English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin

Volume 6 Number 2 2023

THE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Manna Dey Abstract: Pragmatics is a linguistic field that explores the complex
Universityf Portsmouth, relationship between language, context, and meaning. It involves analyzing
United Kingdom how speakers and writers use language to convey not only literal information,
[email protected] but also social, cultural, and emotional cues that shape communication.
Pragmatics examines how language users interpret and infer meaning based
on contextual factors such as tone, gesture, and social norms, and how they
use language to achieve various goals and outcomes. By uncovering the hidden
meanings and intentions behind language use, pragmatics provides valuable
insights into human communication and helps us to better understand how
language shapes our social interactions and relationships Furthermore,
pragmatics plays a crucial role in language learning and teaching, as it helps
learners develop their communicative competence and understand the nuances
of language use in different contexts. It also has practical applications in fields
such as advertising, politics, and law, where the use of language can have
significant impacts on audience perceptions and behaviors. Overall,
pragmatics is a dynamic and multifaceted field that continues to evolve and
shape our understanding of language and communication in diverse.

Keywords: Speech Act, Maxims, Politeness, Deixis, Positive face , Negative

face.

INTRODUCTION
Pragmatics is an essential aspect of language that goes beyond the mere exchange of
information between speakers and listeners. According to Huang and Yan (2016), pragmatics
involves the interpretation of meaning in context, taking into account factors such as the
speaker's intention, the listener's expectations, and the social and cultural norms of the
communication situation. In this sense, pragmatics can be seen as a dynamic and interactive
process that is influenced by a wide range of linguistic and extralinguistic factors.
One of the key areas of interest in pragmatics is speech acts, which are the basic units of
communication that involve both the expression of meaning and the performance of a social
function (Searle, 1969). For example, when a speaker says "Can you pass me the salt?", they
are not only expressing a request for salt but also performing the speech act of making a
request. Speech acts can vary in their degree of directness, politeness, and illocutionary force,
and their interpretation can depend on the context and the cultural background of the speakers
(Austin, 1962).

125 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

Another important aspect of pragmatics is the study of implicature, which refers to the
inferred meaning that is not explicitly stated by the speaker (Grice, 1975). For instance, when
a speaker says "I don't have any plans tonight", the listener may infer that the speaker is
available and willing to do something together. Implicatures can be generated by various
means, such as presuppositions, conversational implicatures, and conventional implicatures,
and their interpretation often requires the listener to go beyond the literal meaning of the
utterance (Levinson, 1983).
Moreover, pragmatics also encompasses the study of discourse, which refers to the extended
sequences of language that go beyond the sentence level and involve the interaction between
multiple speakers and listeners (Schiffrin, 1994). Discourse can be analyzed in terms of its
coherence, cohesion, and genre, and it can reveal important aspects of social identity, power
relations, and ideology (Fairclough, 1995).
Pragmatics is a rich and diverse field of study that investigates the complex and dynamic
nature of language use in context. By examining how speakers and listeners negotiate
meaning, perform speech acts, generate implicatures, and engage in discourse, pragmatics
provides valuable insights into the social, cognitive, and cultural dimensions of
communication. (Dey,2021). Yes, there is a close relationship between pragmatics and the
psychological language learning process. Pragmatics deals with the way in which context
influences the interpretation of language, and this is particularly relevant in language
learning, where learners must acquire not only the vocabulary and grammar of a language
but also the cultural and contextual knowledge necessary to use it effectively.
Psychological research has shown that language learning is a complex process that involves
cognitive, affective, and social factors. Pragmatics plays a critical role in the social aspect of
language learning, as it involves understanding the communicative intent of others and using
language appropriately in different social situations.
Moreover, studies have shown that the development of pragmatic competence is closely
linked to the development of overall communicative competence in second language
acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998). Thus, it is essential for language learners to
have a good understanding of pragmatics to be able to use language effectively in real-world
situations.
In summary, pragmatics is a crucial component of the psychological language learning
process, as it provides learners with the ability to understand and use language effectively in
different social and cultural contexts.

AUTHOR’S DEFINITION

126 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

Pragmatics is not just concerned with the meaning-making of a given sentence; it is also
concerned with the speaker's concealed meaning. One could argue that pragmatics is the
study of what is unsaid. It is dependent on the speaker's concept of what s/he want to
communicate to the listener in various settings. It is through pragmatics that a listener or
reader can examine the intended meanings, allowing them to research their purposes, within
their assumptions, and to explore them in the shape of behavior in state to various acts they
wish to execute when speaking with a front audience.
According to Crystal (1987:62-5), pragmatics is concerned with the elements that influence
the language we use and its consequences on others. Thus, the pragmatic variables that
influence our choice of grammatical structure are the sound pattern and the meaning that we
are making by presenting the vocabulary in the intended manner as a means of
communication (Crystal, 1987:62-5). Thus, pragmatics tends to be associated with the
meaning of words used by people in their social contexts and their choice of words in a
context.
According to Robin, the area of pragmatics is defined as the study of phenomena revolving
around the various aspects affecting speech situations (1964:23).Leech (1983:13-4), stated
that pragmatics is the study of meaning and the way that speech is related to any provided
situations, as well as an aspect of how a speech is made in a situation, and it also paves the
way for determining a core principle regarding whether it deals with semantic or pragmatic
phenomena. The main significant components of pragmatics imply that it is the study of
meaning in relation to speech situations.

PRAGMATICS APPLICATION LINGUISTICS

In addition to the concept of utterance, pragmatics also considers the role of speech acts in
communication. Speech acts refer to the intentional use of language to perform an action,
such as making a request or giving an apology (Searle, 1969). These acts rely heavily on
context and social norms in order to be understood. For example, saying "Can you pass the
salt?" in a restaurant is a common request, whereas saying the same thing at a funeral may
be seen as inappropriate.
Furthermore, the study of pragmatics also involves examining the ways in which speakers
use implicature to convey meaning. Implicature refers to the meaning that is implied by a
speaker, rather than directly stated (Grice, 1975). For instance, when someone says "It's
getting late" during a conversation, they may be implying that they want to end the
conversation and leave.
Pragmatics also involves examining the ways in which language is used to accomplish social
goals, such as asserting dominance or building rapport (Brown & Levinson, 1987). These

127 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

social goals are achieved through the use of politeness strategies, such as the use of indirect
language to make requests.
Pragmatics is concerned with the ways in which meaning is constructed and conveyed
through language, and how this meaning is influenced by context, social norms, and speaker
intentions. By examining these factors, we can gain a deeper understanding of how
communication works in various settings
In addition to the concepts discussed above, pragmatics also explores the role of context in
determining meaning. Context refers to the situation in which a conversation is taking place,
including factors such as the physical setting, the relationship between the speakers, and the
shared background knowledge of the participants (Levinson, 1983). For example, if someone
says "I'm freezing" in a cold room, the meaning of the statement is influenced by the context
of the conversation.
Pragmatics also considers the ways in which language varies across cultures and social
groups. Sociolinguistics, a subfield of pragmatics, examines how language is used to signal
identity and social status, and how linguistic patterns differ across different communities
(Labov, 1972). For example, the use of slang or dialect can signal membership in a particular
social group.
Another important concept in pragmatics is the idea of presupposition, which refers to the
assumptions that a speaker makes about their audience's knowledge or beliefs. These
assumptions are often implicit in the language used, and can be used to convey information
indirectly (Stalnaker, 1974). For example, if someone says "I'm going to the gym after work",
they may be presupposing that the listener knows where the gym is located and what it is.
Pragmatics is a complex and multifaceted field that explores the ways in which language is
used in social interaction. By examining the role of context, social norms, and speaker
intentions, as well as the ways in which language varies across cultures and social groups,
we can gain a deeper understanding of how communication works and how meaning is
constructed through language

SPEECH ACT
Speech acts have been studied extensively by linguists and philosophers to understand the
nature of communication and how it is used to achieve social ends. According to Searle
(1969), speech acts can be classified into five categories: assertives, directives, commissives,
expressives, and declaratives. Each category represents a different type of illocutionary force
or intention that is conveyed through speech. For example, an assertive speech act aims to
convey a belief or proposition, while a directive speech act aims to get the listener to do
something.

128 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

The study of speech acts has been further developed by scholars such as Vanderveken (2014),
who emphasizes the importance of pragmatic factors such as context and the speaker's
intentions in determining the meaning of speech acts. He argues that speech acts cannot be
fully understood without taking into account the social and cultural context in which they are
used.
Speech act theory has also been used to analyze the role of language in power relations. For
example, Fairclough (1989) argues that speech acts can be used to exercise power and control
over others, particularly in the context of institutional and political discourse. Similarly,
Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) examine the use of speech acts in the construction of gender
identities and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes.
The analysis of speech acts has also been extended to nonverbal communication. For
example, Kendon (2004) argues that gestures and other nonverbal cues can function as
speech acts, conveying meaning and intention in the same way that words do. Similarly,
Krippendorff (1986) suggests that visual and graphic design can be seen as a form of speech
act, as it involves the intentional use of symbols and images to convey meaning.
In the study of speech acts has provided important insights into the nature of communication
and how it is used to achieve social ends. Scholars from various disciplines have used speech
act theory to examine a wide range of phenomena, from verbal communication to nonverbal
cues and visual design. By understanding the different types of speech acts and their
functions, we can better analyze and interpret the messages conveyed in everyday
communication

DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEECH ACTS

Another way to understand speech acts is by categorizing them into three levels: the
propositional, illocutionary, and perlocutionary levels (Searle, 1969). The propositional level
refers to the literal meaning of the utterance, or what is being asserted. The illocutionary
level, on the other hand, refers to the speaker's intention in making the utterance, or what
they are trying to accomplish. Finally, the perlocutionary level refers to the effect that the
utterance has on the listener, or how it influences their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior (Austin,
1962).
For instance, consider the sentence "Could you pass me the salt?" At the propositional level,
the sentence is a request for salt. At the illocutionary level, the speaker is asking the listener
to perform an action, namely, to pass the salt. At the perlocutionary level, the effect on the
listener could be to comply with the request, to refuse it, or to ignore it altogether.
Understanding speech acts is not only relevant for linguistic theory but also for
communication studies, psychology, and philosophy (Mackenzie & Stoljar, 2000). By

129 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

analyzing the different levels of speech acts, researchers can better understand how language
is used to convey meaning, negotiate social interactions, and shape our experiences of the
world.
Speech acts are complex and multifaceted phenomena that involve different levels of
analysis, from the literal meaning of the words to the speaker's intentions and the listener's
response. By examining these levels, researchers can gain insights into the role of language
in social interaction and meaning-making

IMPLICATIONS OF CONVERSATION IN THE FIELD OF PRAGMATICS

Another influential author in the field of pragmatics is Austin (1962), who developed the
concept of "speech acts." According to Austin, language is not merely a tool for conveying
information, but also a means of performing actions. In other words, when we use language,
we are not only describing the world around us, but also engaging in various kinds of social
activities such as making requests, giving commands, or expressing opinions.
Searle (1969) further developed Austin's ideas and proposed the concept of "illocutionary
acts," which refer to the intended function of a speech act, as well as "perlocutionary acts,"
which refer to the actual effect of a speech act on the listener. Searle also identified five basic
illocutionary acts: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.
Levinson (1983) also contributed to the study of pragmatics by proposing the concept of
"presupposition," which refers to the implicit assumptions or beliefs that speakers and
listeners share during a conversation. According to Levinson, presuppositions are an
important aspect of communication because they allow speakers to convey meaning
indirectly and avoid being too explicit or confrontational.
Finally, Brown and Levinson (1978) developed the concept of "face," which refers to the
social identity or image that a person wants to maintain during a conversation. Brown and
Levinson identified two types of face: positive face, which refers to the desire for approval
or admiration from others, and negative face, which refers to the desire for autonomy or
freedom from imposition. They also proposed various strategies that speakers can use to
mitigate face-threatening acts, such as apologies, hedges, and indirectness.

130 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

THE FOLLOWING ARE FOUR CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

a) Quality: Quality is defined as "what speakers say must be presumed to be true."
b) Quantity: Quantity refers to the extent to which speakers must be informative, but not
excessively so.
c) Relevance: The speaker must be pertinent to the exchange's aim.
d) Attitude: The speaker's tone must be clear and without ambiguity.
Additionally, Grice has emphasized the speaker's cooperation principle. These tacit
agreements during conversations are these maxims. These agreements are made because of
these maxims, which make it easy to interpret what the speaker is trying to convey in various
contexts.
Grice's maxims are those that can be consciously effected while speaking in a sarcastic or
sardonic tone. It is, indeed, a method of deception. Grice has made reference to relevance
theory throughout his creation of conversational implicatures. Deirdre Wilson and Dan
Sperber, two linguists, have been more concerned with the concept of relevance to the
structure of a dialogue, which maintains the contribution of relevant processes toward
matching a context to the addressee's assumptions.
Apart from Grice's maxims, there are other theories that contribute to the study of pragmatics.
One such theory is the theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1978), which emphasizes
the importance of maintaining face during communication. According to this theory, people
use various politeness strategies to save face and avoid threatening their conversational
partner's positive or negative face needs.
Another influential theory is the theory of implicature by Levinson (2000), which builds on
Grice's conversational implicature. According to Levinson, implicature is a type of inference
that goes beyond what is explicitly said in a conversation, and relies on the cooperative
principle and other contextual cues to interpret the speaker's intended meaning.
Clark and Brennan's (1991) common ground theory is also relevant to the study of
pragmatics, as it emphasizes the importance of shared knowledge and assumptions between
conversational partners. According to this theory, people use various linguistic and non-
linguistic cues to establish and maintain a common ground, which facilitates successful
communication.
Finally, Gumperz's (1982) theory of contextualization cues emphasizes the role of situational
and cultural factors in shaping the meaning of language use. According to this theory, people
use various contextualization cues such as tone of voice, gesture, and social roles to interpret
the intended meaning of a conversation.

131 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

POLITENESS
Politeness is an essential aspect of pragmatics, and several scholars have studied the
phenomenon from various perspectives. Brown and Levinson (1978) proposed the theory of
politeness, which suggests that speakers use different strategies to save face and maintain
their own and their interlocutors' positive or negative face needs. These strategies include the
use of indirectness, hedges, and mitigators, among others. Similarly, Lakoff's (1975) theory
of language and gender highlights the importance of politeness in gendered communication,
suggesting that women are socialized to use language that is more polite and deferential than
men. In contrast, Holmes (1995) argues that politeness is a universal feature of
communication, but that the specific strategies used may vary across cultures. Other scholars,
such as Leech (1983) and Watts (2003), have studied politeness in terms of its social and
cultural functions, arguing that it serves to establish and maintain social hierarchies and
power relations. Overall, the study of politeness in pragmatics highlights the complex and
multifaceted nature of human communication, and underscores the importance of
understanding the social and cultural contexts in which language use occurs
Politeness is a broad term that refers to a speaker's attitude toward the addressee's differing
wishes in various situations. In year, English linguists Levinson and Penelope Brown will
examine the linguistic expressions of politeness (1979). They offered several significant
tactics for bridging the disparities in maximiz- ing in interactions, such as the use of formal
language in terms of address or indirect speech acts. The purpose of these strategies is to
provide a means of accomplishing specific objectives. As a result, there is a predetermined
order in which to address an addressee. One of the primary names used to describe these
methods is "face," which refers to the face that reflects the speaker's self-image in public and
can be classified into two broad categories.
Positive facial expression.
Negative facial expression

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACE

Positive and negative face are key concepts in politeness theory and are used to describe
individuals' desires to be respected and valued by others. Brown and Levinson (1987) define
positive face as the desire for inclusion, solidarity, and approval from others, while negative
face refers to the desire for independence, autonomy, and freedom from imposition. In
conversation, speakers use various strategies to satisfy their own and their interlocutors' face
needs, such as indirectness, euphemism, and politeness markers (Pomerantz, 1978; Goffman,
1967). Face-threatening acts, on the other hand, can damage individuals' face, leading to

132 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

feelings of embarrassment, offense, or anger (Ting-Toomey, 1994). Therefore, understanding

positive and negative face needs is crucial for successful communication and social
interaction.
Despite the importance of positive and negative face, the concept has been criticized for being
too simplistic and failing to capture the complexity of face needs in different cultures (Kádár
& Haugh, 2013; Ide, 2017). Researchers have also highlighted the need to consider other
factors, such as power and status, in face-threatening situations (Arundale, 2010).
Furthermore, recent studies have explored the role of social media in face-to-face
communication and the impact of technology on individuals' face needs (Nguyen, 2017; Kim
& Lee, 2019). Overall, the positive and negative face concept remains a crucial aspect of
pragmatics and highlights the social and cultural dimensions of communication.
Positive facial expressions convey the individual's wishes and can be acknowledged and
respected by others. A negative face expresses the desire to speak about social behavior
without being constrained by a limited set of options. As a result, Politeness serves as the
face of the other. The act of face saving is associated with a social action that signifies one's
uniqueness. It demonstrates the significance of inner desire and fear. On the other hand, a
face-threatening conduct might have an effect on the actions of others; it may be interpreted
as an insult.
There are numerous linguistic ways for diminishing a threat's negative face. For instance, to
annoy someone or to apologize in a positive manner for highlighting a point about a shared
interest in something, or to make a proposal to an addressee.

DEIXIS
Deixis is a fundamental concept in pragmatics that refers to the way speakers use language
to refer to entities in relation to their context of utterance (Levinson, 1983). Deictic
expressions, such as pronouns, demonstratives, and temporal adverbs, have meaning only
when they are used in a specific context, as they rely on the speaker's and listener's shared
knowledge of the situation (Fillmore, 1971). For example, the pronoun "I" can only be
understood as referring to the speaker in a particular context, and the meaning of the
demonstrative "this" depends on what the speaker is pointing to at the time of the utterance.
Deixis is crucial in language use, as it allows speakers to refer to entities in a particular space
and time and to convey their perspective and stance (Levinson, 1983). Moreover, deixis can
also convey social relationships, such as power and solidarity, as speakers can use different
deixis to signal their position in the interaction (Verschueren, 1999).
Despite its importance, deixis can also cause confusion and misunderstandings, especially
when the context of the utterance is not clear or when the interlocutors have different

133 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

perspectives (Huang, 2007). Therefore, speakers need to be aware of the contextual

information and use deixis appropriately to convey their intended meaning.
In conclusion, deixis is a fundamental concept in pragmatics that refers to the way speakers
use language to refer to entities in relation to their context of utterance. Deictic expressions
allow speakers to convey their perspective, stance, and social relationships, but can also cause
confusion and misunderstandings if not used appropriately.
According to Schiffrin (1994), deixis involves the use of linguistic expressions to refer to
entities that are located in the immediate physical or social context of the speaker and listener.
In other words, deixis is used to locate people, objects, and events in space and time, as well
as to establish social relationships and identity.
Deixis can be further classified into three types: person deixis, spatial deixis, and temporal
deixis (Lyons, 1977). Person deixis refers to the use of pronouns and other linguistic
expressions to refer to the speaker and listener, as well as to third parties. Spatial deixis refers
to the use of linguistic expressions to refer to physical space, such as demonstratives ("this,"
"that," "here," "there"), locative adverbs ("above," "below," "next to"), and spatial
prepositions ("in," "on," "under"). Temporal deixis refers to the use of linguistic expressions
to refer to time, such as adverbs ("now," "then," "soon") and tense markers ("yesterday,"
"tomorrow").
The use of deixis is highly dependent on the context of the utterance and the shared
knowledge between the speaker and listener. This can lead to ambiguity and
misunderstandings when the context is unclear or when there are different interpretations of
the same utterance (Levinson, 1983). Therefore, speakers must be mindful of the context and
use deixis appropriately to convey their intended meaning.
Deixis is an essential concept in pragmatics that allows speakers to locate entities in space
and time and establish social relationships and identity. It can be classified into three types:
person deixis, spatial deixis, and temporal deixis. The appropriate use of deixis requires an
understanding of the context and shared knowledge between the speaker and listener.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study of English pragmatics has broad implications for human
communication beyond its specific goals. By developing models for effective speaking and
writing in various social contexts, researchers in linguistics can gain insight into the factors
that influence speaker choices and the ways in which language reflects personal and cultural
identities. According to Crystal (2003), pragmatics allows us to understand the deeper
meanings conveyed by contextual information, going beyond the surface-level ambiguities
of words. This theoretical framework can be useful for applied linguistics researchers seeking

134 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

to understand the complexities of language use in real-world situations. It is important to note

that pragmatics differs from semantics, as it is concerned with meaning beyond the literal
interpretation of words (Levinson, 1983). Ultimately, the study of pragmatics offers valuable
insights into the role of language in shaping our social interactions and personal identities

Competing Interests:
There is no conflict of interest in this work.
8.Acknowledgements
I would love to give a big thanks to my Lord and then my friends and teachers for their
support and field contribution in this study.

REFERENCES
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for
research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 1-33.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N.
Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4).
Cambridge University Press.
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmatics and cognition. Elsevier.
Chapman, S. (2000). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and
future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3(2), 105-110.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.),
Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 233-
265). Cambridge University Press.

135 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Doubleday.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics:
Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1988-93). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman Group UK Limited.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y., & Yan, M. (2016). Pragmatics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics
(pp. 415-430). Routledge.
Ide, S. (2017). Face, im/politeness and negotiation of identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 107-
115.
Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage
Publications.
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. J., & Lee, D. (2019). Social media, face, and the visibility paradox: Investigating face-
threatening acts on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 174-181.
Krippendorff, K. (1986). A semantic analysis of visual communication. In Wartella, E. (Ed.),
Children communicating: Media and development of thought, speech, understanding, pp. 77-
97. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on automony,
agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press.
Nguyen, T. T. (2017). The impact of technology on face and facework in intercultural
communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 152-169.

136 | P a g e
 English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In

J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112).
Academic Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University
Press
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and
Philosophy (pp. 197-213). New York University Press
Vanderveken, D. (2014). Speech act theory. In Wright, J. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the
social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), pp. 361-366. Oxford: Elsevier.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.). (2005). Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory
and practice. Walter de Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics (1st ed.). Oxford University Press

137 | P a g e
English Language Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin
Volume 6 Number 2 2023

138 | P a g e