pronouns indicating formality or informality:
In Spanish: "tú" (informal) vs. "usted" (formal).
Honorifics or titles: "Mr." or "Dr." shows respect or social status.
In Japanese: Adding "-san" or "-sama" after a name indicates respect.

2. Spatial Deixis: Words like "here," "there."

o Example: "Come here" depends on where "here" is.
 ➢ Psychological Distance: Psychological distance refers to how close or far something feels
to the speaker.
Examples:
1. Close (emotionally or metaphorically):
o "This problem really matters to me."
o Even if the "problem" is not physically close, the speaker feels
connected to it.
2. Far (emotionally or metaphorically):
o "That idea seems out of reach."
o Here, "that" conveys emotional or mental distance, not just physical.
➢ Deictic Projection: Deictic projection occurs when a speaker imagines themselves in a
different location or perspective and uses spatial deixis based on that imagined point of
view.
Examples:
Projecting to another place:
During a video call: "I’ll meet you here tomorrow."
"Here" refers to the imagined meeting location, not where the speaker is currently.
Projecting to another person’s perspective:
In storytelling: "The mountain looked huge from there."
"There" reflects the character’s viewpoint, not the speaker's.
3. Temporal Deixis: Words like "now," "then," "today," "yesterday."
o Example: If I say, "I'll call you tomorrow," "tomorrow" means the day after today.
In short, deixis is about words that point to something, and you need context to know what they mean!
2. Presupposition: Presupposition is something a speaker assumes the listener already knows or believes
to be true when they say something. It’s like a hidden or background idea in a sentence.
Simple Examples:
1. "John's brother is tall."
o Presupposition: John has a brother.
2. "Have you stopped smoking?"
o Presupposition: You used to smoke.
3. "I need to pick up my kids from school."
o Presupposition: I have kids.
In short, presuppositions are unstated facts or ideas that must be true for a sentence to make sense!
4. Entailment
Entailment refers to what logically follows from a sentence. If one sentence is true, then the sentence it
entails must also be true.
Characteristics:
• One-directional: If Sentence A entails Sentence B, the truth of Sentence B does not necessarily
entail the truth of Sentence A.
• Depends on logical meaning.
Examples:
1. Sentence: "All dogs are mammals."
o Entailment: Some dogs are mammals.
2. Sentence: "She has finished writing the report."
o Entailment: She has written the report.
3. Sentence: "The glass is completely full."
o Entailment: The glass is not empty.
3. Speech Acts: Austin founded speech act theory on the belief that speaker do not only utilize language to
say things, but to do things. When we use language to do something, we are performing a speech act.
For example: Time out! Shotgun!
Types of speech acts
Speech act theory, developed by philosophers such as John L. Austin and John Searle, categorizes
communicative actions into three primary types: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary
acts. Here's a breakdown of each type:
Aspect Definition Characteristics Example
The act of saying • Concerned with what is said
something, (the utterance itself).
encompassing the
actual utterance • Focuses on the content of the
Locutionary Acts Producing the
and its literal speech (the proposition, word
sounds and words:
meaning. choice, and syntax).
"It's cold in here."
• Deals with the phonetics,
phonology, and semantics of
the utterance.
• Does not involve the speaker's
intent or effect on the listener.
 The intention • Concerned with speaker’s
behind the intent (e.g., request,
utterance and the command, question, promise,
Illocutionary Acts function it etc.). Requesting
performs in someone to close a
communication. • Includes the force of the
window by saying:
utterance, such as asserting,
"It's cold in here."
warning, apologizing, or
congratulating.
• Tied to the social function of
the utterance.
• Context-dependent: The
success of the illocutionary
act relies on the
appropriateness of the
context.
The effects the • Concerned with what
utterance has on the happens as a result of the
listener, including utterance (its impact on the
Perlocutionary changes in listener or audience). Listener closes the
Acts thoughts, emotions, window after
or actions. • Focuses on the reaction it
hearing: "It's cold
provokes (e.g., convincing,
in here."
persuading, scaring,
inspiring).
• Dependent on the listener's
interpretation and response.
• Can be unintentional or
beyond the speaker's control.

• Locutionary act: The act of making an utterance with a certain meaning.

• Illocutionary act: The intended communicative purpose or function of the utterance.
• Perlocutionary act: The actual effect or response the utterance produces in the listener.
Major speech acts:
Speech acts are a fundamental concept in the philosophy of language and linguistics, introduced by J.L. Austin
and further developed by John Searle. They categorize different ways in which we use language to perform
actions. Here are the major types of speech acts with examples:
Type of Definition Example Key Verbs
Utterance
1.Assertive Conveys information and describes the world; "The sky is blue." assert, state, describe,
Utterance the speaker asserts a belief or fact. report
2.Performative Performs an action by the act of speaking; the "I now pronounce you name, promise, bet,
Utterance utterance enacts the event. husband and wife." pronounce
3.Verdictive Delivers a judgment or assessment; the speaker "I find the defendant judge, evaluate,
Utterance evaluates or gives a verdict. guilty." estimate, rank
4.Expressive Expresses the speaker's psychological state or "I apologize for being apologize, thank,
Utterance emotions. late." congratulate, condole
5.Directive Aims to get the listener to do something; the "Please close the request, command,
Utterance speaker directs or influences the listener's door." advise, beg
action.
6.Commissive Commits the speaker to a course of action; the "I will finish the promise, vow,
Utterance speaker makes a promise or commitment. report by tomorrow." guarantee, pledge
Key Concepts in Pragmatics
• Speech Acts: The actions performed by speakers through utterances (e.g., promising, ordering, greeting).
• Implicature: The meaning inferred from an utterance beyond its literal interpretation.
• Presupposition: The background assumptions that speakers and listeners share and rely on during
communication.
• Deixis: Words and phrases (e.g., "this," "that," "here," "there") that require contextual information to be
understood.
Politeness Strategies: The methods used by speakers to mitigate face-threatening
Importance of Pragmatics
➢ Pragmatics is essential because it helps:
➢ Understand implied meanings.
➢ Analyze how people convey emotions, intentions, and politeness.
➢ Clarify how context influences interpretation.
➢ Bridge the gap between literal language and social interaction
Doing Things with Words in Pragmatics
In pragmatics, the phrase "doing things with words" refers to how language is not just used to convey information
but also to perform actions. This concept was famously introduced by philosopher J.L. Austin in his work How
to Do Things with Words (1962), where he emphasized that utterances can serve as actions, such as making
promises, giving orders, making requests, or offering apologies. This is known as speech act theory. There are
three key components in understanding how words function to perform actions:
1. Locutionary Act: This is the act of producing sounds or writing words. It involves the basic linguistic
components of an utterance, such as syntax, phonology, and meaning at the level of the sentence structure.
2. Illocutionary Act: This refers to the intention behind the utterance, the action performed by the speaker
in saying something. For example, when someone says, “I promise to help you,” they are performing the
act of promising. The illocutionary force can be a request, assertion, question, command, promise, etc.
 3. Perlocutionary Act: This pertains to the effect that the utterance has on the listener. It is the response or
reaction elicited by the speech act, such as persuading, convincing, or causing a change in attitude or
behavior in the hearer.
Austin's theory was further developed by John Searle, who identified specific types of illocutionary acts,
including:
• Assertives: Statements that convey information or facts (e.g., “It’s raining outside”).
• Directives: Requests, suggestions, or commands (e.g., “Please close the door”).
• Commissives: Promises or commitments (e.g., “I’ll meet you at 5 PM”).
• Expressives: Utterances that express the speaker's emotions or feelings (e.g., “I’m sorry for your loss”).
• Declarations: Speech acts that bring about a change in the world simply by being said (e.g., “I now
pronounce you husband and wife”).
In pragmatics, speech acts are understood in the context of social norms and conventions governing how language
is used in communication. This includes how speakers anticipate the effects of their words on listeners
(perlocutionary effect) and how their utterances are shaped by the social context, cultural expectations, and shared
knowledge.
For example, a simple request such as "Can you pass the salt?" functions differently depending on the context. It
might be seen as a direct question about capability or, in the context of a dinner table, a polite way to ask for
something, implying that the speaker expects the listener to comply.

References And Inference:

Reference
• What is it?
Reference is when a speaker or writer uses language (words, phrases) to help the listener or reader
identify something or someone.
Example: “Can you pass the salt?” (Here, "the salt" is the reference to the specific item the speaker
wants.)
• How it works?
o Speaker’s role: Use a linguistic form (word or phrase) to point to a thing or person.
o Listener’s role: Understand or identify what the speaker is talking about, based on the context.
Inference
• What is it?
Inference is the process of figuring out what the speaker means based on what is said and the context.
Example: “Mister Aftershave is late today.” (The listener infers who "Mister Aftershave" refers to,
perhaps a person known for using aftershave.)
• Why is it important?
Successful communication depends on the listener’s ability to infer the correct meaning of the speaker’s
reference.
Referring Expressions
These are the specific linguistic forms used to refer to people, things, or ideas.
Examples of referring expressions:
1. Proper nouns: Shakespeare, Canada
2. Definite noun phrases: the writer, the singer
3. Indefinite noun phrases: a woman, a beautiful view
4. Pronouns: he, her, it, them
Key point: Expressions themselves don’t have reference automatically. The speaker gives them meaning in a
specific context.
Example:
• “There is a man waiting for you.” (Indefinite noun phrase)
• “He wants to marry a woman with lots of money.” (Pronoun refers to “the man.”)
Collaboration in Reference
Reference is a two-way process:
1. The speaker: Intends to identify something using a referring expression.
2. The listener: Recognizes the intention and identifies the entity correctly.
Attributive vs. Referential Use
• Attributive Use: The speaker describes something, and the listener understands it by matching the
description.
Example: “We’d love to find a nine-foot-tall basketball player.” (No specific player in mind—anyone who
fits the description will do.)
• Referential Use: The speaker has a specific person or thing in mind.
Example: “Mister Aftershave is late today.” (The speaker refers to a particular person known as "Mister
Aftershave.")
Names and Referents
Sometimes, names or referring expressions can take on new meanings depending on the context.
Examples:
1. “Can I borrow your Shakespeare?” (Refers to a book by Shakespeare, not the person.)
2. “Where’s the cheese sandwich sitting?” (Refers to a person who ordered a cheese sandwich.)

Conventions and Shared Knowledge

Reference works best in communities with shared language and cultural knowledge. Certain expressions become
commonly used for specific entities.
Examples:
 • “Brazil wins the World Cup.” (Refers to the Brazilian national football team.)
• “Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf.” (Refers to books by Shakespeare.)
Proposition:
proposition refers to the informational content or meaning of a statement that can be true or false. It is the abstract
representation of what is being asserted, independent of how it is expressed linguistically.
Propositions are central to understanding:
➢ Speaker meaning: What the speaker intends to convey beyond the literal sentence.
➢ Inference: How listeners derive meaning based on context and shared knowledge.
➢ Truth conditions: How we evaluate the reality of a proposition in a given context.
▪ Sentence: "I’ll meet you at 5 PM."
▪ Proposition: The speaker will meet the listener at 5 PM.
▪ Pragmatic Context: If said sarcastically or in a context where 5 PM is unrealistic, the
proposition might be interpreted differently.
Examples of Propositions
1. Sentence: "The cat is on the mat."
o Proposition: There is a cat, and it is located on a mat.
o Truth Value: The statement can be evaluated as true or false based on the reality of the situation.
2. Sentence: "It might rain tomorrow."
o Proposition: There is a possibility of rain occurring tomorrow.
o Truth Value: While it is not asserting certainty, the proposition expresses a state of the world that
can be true or false depending on future weather.
3. Sentence: "Ali owns a car."
o Proposition: Ali has ownership of a car.
o Truth Value: The proposition is true if Ali owns a car and false if he does not.
Conversational implicature: Conversational implicature happens when a speaker says something, and the
listener understands more than what is explicitly stated, based on the context and shared knowledge.
Simple Explanation:
It’s when you imply something without directly saying it, relying on the other person to "read between the lines."
Example:
Scenario: A and B are planning to go out.
• A: "It's raining heavily outside."
• B: "Okay, I guess we’re not going then."
Here, A didn’t directly say, "We shouldn’t go out because of the rain," but B inferred this meaning based on the
context. That inferred meaning is the conversational implicature.
Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature: Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature is an influential
framework in linguistics that helps us understand how speakers convey meaning beyond what is explicitly said.
According to Grice, people rely on conversational maxims to communicate effectively. These maxims are based
on expectations of cooperation and are part of what's known as Grice's Cooperative Principle.
Grice's Theory suggests that in conversation, people follow the Cooperative Principle to communicate clearly
and effectively. This is done through four maxims:
1. Maxim of Quality – Tell the truth; only say what you believe to be true or have evidence for.
o Example: "Zach has a doctorate in archaeology." (This implies it's true and supported by
evidence.)
2. Maxim of Quantity – Be as informative as needed, but no more.
o Example: "He stayed in a forest cabin." (This suggests the cabin isn’t his own, so it's just enough
info.)
3. Maxim of Relation – Be relevant.
o Example: "Those cookies look good!" (Implying you'd like one or more.)
4. Maxim of Manner – Be clear, brief, and orderly.
o Example: "The play ended and the audience trailed out to the bar." (Clear sequence of events.)
Politeness Theory: Politeness Theory was developed by sociolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson
in 1987 to explain how people manage social relationships and avoid threats to face (social identity) in
communication. The theory is based on the concept of face and how we use politeness strategies to protect it
during interactions.
Key Concepts:
1. Face: This refers to a person's self-image or the social identity they present in interactions. There are two
types of face:
o Positive Face: The desire to be liked, appreciated, and accepted by others.
o Negative Face: The desire for independence, freedom of action, and not being imposed upon.
2. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs): These are actions or statements that can threaten someone's face, such as
requests, orders, or criticism.
Politeness Strategies:
To avoid threatening someone's face, people use various strategies, depending on the social context, power
dynamics, and level of closeness between speakers. These strategies aim to minimize the threat to someone's face
while still achieving the communicative goal.
Politeness Maxims (According to Brown and Levinson):
1. Maxim of Tact: Minimize the imposition on others (maintain negative face).
o Example: Instead of directly asking, "Give me your book," you might say, "Could you please pass
me your book?"
2. Maxim of Generosity: Minimize the benefit to oneself (show concern for the other person's positive
face).
 o Example: Offering help without expecting anything in return.
3. Maxim of Approbation: Minimize the expression of disapproval and maximize praise (enhance the
listener's positive face).
o Example: "You did a great job on that project!"
4. Maxim of Modesty: Minimize self-praise and avoid boasting (protect one's own positive face).
o Example: "I did okay, but it could have been better."
5. Maxim of Agreement: Maximize agreement and minimize disagreement (protect positive face).
o Example: "I agree with you on that point" instead of arguing.
6. Maxim of Sympathy: Maximize the expression of sympathy and understanding (enhance the other
person’s positive face).
o Example: "I understand how difficult that must be for you."
Politeness Theory in Action:
People often use indirect language, hedging, or formal language to reduce the risk of threatening someone's face.
For example:
• Direct Request (Threatening Negative Face): "Give me the report now."
• Polite Request (Mitigating the Threat): "Could you please give me the report when you have a chance?"
By using politeness strategies, speakers balance the need to get their message across with the desire to maintain
positive social relationships.
Types of Politeness Strategies:
1. Bald on Record: Direct, clear communication without any effort to mitigate or soften the message.
o Example: "Close the door."
2. Positive Politeness: Strategies that emphasize friendliness, approval, or common ground to support the
listener’s positive face.
o Example: "I really like your shoes! Could you lend me your notes?"
3. Negative Politeness: Strategies that aim to protect the listener’s negative face by being more indirect,
apologetic, or cautious.
o Example: "I’m sorry to bother you, but could I borrow your pen?"
4. Off Record: Indirect communication that allows the speaker to avoid responsibility for the message.
o Example: "It’s really cold in here, isn’t it?" (Implying a request to close the window without
directly asking.)
Conclusion:
Politeness Theory and the accompanying maxims offer insight into how we navigate social interactions to avoid
conflict and maintain harmony in communication. The use of politeness strategies varies based on context,
relationship, and cultural norms.
Simplified Explanation of Co-text and Context
Understanding Referring Expressions
Identifying what a word or phrase refers to often requires more than just knowing its meaning. Co-text and
context play key roles in understanding.
1. Co-text
o The words and sentences surrounding a phrase help clarify its meaning.
o Example: In a sentence about food, "the cheese sandwich" likely refers to a dish.
2. Context
o The physical or situational environment helps interpret meaning.
o Example: In a restaurant, "the cheese sandwich" might mean the person who ordered it.
Examples of Ambiguity
• "The cheese sandwich left without paying."
o Here, "the cheese sandwich" refers to a customer who ordered it, not the food itself.
• "The heart-attack mustn’t be moved."
o Refers to a patient, not the medical condition.
• "A couple of rooms have complained about the heat."
o Refers to the people staying in those rooms.
Key Point:
Correctly interpreting phrases depends on understanding the local social and cultural norms, which vary
between groups and languages.
Anaphoric Reference: Referring back to something previously mentioned (e.g., "John bought a car. He likes it")
Origins of pragmatics
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics concerned with the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Its origins
can be traced back to several key developments in philosophy, linguistics, and semiotics. Here's an overview of
the origins and evolution of pragmatics:
Early Philosophical Roots
1. Classical Philosophy: Ancient philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics discussed the role of context in
interpreting language, particularly focusing on rhetoric and the art of persuasion.
2. Modern Philosophy:
o Charles Sanders Peirce: An American philosopher and logician, Peirce introduced the theory of signs
(semiotics) and emphasized the importance of context in the interpretation of signs.
o Ferdinand de Saussure: Although primarily known for his work in structural linguistics, Saussure's
ideas about the arbitrary nature of the sign and the importance of the speech community laid the
groundwork for later pragmatic theories.
 Developments in Linguistics
1. Prague School: The Prague Linguistic Circle, founded in the 1920s, emphasized the functional aspects of
language and the importance of context in communication. Roman Jakobson, a key member, introduced
concepts like the "speech act."
2. Speech Act Theory:
o J.L. Austin: In the mid-20th century, Austin's lectures on "How to Do Things with Words" laid the
foundation for speech act theory. He argued that utterances can perform actions (e.g., making
promises, giving orders).
o John Searle: A student of Austin, Searle further developed speech act theory, distinguishing between
different types of speech acts (e.g., assertives, directives, commissives).
Contributions from Semiotics and Sociolinguistics
1. Charles Morris: An American semiotician, Morris distinguished between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics,
emphasizing the study of signs and symbols in context.
2. Dell Hymes: Hymes introduced the concept of communicative competence, highlighting the role of social and
cultural contexts in understanding language use.
Modern Pragmatics
1. Paul Grice: Grice's work on implicature and the cooperative principle (e.g., the maxims of conversation)
significantly influenced the study of how meaning is conveyed implicitly in communication.
2. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson: Their relevance theory emphasized the role of cognitive processes in
interpreting language, suggesting that communication relies on the balance between effort and effect.
3. Stephen Levinson: Levinson's work on presupposition, deixis, and conversational implicature further
expanded the field of pragmatics.

Historical overview of pragmatics

Early Foundations
• Ancient Philosophy: The roots of pragmatics can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly
the works of Aristotle, who discussed the role of context in rhetoric and communication.
• Speech Act Theory (1950s-1960s): John L. Austin's lectures, later published as "How to Do Things with
Words" (1962), and John Searle's expansion of Austin's work in "Speech Acts" (1969), laid the groundwork
for modern pragmatics. They introduced the concept that utterances can perform actions beyond merely
conveying information.
Formal Development
• Grice's Maxims (1970s): H.P. Grice's work on implicature and the cooperative principle, outlined in his
paper "Logic and Conversation" (1975), was crucial. Grice proposed that speakers and listeners follow
certain conversational maxims (quality, quantity, relevance, and manner) to communicate effectively.
 • Relevance Theory (1980s): Developed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, this theory argues that
communication relies on the relevance of information. They suggested that speakers and listeners use
cognitive resources to maximize relevance.
Expansion and Diversification
• Politeness Theory (1970s-1980s): Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's work on politeness strategies,
published in "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" (1987), examined how individuals manage
face-threatening acts through politeness.
• Pragmatic Markers and Discourse Analysis (1990s-present): Researchers studied pragmatic markers
(e.g., "well," "so," "you know") and their role in discourse coherence and structure.
• Intercultural Pragmatics (2000s-present): Scholars have explored how pragmatics operates across
different cultural contexts, emphasizing the role of cultural norms and conventions in communication.
Modern Trends
• Computational Pragmatics: With advancements in artificial intelligence and natural language
processing, computational pragmatics aims to model and understand pragmatic phenomena using
computational methods.
• Experimental Pragmatics: This approach uses experimental methods from psychology and cognitive
science to study how people understand and produce language in context

Pragmatics and Discourse

Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics concerned with how context influences the interpretation of meaning in
communication. Unlike semantics, which focuses on the meaning of words and sentences in isolation, pragmatics
examines how meaning is shaped by the speaker’s intent, the listener's interpretation, and the situational context.
Key concepts in pragmatics include:
1. Deixis: Words or phrases that depend on context for interpretation, such as pronouns ("I," "you"), time
expressions ("now," "here"), and place indicators ("there").
o Example: "Can you pass me that?"—the meaning of "that" depends on the context of what is being
referred to.
2. Implicature: The implied meaning that is inferred from an utterance, beyond what is explicitly stated.
Grice's Conversational Implicature involves inferences made based on maxims like relevance, manner,
and quantity.
o Example: "It’s cold in here, isn’t it?"—the implicature is that the speaker wants the listener to close
the window, without explicitly stating it.
3. Presupposition: Information that is assumed to be true or accepted before an utterance can be interpreted.
o Example: "John stopped smoking" presupposes that John used to smoke.
4. Politeness Theory: Based on Brown and Levinson’s theory, it focuses on how speakers manage face—
social identity—through strategies like politeness, hedging, and indirectness to avoid threatening the
listener’s "face."
 o Example: Instead of saying "Give me the book," one might say, "Could you please pass me the
book?" to maintain politeness.
Discourse in Pragmatics
Discourse in pragmatics refers to the structure and flow of communication beyond the level of the sentence. It
involves the organization of language in conversation and how meaning is constructed in extended texts or
dialogues.
Key features include:
1. Coherence: How sentences and utterances are connected to form a logical and meaningful conversation
or text. This can be achieved through reference, substitution, conjunctions, and lexical cohesion.
o Example: In a conversation about the weather:
A: "It’s raining."
B: "Yes, and it’s getting colder."
Here, "it" refers back to the weather.
2. Turn-taking: The way speakers alternate speaking turns in a conversation, governed by implicit social
rules.
o Example: In a typical conversation, one person speaks, and the other waits for their turn, ensuring
smooth interaction.
3. Speech Acts: These are communicative acts that perform a function, such as requesting, promising,
apologizing, etc. The same sentence can serve different purposes depending on context.
o Example: "Could you open the window?" could be a request or a suggestion, depending on the
tone and context.
4. Contextualization Cues: Non-verbal signals, tone, or expressions that help interpret the meaning of
discourse.
o Example: A raised eyebrow while saying "Really?" indicates skepticism or doubt.
Pragmatics and discourse analysis together explore how language operates in real-world situations, considering
social dynamics, cultural norms, and cognitive processes that influence communication.
Pragmatics and Power
Pragmatics is the study of how context influences the meaning of communication. It examines how speakers use
language in social interactions, considering factors like social roles, relationships, and power dynamics. Power in
pragmatics refers to the way individuals exercise influence over others through language.
Key Aspects of Power in Pragmatics:
1. Power and Speech Acts: Power can shape how speech acts (e.g., requests, commands, promises) are
performed. Higher status individuals may use indirect speech acts to maintain politeness, while those with
less power might use direct speech acts to assert themselves.
o Example: A manager might say, "Could you please finish this by tomorrow?" (a polite request)
whereas an employee might say, "I need this by tomorrow" (a more direct statement).
 2. Politeness Theory: According to Brown and Levinson, individuals use strategies like positive politeness
(showing respect) and negative politeness (avoiding imposition) based on their relationship with the other
person, which is influenced by power.
o Example: A boss might say, “I’d appreciate it if you could help with this,” using politeness to soften
the power imbalance. An employee, on the other hand, might say, "Can you help me with this?" to
express a lower power position.
3. Dominance and Control: Powerful individuals may control conversation flow, interrupt others, or dictate
topics, while those with less power may comply or defer. Power affects who gets to speak, how long they
speak, and when they speak.
o Example: In a meeting, a CEO might dominate the conversation, while lower-ranking employees
may be more hesitant to interrupt or add their opinions.
4. Language as a Tool for Maintaining Power: Language can be used to assert dominance, create
hierarchies, or maintain authority. This is evident in institutional settings like the military, politics, or
corporate environments, where formal and impersonal language is often used to maintain distance and
power.
o Example: A government official may use formal, bureaucratic language like "I hereby order" to
assert authority, contrasting with a more informal "Could you please" used by someone with less
power.
In summary, power in pragmatics involves the way individuals adjust their language use based on their social
status, relationship, and the context of interaction. Powerful individuals tend to have more control over the
communication process, while those with less power may adapt their language to be more polite or deferential.
Pragmatic Markers
Pragmatic markers (PMs) are linguistic elements used to express the speaker’s attitude, manage discourse, or
clarify the speaker’s intentions. These markers do not alter the propositional content of the sentence but contribute
to the interpretation by signaling the speaker’s attitude, stance, or the relationship between the speaker and listener.
Perceptions of Pragmatic Markers:
1. Discourse Function: PMs help organize speech, manage turn-taking, indicate hesitation, or introduce new
topics. For example, "Well," "So," and "You know" guide the flow of conversation.
2. Attitudinal Markers: They signal the speaker's emotional or evaluative stance. For instance, "I mean,"
"Actually," or "Frankly" can express clarification or correction.
3. Social Interaction: PMs often contribute to politeness, soften statements, or mitigate face-threatening
acts. "Sorry," "Please," and "Excuse me" can serve to ease interaction and maintain social harmony.
4. Cognitive Function: Some PMs help the listener follow the speaker's reasoning or state uncertainty.
Examples include "I think," "Perhaps," and "Well," signaling hedging or self-correction.
Examples:
• "Well, I didn’t expect that!" (signals surprise or hesitation)
• "You know, it's just the way things go." (softens the statement, making it more conversational)
• "Actually, I believe we should consider another approach." (signals a correction or slight shift in opinion)
 • "I mean, it’s not really a big deal." (indicates clarification or emphasis)
In sum, pragmatic markers are crucial for managing conversation, expressing emotions, maintaining politeness,
and facilitating listener understanding.
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics refers to the study of how people from different cultural backgrounds use language
and interpret meaning in communication. It examines the role of culture in shaping the ways individuals produce
and understand speech acts, such as requests, apologies, greetings, and compliments. This field highlights the
variations in language use, politeness strategies, and conversational norms across cultures, which can lead to
misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Key Concepts:
1. Cultural Norms and Expectations: Different cultures have distinct expectations for politeness, formality,
and directness in communication.
2. Speech Acts: Cultural differences influence how speech acts are performed. For example, in some
cultures, direct requests (e.g., “Give me the pen”) might be acceptable, while in others, a more indirect
approach is preferred (e.g., “Could you possibly hand me the pen?”).
3. Politeness Strategies: What is considered polite varies. For instance, in Japan, indirectness and humility
are highly valued, while in the U.S., directness can be seen as a sign of confidence.
4. Context and Situational Factors: Cross-cultural pragmatics also examines how context (e.g.,
relationship, status, setting) impacts language use.
Examples:
• Greetings: In many Western cultures, a handshake or a simple “Hello” is common. In contrast, in some
Asian cultures, a bow or a more formal greeting is preferred.
• Requests: In English-speaking cultures, a direct request such as “Give me the book” may be acceptable
in casual contexts, while in Arabic-speaking cultures, a more polite form such as “Could you please pass
me the book?” is preferred to avoid appearing rude.
• Compliments: In American culture, it’s common to accept compliments openly, whereas in some East
Asian cultures, recipients may downplay or deflect compliments to show humility.
By examining these differences, cross-cultural pragmatics helps us understand how communication is shaped by
cultural norms, reducing the potential for miscommunication in cross-cultural interactions.

Exploring Pragmatics of Conversation

Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that studies how context influences meaning in communication. It goes
beyond the literal meanings of words (semantics) and looks at how speakers use language in real-life situations
to convey meaning, depending on factors like social roles, relationships, cultural norms, and situational context.
Key Aspects of Pragmatics in Conversation:
1. Speech Acts:
o These are actions performed via speaking, such as requests, apologies, promises, or commands.
 o Example: "Can you pass the salt?" (Request)
2. Deixis:
o Refers to words or phrases that require contextual information to be understood, such as "here,"
"there," "this," "that," "I," and "you."
o Example: "I’ll meet you there" – the meaning of "there" depends on where the speaker is.
3. Implicature:
o Refers to what is suggested or implied in a conversation, even though not explicitly stated.
o Conversational Implicature: Based on Grice’s maxims (quantity, quality, relation, manner),
where speakers imply meaning indirectly.
o Example: "It’s getting late" (may imply "Let’s leave now").
4. Presupposition:
o Assumptions or background knowledge that are taken for granted in a conversation.
o Example: "John stopped smoking" presupposes that John used to smoke.
5. Politeness Theory:
o Developed by Brown and Levinson, it explains how speakers use language to maintain social
harmony and avoid threatening the face of others (face-threatening acts).
o Example: "Could you please pass the salt?" (Polite request)
Example of Pragmatics in Conversation:
A: "Can you pass the salt?" B: "The salt is right there."
• In this example, "The salt is right there" could be interpreted as a polite refusal or a simple indication,
depending on the context (e.g., if B is far from the salt, it may suggest the speaker is unwilling to pass it).
The implicature relies on how the conversation unfolds.