xford Introductions to Language Study

Series Editor H.G.Widdowson

Pragmatics
George Yule

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford Introductions to Language Study
Pragmatics
Until 1995, George Yule was a Professor in
the Linguistics Program at Louisiana State
University. He now lives and writes in
Hawaii.
Oxford Introductions to Language Study
Series Editor H.G. Widdowson

Published in this series:

Rod Ellis: Second Language Acquisition
Claire Kramsch: Language and Culture Tim McNamara: Language Testing Peter Roach: Phonetics Herbert Schendl: Historical Linguistics Thomas Scovel: Psycholinguistics Bernard Spolsky:
Sociolinguistics H.G. Widdowson: Linguistics George Yule: Pragmatics

George Yule
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
OXFORD transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University
UNIVERSITY PRESS Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0x2 6DP organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the ELT
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the .University's objective Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition
Oxford New York on any acquirer Any websites referred to in this publication are in the public domain and their addresses
Auckland Cape Town Dares Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City are provided by Oxford University Press for information only. Oxford University Press disclaims any
Nairobi responsibility for the content iSBN-13: 978 o 19 437207 7
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto ISBN-IO: o 19 437207 3
With offices in Typeset by Wyvern 21 Limited, Bristol
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Printed in China
Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam OXFORD and OXFORD
ENGLISH are registered trade marks of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries ©
Oxford University Press 1996
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 1996
2008 2007 2006 2005 for Maryann
10 9
No unauthorized photocopying

Contents
Preface xi
SECTION I:
Survey i
1 Definitions and background
Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics 4 Regularity 4 The pragmatics wastebasket 6
2 Deixis and distance
Person deixis 10 Spatial deixis 12 Temporal deixis 14 Deixis and grammar 15
3 Reference and inference
Referential and attributive uses 18 Names and referents 19 The role of co-text 21 Anaphoric reference 22
4 Presupposition and entailment
Presupposition 26 Types of presupposition 27 The projection problem 30 Ordered entailments 3 3
5 Cooperation and implicature
The cooperative principle 3 6 Hedges 38
Conversational implicature Say something: off and on record 44
Generalized conversational Positive and negative politeness 45 71
implicatures Scalar implicatures Strategies 72
Particularized conversational Pre-sequences 48 76
implicatures Properties of 8 Conversation and preference 49 76
conversational implicatures structure Conversation analysis 5° 78
Conventional implicatures Pauses, overlaps, and 51

6 Speech acts and events

backchannels Conversational style 53 83
Adjacency pairs 54 84
Speech acts 56 85
IFIDs Preference structure
87
Felicity conditions 9 Discourse and culture
60 87
The performative hypothesis Discourse analysis SECTION 2 Readings
61
Speech act classification Coherence 61
Background knowledge SECTION 3 References
Direct and indirect speech acts 62
Speech events Cultural schemata Cross 63 SECTION 4 Glossary

7 Politeness and interaction

cultural pragmatics 64
40 91
Politeness 65
40
Face wants 67
41 117 127
Negative and positive face
42-
Self and other: say nothing
Preface

Purpose
What justification might there be for a series of introductions to language study? After all, linguistics is already well served with introductory texts:
expositions and explanations which are com prehensive and authoritative and excellent in their way. Generally speaking, however, their way is the essentially
academic one pf providing a detailed initiation into the discipline of linguistics, and they tend to be lengthy and technical: appropriately so, given their
purpose. But they can be quite daunting to the novice. There is also a need for a more general and gradual introduction to language: transitional texts which
will ease people into an under
standing of complex ideas. This series of introductions is designed to serve this need.
Their purpose, therefore, is not to supplant but to support the more academically oriented introductions to linguistics: to prepare the conceptual ground.
They are based on the belief that it is an advantage to have a broad map of the terrain sketched out before one considers its more specific features on a
smaller scale, a general context in reference to which the detail makes sense. It is sometimes the case that students are introduced to detail without it being
made clear what it is a detail of. Clearly, a general under standing of ideas is not sufficient: there needs to be closer scrutiny. But equally, close scrutiny can
be myopic and meaningless unless it is related to the larger view. Indeed, it can be said that the precondition of more particular enquiry is an awareness of
what, in general, the particulars are about. This series is designed to provide this large-scale view of different areas of language study. As such it can serve as
a preliminary to (and precondition for) the

PREFACE XI
more specific and specialized enquiry which students of This is a summary overview of the main features of the area of
linguist ics are required to undertake. language study concerned: its scope and principles of enquiry,
But the series is not only intended to be helpful to such stu its basic concerns and key concepts. These are expressed and
dents. There are many people who take an interest in language explained in ways which are intended to make them as
without being academically engaged in linguistics per se. accessible as possible to people who have no prior knowledge
Such people may recognize the importance of understanding or expertise in the subject. The Survey is written to be
language for their own lines of enquiry, or for their own readable and is uncluttered by the customary scholarly
practical purposes, or quite simply for making them aware of references. In this sense, it is simple. But it is not simplistic.
something which figures so centrally in their everyday lives. Lack of specialist expertise does not imply an inability to
If linguistics has reveal ing and relevant things to say about understand or evaluate ideas. Ignorance means lack of
language, then this should presumably not be a privileged knowledge, not lack of intelligence. The Survey, therefore, is
revelation, but one accessible to people other than linguists. meant to be challenging. It draws a map of the subject area in
These books have been so designed as to accommodate these such a way as to stimulate thought, and to invite a critical parti
broader interests too: they are meant to be introductions to cipation in the exploration of ideas. This kind of conceptual
language more generally as well as to linguistics as a cartography has its dangers of course: the selection of what is
discipline. significant, and the manner of its representation will not be to
the liking of everybody, particularly not, perhaps, to some of
Design those inside the discipline. But these surveys are written in the
belief
The books in the series are all cut to the same basic pattern. that there must be an alternative to a technical account on the
There are four parts: Survey, Readings, References, and one hand and an idiot's guide on the other if linguistics is to
Glossary. be made relevant to people in the wider world.
Survey Readings
 Some people will be content to read, and perhaps re-read, the One way of moving into more detailed study is through the
summary Survey. Others will want to pursue the subject and so Readings. Another is through the annotated References in the
will use the Survey as the preliminary for more detailed study. third section of each book. Here there is a selection of works
The Readings provide the necessary transition. For here the (books and articles) for further reading. Accompanying com
reader is presented with texts extracted from the specialist ments indicate how these deal in more detail with the issues
literature. The purpose of these readings is quite different dis cussed in the different chapters of the survey.
from the Survey. It is to get readers to focus on the specifics
of what is said and how it is said in these source texts. Glossary
Questions are provided to further this purpose: they are Certain terms in the Survey appear in bold. These are terms
designed to direct attention to points in each text, how they used in a special or technical sense in the discipline. Their
compare across texts, and how they deal with the issues meanings are made clear in the discussion, but they are also
discussed in the Survey. The idea is to give readers an initial explained in the Glossary at the end of each book. The
familiarity with the more specialist idiom of the linguistics Glossary is cross
liter ature, where the issues might not be so readily accessible, referenced to the Survey, and therefore serves at the same time
and to encourage them into close critical reading. as an index. This enables readers to locate the term and what
it signifies in the more general discussion, thereby, in effect,
References using the Survey as a summary work of reference.

XII PREFACE PREFACE XIII

Use
The series has been designed so as to be flexible in use. Each title is separate and self-contained, with only the basic format in common. The four sections of
the format, as described here, can be drawn upon and combined in different ways, as required by the needs, or interests, of different readers. Some may be
content with the Survey and the Glossary and may not want to follow up the suggested references. Some may not wish to venture into the Readings. Again,
the Survey might be considered as appropriate preliminary reading for a course in applied linguistics or teacher education, and the Readings more
appropriate for seminar dis cussion during the course. In short, the notion of an introduction will mean different things to different people, but in all cases the
concern is to provide access to specialist knowledge and stimulate an awareness of its significance. This series as a whole has been designed to provide this
access and promote this awareness in respect to different areas of language study.

H.G.WIDDOWSON
XIV PREFACE

SECTION I Survey
Definitions and background

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as commun icated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has, consequently,
more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves.
Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said. It requires
a consideration of how speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with who they're talking to, where, when, and under what circumstances.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
This approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what is said in order to arrive at an interpreta tion of the speaker's intended
meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated. We might say that it is the
investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said.
This perspective then raises the question of what determines the choice between the said and the unsaid. The basic answer is tied to the notion of distance. Closeness, whether
it is physical, social, or con ceptual, implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers determine how much needs to be said.
Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.
These are the four areas that pragmatics is concerned with. To understand how it got to be that way, we have to briefly review its relationship with other
areas of linguistic analysis.

DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND 3

Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
One traditional distinction in language analysis contrasts prag Regularity
matics with syntax and semantics. Syntax is the study of the
Luckily, people tend to behave in fairly regular ways when it
relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged comes to using language. Some of that regularity derives from
in sequence, and which sequences are well-formed. This type the fact that people are members of social groups and follow
of study generally takes place without considering any world general
of ref erence or any user of the forms. Semantics is the study
of the relationships between linguistic forms and entities in 4 SURVEY
the world; that is, how words literally connect to things. patterns of behavior expected within the group. Within a
Semantic analysis also attempts to establish the relationships familiar social group, we normally find it easy to be polite
between verbal descriptions and states of affairs in the world and say appro priate things. In a new, unfamiliar social setting,
as accurate (true) or not, regardless of who produces that we are often
description. unsure about what to say and worry that we might say the
Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between wrong thing.
linguistic forms and the users of those forms. In this three-part When I first lived in Saudi Arabia, I tended to answer
distinction, only pragmatics allows humans into the analysis. questions in Arabic about my health (the equivalent of 'How
The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one are you?') with the equivalent of my familiar routine
can talk about people's intended meanings, their assumptions, responses of 'Okay' or 'Fine'. However, I eventually noticed
their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions (for example, that when I asked a similar question, people generally
requests) that they are performing when they speak. The big answered with a phrase that had the literal meaning of 'Praise
disadvantage is that all these very human concepts are to God'. I soon learned to use the new expression, wanting to
extremely difficult to analyze in a consistent and objective be pragmatically appropriate in that con text. My first type of
way. Two friends having a conversation may imply some answer wasn't 'wrong' (my vocabulary and pronunciation
things and infer some others without providing any clear weren't inaccurate), but it did convey the meaning that I was a
linguistic evidence that we can point to as the explicit source social outsider who answered in an unexpected way. In other
of 'the meaning' of what was communicated. Example [i] is words, more was being communicated than was being said.
just such a problematic case. I heard the speakers, I knew what Initially I did not know that: I had learned some linguistic
they said, but I had no idea what was communicated. forms in the language without learning the pragmatics of how
[i] Her: So—did you? those forms are used in a regular pattern by social insiders.
Him: Hey—who wouldn't? Another source of regularity in language use derives from
Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it's about how people the fact that most people within a linguistic community have
make sense of each other linguistically, but it can be a similar basic experiences of the world and share a lot of
frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense non-linguistic knowledge. Let's say that, in the middle of a
of people and what they have in mind. conversation, I men
tion the information in [z].
 [2] I found an old bicycle lying on the ground. The chain the tables got crowded, many of those notes on ordinary
was rusted and the tires were flat. language in use began to be knocked off and ended up in the
You are unlikely to ask why a chain and some tires were wastebasket. That overflowing wastebasket has become the
suddenly being mentioned. I can normally assume that you source of much of what will be discussed in the following
will make the inference that if X is a bicycle, then X has a pages. It is worth remembering that the contents of that
chain and tires (and many other regular parts). Because of this wastebasket were not originally or ganized under a single
type of assump category. They were defined negatively, as the stuff that wasn't
tion, it would be pragmatically odd for me to have expressed easily handled within the formal systems of analysis.
[2] as [3]. Consequently, in order to understand some of the mater
ial that we're going to pull out of the wastebasket, we really
[3] I found an old bicycle. A bicycle has a chain. The have to look at how it got there.
chain was rusted. A bicycle also has tires. The tires were The tables upon which many linguists and philosophers of
flat. lan guage worked were devoted to the analysis of language
You would perhaps think that more was being communicated structure. Consider the sentence in [4].
than was being said and that you were being treated as
[4] The duck ran up to Mary and licked her.
someone with no basic knowledge (i.e. as stupid). Once
again, nothing in A syntactic approach to this sentence would be concerned
with the rules that determine the correct structure and exclude
any incorrect orderings such as *'Up duck Mary to the ran'.
DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND 5 Syntactic analysis would also be required to show that there is
the use of the linguistic forms is inaccurate, but getting the a missing ele
prag matics wrong might be offensive. ment ('and _ licked her') before the verb 'licked' and to
The types of regularities just described are extremely simple
examples of language in use which are largely ignored by explicate 6
most linguistic analyses. To understand why it has become
the province of pragmatics to investigate these, and many the rules that allow that empty slot, or accept the pronoun 'it' in
other, aspects of ordinary language in use, we need to take a that position. However, those working on syntax would have
brief historical look at how things got to be the way they are. thought it totally irrelevant if you tried to say that ducks don't
do that and maybe the speaker had meant to say 'dog'. Indeed,
The pragmatics wastebasket from a purely syntactic perspective, a sentence like 'The bottle
For a long period in the study of language, there has been a of ketchup ran up to Mary' is just as well-formed as [4].
very strong interest in formal systems of analysis, often Over on the semantics side of the table, however, there
derived from mathematics and logic. The emphasis has been would have been concern. An entity labelled 'duck' has a
on discovering some of the abstract principles that lie at the meaning feature (animate) whereas a 'bottle of ketchup'
very core of lan would be (non animate). Since a verb like 'ran up to' requires
guage. By placing the investigation of the abstract, potentially something animate as its subject, the word 'duck' is okay, but
universal, features of language in the center of their work not a 'bottle of ketchup'.
tables, linguists and philosophers of language tended to push Semantics is also concerned with the truth-conditions of
any notes they had on everyday language use to the edges. As propositions expressed in sentences. These propositions
 generally correspond to the basic literal meaning of a simple Unfortunately, in this type of analysis, whenever p & q is
clause and are conventionally represented by the letters p, q, true, it logically follows that q & p is true. Notice that q & p,
and r. Let's say that the underlying meaning relationship in this particular case, would have to be expressed as in [6].
being expressed in 'The duck ran up to Mary' is the [61 The duck licked Mary and ran up to her.
proposition p, and in 'the duck licked Mary', it is the
In the everyday world of language use, this state of affairs is
proposition q. These two propositions are joined by the
not identical to the original situation described in [4]. There is
logical connector symbol for conjunction, & (called
a sequence of two events being described and we expect that
'ampersand'). Thus, the propositional representation of the sen
sequence, in terms of occurrence, to be reflected in the order
tence in [4] is as in [5].
of mention.
[5] p&cq If p involves some action and q involves another action, we
If p is true and q is true, then p & q is true. If either p or q is have an overwhelming tendency to interpret the conjunction
not true (i.e. false), then the conjunction of p & q is
necessarily false. This type of analysis is used extensively in DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND J
formal semantics.
SURVEY
'and', not as logical &, but as the sequential expression 'and
then'. This is another example of more being communicated
than is said. We might propose that there is a regular principle
of lan guage use which can be stated as in [7].
[7] Interpret order of mention as a reflection of order of
occur rence.
What is expressed in [7] is not a rule of syntax or semantics. It
isn't a rule at all. It is a pragmatic principle which we
frequently use to make sense of what we hear and read, but
which we can ignore if it doesn't apply in some situations.
There are many other principles of this type which will be
explored in the following chapters. In Chapter 2, we will start
with a really simple principle: the more two speakers have in
com mon, the less language they'll need to use to identify
familiar things. This principle accounts for the frequent use of
words like 'this' and 'that' to refer to things in a shared
physical context (for example, 'Would you like this or that?').
Exploring this basic aspect of language in use is the study of
deixis. 8
 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
Deixis and distance 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
Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most
deictic expres sions being 'near speaker' versus 'away from
basic things we do with utterances. It means 'pointing' via
speaker'. In English, the 'near speaker', or proximal terms,
language. Any linguistic form used to accomplish this
are 'this', 'here', 'now'. The 'away from speaker', or distal
'pointing' is called a deictic expression. When you notice a
terms, are 'that', 'there', 'then'. Proximal terms are typically
strange object and ask, 'What's that?', you are using a deictic
interpreted in terms of the speaker's location, or the deictic
expression ('that') to indic
center, so that 'now' is generally under stood as referring to
ate something in the immediate context. Deictic expressions
some point or period in time that has the time of the speaker's
are also sometimes called indexicals. They are among the
utterance at its center. Distal terms can simply
first forms to be spoken by very young children and can be
used to indicate people via person deixis ('me', 'you'), or
location via spatial deixis ('here', 'there'), or time via DEIXIS AND DISTANCE

temporal deixis ('now', 'then'). All these expressions depend,

SURVEY
indicate 'away from speaker', but, in some languages, can be distinction seems problematic and they say things like 'Read
used to distinguish between 'near addressee' and 'away from you a story' (instead of 'me') when handing over a favorite
both speaker and addressee'. Thus, in Japanese, the translation book.
of the pronoun 'that' will distinguish between 'that near Person deixis clearly operates on a basic three-part division,
addressee' 'sore' and 'that distant from both speaker and exemplified by the pronouns for first person (T), second
addressee' 'are' with a third term being used for the proximal person ('you'), and third person ('he', 'she', or 'it'). In many
'this near speaker' 'kore\ 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
Person deixis
with lower status). Expressions which indicate higher status
The distinction just described involves person deixis, with the are described as hon orifics. The discussion of the
speaker (T) and the addressee ('you') mentioned. The circumstances which lead to the choice of one of these forms
simplicity of these forms disguises the complexity of their rather than another is sometimes described as social deixis.
use. To learn these deictic expressions, we have to discover A fairly well-known example of a social contrast encoded
that each person in a con within person deixis is the distinction between forms used for
versation shifts from being T to being 'you' constantly. All a familiar versus a non-familiar addressee in some languages.
young children go through a stage in their learning where this
 This is known as the T/V distinction, from the French forms less direct, as in [3a.], or to make a potentially personal issue
'tu' (famil seem like an impersonal one, based on a general rule, as in
iar) and 'vous' (non-familiar), and is found in many languages [3b.].
including German ('du/Sie') and Spanish (ltti/Usted'). The [3] a. Somebody didn't clean up after himself.
choice of one form will certainly communicate something b. Each person has to clean up after him or herself.
(not directly said) about the speaker's view of his or her Of course, the speaker can state such general 'rules' as
relationship with the addressee. In those social contexts applying to tLs speaker plus other(s), by using the first person
where individuals typically mark distinctions between the plural ('we'), as in [4].
social status of the speaker and addressee, the higher, older,
and more powerful speaker will tend [4] We clean up after ourselves around here.
There is, in English, a potential ambiguity in such uses which
10 SURVEY allows two different interpretations. There is an exclusive 'we'
to use the 'tu' version to a lower, younger, and less powerful (speaker plus other(s), excluding addressee) and an inclusive
addressee, and be addressed by the 'vous' form in return. 'we' (speaker and addressee included). Some languages
"When social change is taking place, as for example in grammaticize this distinction (for example, Fijian has
modern Spain, where a young businesswoman (higher 'keimami' for exclusive first person plural and 'keda' for
economic status) is talk inclusive first person plural).
ing to her older cleaning lady (lower economic status), how do
they address each other? I am told that the age distinction DEIXIS AND DISTANCE II
remains more powerful than the economic distinction and the In English, the ambiguity present in [4] provides a subtle
older woman uses 'tu' and the younger uses 'Usted'. opportu nity for a hearer to decide what was communicated.
The Spanish non-familiar version ('Usted') is historically Either the hearer decides that he or she is a member of the
related to a form which was used to refer to neither first group to whom the rule applies (i.e. an addressee) or an
person (speaker) nor second person (addressee), but to third outsider to whom the rule does not apply (i.e. not an
person (some other). In deictic terms, third person is not a addressee). In this case the hearer gets
direct parti to decide the kind of 'more' that is being communicated. The
cipant in basic (I-you) interaction and, being an outsider, is inclusive-exclusive distinction may also be noted in the
neces sarily more distant. Third person pronouns are difference between saying 'Let's go' (to some friends) and 'Let
consequently distal forms in terms of person deixis. Using a us go' (to someone who has captured the speaker and friends).
third person form, where a second person form would be The action of going is inclusive in the first, but exclusive in
possible, is one way of communicating distance (and the second.
non-familiarity). This can be done in English for an ironic or
humorous purpose as when one person, who's very busy in Spatial deixis
the kitchen, addresses another, who's being very lazy, as in
The concept of distance already mentioned is clearly relevant
[2].
to spatial deixis, where the relative location of people and
[2] Would his highness like some coffee? things is being indicated. Contemporary English makes use of
The distance associated with third person forms is also used to only two adverbs, 'here' and 'there', for the basic distinction,
make potential accusations (for example, 'you didn't clean up') 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 be telling you about a visit to a pet store, as in [6].
place) and 'thence' (from that place) now sound archaic. These [6] I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a
last two adverbs include the meaning of motion toward or sad look on its face. It was like, 'Oh, I'm so unhappy
away from the speaker. Some verbs of motion, such as 'come' here, will you set me free?'
and 'go', retain a deictic sense when they are used to mark
movement toward the speaker ('Come to bed!') or away from The 'here' of the cage is not the actual physical location of the
person uttering the words (the speaker), but is instead the loca
the speaker ('Go to bed!').
tion of that person performing in the role of the puppy.
One version of the concept of motion toward speaker (i.e.
It may be that the truly pragmatic basis of spatial deixis is
becoming visible), seems to be the first deictic meaning
actu ally psychological distance. Physically close objects will
learned by children and characterizes their use of words like
tend to be treated by the speaker as psychologically close.
'this' and 'here' (= can be seen). They are distinct from 'that'
Also, something that is physically distant will generally be
and 'there' which are associated with things that move out of
treated as psycho logically distant (for example, 'that man over
the child's visual space (= can no longer be seen).
there'). However, a speaker may also wish to mark something
In considering spatial deixis, however, it is important to
that is physically close (for example, a perfume being sniffed
remember that location from the speaker's perspective can be
by the speaker) as psycho logically distant 'I don't like that'. In
fixed mentally as well as physically. Speakers temporarily
this analysis, a word like 'that' does not have a fixed (i.e.
away from their home location will often continue to use
semantic) meaning; instead, it is 'invested' with meaning in a
'here' to mean the (physically distant) home location, as if they
context by a speaker.
were still in that location. Speakers also seem to be able to
Similar psychological processes seem to be at work in our
project themselves into other locations prior to actually being
dis tinctions between proximal and distal expressions used to
in those locations, as when they say 'I'll come later' (=
mark temporal deixis.
movement to addressee's location).

12 SURVEY
This is sometimes described as deictic projection and we
make more use of its possibilities as more technology allows DEIXIS AND DISTANCE 13
us to manipulate location. If 'here' means the place of the Temporal deixis
speaker's utterance (and 'now' means the time of the speaker's
We have already noted the use of the proximal form 'now' as
utterance), then an utterance such as [5] should be nonsense. indic ating both the time coinciding with the speaker's
[5] I am not here now. utterance and the time of the speaker's voice being heard (the
However, I can say [5] into the recorder of a telephone hearer's 'now'). In contrast to 'now', the distal expression 'then'
answering machine, projecting that the 'now' will apply to any applies to both past [7a.] and future [7b.] time relative to the
time some one tries to call me, and not to when I actually speaker's present time.
record the words. Indeed, recording [5] is a kind of dramatic [7] a. November 22nd, 1963? I was in Scotland then. b.
per formance for a future audience in which I project my Dinner at 8:30 on Saturday? Okay, I'll see you then.
presence to be in the required location. A similar deictic
It is worth noting that we also use elaborate systems of non
projection is accom plished via dramatic performance when I
deictic temporal reference such as calendar time (dates, as in
use direct speech to represent the person, location, and
[7a.]) and clock time (hours, as in [7b.]). However, these forms
feelings of someone or some thing else. For example, I could
 of temporal reference are learned a lot later than the deictic extremely unlikely (or impossible) from the speaker's current
expres sions like 'yesterday', 'tomorrow', 'today', 'tonight', 'next situation is also marked via the distal (past tense) form, as in
week', 'last week', 'this week'. All these expressions depend for [ub.].
their interpretation on knowing the relevant utterance time. If [11] a. I could swim (when I was a child).
we don't know the utterance (i.e. scribbling) time of a note, as b. I could be in Hawaii (if I had a lot of money).
in [8], on an office door, we won't know if we have a short or a
The past tense is always used in English in those //-clauses that
long wait ahead.
mark events presented by the speaker as not being close to
[8] Back in an hour. present reality as in [12].
Similarly, if we return the next day to a bar that displays the [12] a. If I had a yacht,... b.
notice in [9], then we will still be (deictically) one day early If I was rich,...
for the free drink.
Neither of the ideas expressed in [12] are to be treated as
[9] Free Beer Tomorrow. having happened in past time. They are presented as
The psychological basis of temporal deixis seems to be deictically distant from the speaker's current situation. So
similar to that of spatial deixis. We can treat temporal events distant, indeed, that they actually communicate the negative
as objects that move toward us (into view) or away from us (we infer that the speaker has no yacht and is not rich).
(out of view). One metaphor used in English is of events In order to understand many English conditional
coming toward the speaker from the future (for example, 'the constructions (including those of the form 'Had I known
coming week', 'the approaching year') and going away from sooner ...'), we have to recognize that, in temporal deixis, the
the speaker to the past (for example, 'in days gone by', 'the remote or distal form can be used to communicate not only
past week'). We also seem to treat the near or immediate distance from current time, but also distance from current
future as being close to utterance time by using the proximal reality or facts.
deictic 'this', as in 'this (coming) weekend' or 'this (coming)
Thursday'. Deixis and grammar
One basic (but often unrecognized) type of temporal deixis
in English is in the choice of verb tense. Whereas other The basic distinctions presented so far for person, spatial, and
languages have many different forms of the verb as different temporal deixis can all be seen at work in one of the most com
tenses, English mon structural distinctions made in English grammar—that
between direct and indirect (or reported) speech. As already
described, the deictic expressions for person ('you'), place
14 SURVEY ('here'), and time ('this evening') can all be interpreted within
has only two basic forms, the present as in [ioa.], and the past as the same context as the speaker who utters [13a.].

[10] a. I live here now. b. I DEIXIS AND DISTANCE 15

lived there then. [13] a. Are you planning to be here this evening?
The present tense is the proximal form and the past tense is the b. I asked her if she was planning to be there that
distal form. Something having taken place in the past, as in [1 evening.
ia.], is typically treated as distant from the speaker's current When the context shifts, as for example in [13 b.], to one in
situation. Perhaps less obviously, something that is treated as 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 differ ence 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
Throughout the preceding discussion of deixis, there was an
proximal deictic forms of a direct speech reporting
assumption that the use of words to refer to people and things
communicate, often dramatically, a sense of being in the same
was a relatively straightforward matter. It is indeed fairly easy
context as the utterance. The distal deictic forms of indirect
for people to do, but it is rather difficult to explain how they do
speech reporting make the original speech event seem more
it. We do know that words themselves don't refer to anything.
remote.
People refer. We might best think of reference as an act in
It should not be a surprise to learn that deictic expressions
which a speaker, or writer, uses linguistic forms to enable a
were all to be found in the pragmatics wastebasket. Their
listener, or reader, to identify something.
interpreta tion depends on the context, the speaker's intention,
Those linguistic forms are referring expressions, which can
and they express relative distance. Given their small size and
be proper nouns (for example, 'Shakespeare', 'Cathy Revuelto',
extremely wide range of possible uses, deictic expressions
'Hawaii'), noun phrases which are definite (for example, 'the
always communic ate much more than is said.
author', 'the singer', 'the island'), or indefinite (for example, 'a
man', 'a woman', 'a beautiful place'), and pronouns (for
example, 'he', 'her', 'it', 'them'). The choice of one type of
referring expres sion rather than another seems to be based, to a
large extent, on what the speaker assumes the listener already
knows. In shared visual contexts, those pronouns that function
as deictic expres
sions (for example, 'Take this'; 'Look at him!') may be sufficient
for successful reference, but where identification seems more
difficult, more elaborate noun phrases may be used (for
example, 'Remember the old foreign guy with the funny hat?').
Reference, then, is clearly tied to the speaker's goals (for ex
ample, to identify something) and the speaker's beliefs (i.e. can
the listener be expected to know that particular something?) in
the use of language. For successful reference to occur, we must
also recognize the role of inference. Because there is no direct
rela tionship between entities and words, the listener's task is to
16 SURVEY infer correctly which entity the speaker intends to identify by
using a

REFERENCE AND INFERENCE 17

Reference and inference particular referring expression. It is not unusual for people to want
to refer to some entity or person without knowing exactly which
'name' would be the best word to use. We can even use vague [3] without knowing for sure if there is a person who could be the
expressions (for example, 'the blue thing', 'that icky stuff, 'ol' what's referent of the definite expression 'the killer'. This would be an
his name', 'the thingamajig'), relying on the listener's ability to infer attributive use (i.e. 'whoever did the killing'), based on the speaker's
what referent we have in mind. Speakers even invent names. There assumption that a referent must exist.
was one man who delivered packages to our office whose 'real' name [3 ] There was no sign of the killer.
I didn't know, but whose identity I could infer when the secretary However, if a particular individual had been identified as having
referred to him as in [i]. done the killing and had been chased into a building, but escaped,
[i] Mister Aftershave is late today. then uttering the sentence in [3] about that individual would be a
The example in [i] may serve to illustrate that reference is not based referential use, based on the speaker's knowledge that a referent
on an objectively correct (versus incorrect) naming, but on some does exist.
locally successful (versus unsuccessful) choice of expression. We The point of this distinction is that expressions themselves can not
might also note from example [i] that successful reference is be treated as having reference (as is often assumed in semantic
necessarily collaborative, with both the speaker and the listener treatments), but are, or are not, 'invested' with referential func tion in
having a role in thinking about what the other has in mind. a context by a speaker or writer. Speakers often invite us to assume,
via attributive uses, that we can identify what they're talking about,
even when the entity or individual described may not exist, as in
Referential and attributive uses [2c.]. Some other famous members of that group are the tooth fairy
It is important to recognize that not all referring expressions have and Santa Claus.
identifiable physical referents. Indefinite noun phrases can be used
to identify a physically present entity as in [2a.], but they can also
Names and referents
be used to describe entities that are assumed to exist, but are
unknown, as in [2b.], or entities that, as far as we know, don't exist The version of reference being presented here is one in which there
[2.C.]. is a basic 'intention-to-identify' and a 'recognition-of-intention'
collaboration at work. This process need not only work between
[2] a. There's a man waiting for you.
one speaker and one listener; it appears to work, in terms of con
b. He wants to marry a woman with lots of money. c. We'd love to
vention, between all members of a community who share a com
find a nine-foot-tall basketball player. The expression in [2b.], 'a
mon language and culture. That is, there is a convention that certain
woman with lots of money', can desig nate an entity that is known to
referring expressions will be used to identify certain entities on a
the speaker only in terms of its descriptive properties. The word 'a'
regular basis. It is our daily experience of the successful op eration
could be replaced by 'any' in this case. This is sometimes called an
of this convention that may cause us to assume that refer ring
attributive use, meaning 'who ever/whatever fits the description'. It
expressions can only designate very specific entities. This
would be distinct from a refer ential use whereby I actually have a
assumption may lead us to think that a name or proper noun like
person in mind and, instead of using her name or some other
'Shakespeare' can only be used to identify one specific person, and
description, I choose the expression in [2b.], perhaps because I
an expression containing a common noun, such as 'the cheese
think you'd be more interested in hear ing that this woman has lots
sandwich', can only be used to identify a specific thing. This belief
of money than that she has a name.
is mistaken. A truly pragmatic view of reference allows us to see
A similar distinction can be found with definite noun phrases.
During a news report on a mysterious death, the reporter may say
18 SURVEY REFERENCE AND INFERENCE 19
how a person can be identified via the expression, 'the cheese object invites the listener to make the expected inference (for
sand wich', and a thing can be identified via the name, example, from name of writer to book by writer) and thereby
'Shakespeare'. For example, it would not be strange for one show himself or herself
student to ask another the question in [4a.] and receive the
reply in [4b.]. [4] a. Can I borrow your Shakespeare? b. ZO SURVEY
Yeah, it's over there on the table. to be a member of the same community as the speaker. In
Given the context just created, the intended referent and the such cases, it is rather obvious that more is being
inferred referent would not be a person, but probably a book communicated than is said.
(notice the pronoun 'it'). The nature of reference interpretation just described is also
In a restaurant, one waiter brings out an order of food for what allows readers to make sense of newspaper headlines
another waiter and asks him [5a.] and hears [5b.] in reply. using names of countries, as exemplified in [8a.] where the
referent is to be understood as a soccer team, not as a
[5] a. Where's the cheese sandwich sitting?
government, and in [8b.] where it is to be understood as a
b. He's over there by the window.
government, not as a soccer team.
Given the context, the referent being identified is not a thing,
[8] a. Brazil wins World Cup.
but a person (notice the pronoun 'he').
b. Japan wins first round of trade talks.
The examples in [4] and [5] may allow us to see more
dearly how reference actually works. The Shakespeare
example in [4] suggests that there is a conventional (and The role of co-text
potentially culture specific) set of entities that can be identifed In many of the preceding examples, our ability to identify
by the use of a writer's name. Let us call them 'things the intended referents has actually depended on more than our
writer produced'. This would allow us to make sense of the understanding of the referring expression. It has been aided by
sentences in [6]. the linguistic material, or co-text, accompanying the referring
[6] a. Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf. expres
b. We're going to see Shakespeare in London. sion. When [8a.] appeared as a headline, 'Brazil' was a
c. I hated Shakespeare at school. referring expression and 'wins World Cup' was part of the
co-text (the rest of the newspaper was more co-text). The
Obviously, this convention does not only apply to writers,
co-text clearly limits the range of possible interpretations we
but also to artists [7a.], composers [7b.], musicians [7c], and
might have for a word like 'Brazil'. It is consequently
many other producers of objects.
misleading to think of reference being understood solely in
[7] a. Picasso's on the far wall. terms of our ability to identify referents via the referring
b. The new Mozart is better value than the Bach. expression. The referring expression actually pro vides a
c. My Rolling Stones is missing. range of reference, that is, a number of possible referents.
There appears to be a pragmatic connection between proper Returning to a previous example, we can show that, while the
names and objects that will be conventionally associated, phrase 'the cheese sandwich' stays the same, the different
within a socio culturally defined community, with those co-texts in [9a.] and [9b.] lead to a different type of
names. Using a proper name referentially to identify any such interpretation in each ct;se (i.e. 'food' in [9a.] and 'person' in
 [9b.]). more than one sentence at a time. After the initial introduction
[9J a. The cheese sandwich is made with white of some entity, speakers will use various expressions to
bread, b. The cheese sandwich left without paying. maintain reference, as in [II].
Of course, co-text is just a linguistic part of the environment [i i] In the film, a man and a woman were trying to wash a
in which a referring expression is used. The physical cat. The man was holding the cat while the woman
environment, or context, is perhaps more easily recognized poured water on it. He said something to her and they
as having a powerful impact on how referring expressions are started laughing.
to be interpreted. The phys In English, initial reference, or introductory mention, is often
ical context of a restaurant, and perhaps even the speech indefinite ('a man', 'a woman', 'a cat'). In [n] the definite noun
conven tions of those who work there, may be crucial to the phrases ('the man', 'the cat', 'the woman') and the pronouns ('it',
interpretation 'he', 'her', 'they') are examples of subsequent reference to
already introduced referents, generally known as anaphoric
REFERENCE AND INFERENCE 21 reference, or
of [9b.]. Similarly, it is useful to know that a hospital is the
context for [ioa.], a dentist's office for [iob.], and a hotel
reception for [IOC.]. 22
[10] a. The heart-attack mustn't be moved. anaphora. In technical terms, the second or subsequent expres
b. Your ten-thirty just cancelled. sion is the anaphor and the initial expression is the
c. A couple of rooms have complained about the heat. antecedent. It is tempting to think of anaphoric reference as a
The examples in [10] provide some support for an analysis process of continuing to identify exactly the same entity as
of reference that depends on local context and the local denoted by the antecedent. In many cases, that assumption
knowledge of the participants. It may crucially depend on makes little difference to the interpretation, but in those cases
familiarity with the local socio-cultural conventions as the where some change or effect is described, the anaphoric
basis for inference (for example, if a person is in a hospital reference must be interpreted differently. In example [12],
with an illness, then he or she can be identified by nurses via from a recipe, the initial referring expression 'six potatoes'
the name of the illness). These con ventions may differ identifies something different from the anaphoric pronoun
substantially from one social group to another and may be 'them' which must be interpreted as 'the six peeled and sliced
marked differently from one language to another. Reference, potatoes'.
then, is not simply a relationship between the meaning of a [12] Peel and slice six potatoes. Put them in cold salted
word or phrase and an object or person in the world. It is a water. There is also a reversal of the antecedent-anaphor
social act, in which the speaker assumes that the word or pattern some times found at the beginning of stories, as in
phrase chosen to identify an object or person will be example [13].
interpreted as the speaker intended. [13] I turned the corner and almost stepped on it. There
was a large snake in the middle of the path.
Anaphoric reference Note that the pronoun 'it' is used first and is difficult to
interpret until the full noun phrase is presented in the next
The preceding discussion has been concerned with single acts
line. This pat tern is technically known as cataphora, and is
of reference. In most of our talk and writing, however, we
much less common than anaphora.
have to keep track of who or what we are talking about for
 There is a range of expressions which are used for of zero anaphora as a means of maintaining reference clearly
anaphoric reference in English. The most typical forms are creates an expectation that the listener will be able to infer
pronouns, such as 'it' in [14a.], but definite noun phrases are who or what the speaker intends to identify. It is also another
also used, for ex ample, 'the slices' in [14b.]. obvious case of more being communicated than is said.
[14] a. Peel an onion and slice it. The listener is also expected to make more specific types of
b. Drop the slices into hot oil. inference when the anaphoric expressions don't seem to be lin
c. Cook for three minutes. guistically connected to their antecedents. This point was
noted in
\v'hen the interpretation requires us to identify an entity, as in
'Cook (?) for three minutes', in [14c], and no linguistic expres REFERENCE AND INFERENCE 23
sion is present, it is called zero anaphora, or ellipsis. The use
SURVEY
Chapter i with the 'bicycle' example, and is further illustrated The social dimension of reference may also be tied to the
in [15]. effect of collaboration. The immediate recognition of an
[15] a. I just rented a house. The kitchen is really big. b. intended refer ent, even when a minimal referring expression
We had Chardonnay with dinner. The wine was the (for example, a pronoun) is used, represents something
best part. shared, something in common, and hence social closeness.
c. The bus came on time, but he didn't stop. Successful reference means that an intention was recognized,
via inference, indicating a kind of shared knowledge and
Making sense of [15a.] requires an inference (i.e. if x is a
hence social connection. The assump
house, then x has a kitchen) to make the anaphoric
tion of shared knowledge is also crucially involved in the
connection. Such inferences depend on assumed knowledge
study of presupposition.
which, as in [15b.], may be much more specific (i.e.
Chardonnay is a kind of wine). In addition, the inference can
be considered so automatic for some speakers (for example, a
Presupposition and entailment
bus has a driver), that they can go straight to a pronoun for
anaphoric reference, as in [15c.]. In this example, note that
the antecedent ('the bus') and the anaphor ('he') are not in
grammatical agreement (i.e. normally a bus would be 'it'). As
pointed out already, successful reference does not depend on
some strictly literal, or grammatically 'correct', relationship In the preceding discussion of reference, there was an appeal
between the properties of the referent and the refer ring to the idea that speakers assume certain information is
expression chosen. The word 'sandwich' can identify a per son already known by their listeners. Because it is treated as
and the pronoun 'he' can be an anaphor for a thing. The key to known, such information will generally not be stated and
making sense of reference is that pragmatic process whereby consequently will count as part of what is communicated but
speakers select linguistic expressions with the intention of not said. The technical terms presupposition and entailment
identi are used to describe two dif ferent aspects of this kind of
fying certain entities and with the assumption that listeners information.
will collaborate and interpret those expressions as the speaker It is worth noting at the outset that presupposition and entail
intended. ment were considered to be much more central to pragmatics
 in the past than they are now. In more recent approaches, A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be
there has been less interest in the type of technical discussion the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not
associated with the logical analysis of these phenomena. sentences, have pre suppositions. An entailment is something
"Without some introduction to that type of analytic that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance.
discussion, however, it becomes very difficult to understand Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.
how the current relationship between semantics and We can identify some of the potentially assumed
pragmatics developed. Much of what fol information that would be associated with the utterance of
lows in this chapter is designed to illustrate the process of [1].
think ing through a number of problems in the analysis of [1] Mary's brother bought three horses. In producing
some aspects of invisible meaning. Let's begin by defining
the utterance in [1], the speaker will normally be
our terms.

24 SURVEY PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT 2.5

expected to have the presuppositions that a person called Mary b. Mary has a dog. (= q)
exists and that she has a brother. The speaker may also hold c. p » q
the more specific presuppositions that Mary has only one Interestingly, when we produce the opposite of the sentence in
brother and that he has a lot of money. All of these [2a.] by negating it (= NOT p), as in [3a.], we find that the rela
presuppositions are the speaker's and all of them can be tionship of presupposition dhoesn't change. That is, the same
wrong, in fact. The sentence in [i] will be treated as having proposition q, repeated as [3b.], continues to be presupposed
the entailments that Mary's brother bought something, bought by NOT p, as shown in [3c.].
three animals, bought two horses, bought one horse, and
[3] a. Mary's dog isn't cute. (=NOTp)
many other similar logical consequences. These entailments
b. Mary has a dog. (= q)
follow from the sentence, regardless of whether the speaker's
c. NOT/? »q
beliefs are right or wrong, in fact. They are communicated
without being said. Because of its logical nature, however, This property of presupposition is generally described as con
entailment is not generally discussed as much in con stancy under negation. Basically, it means that the
temporary pragmatics as the more speaker-dependent notion presupposition of a statement will remain constant (i.e. still
of presupposition. true) even when that statement is negated. As a further
example, consider a situation in
which you disagree (via a negative, as in [4b.]) with someone
Presupposition
who has already made the statement in [4a.].
In many discussions of the concept, presupposition is treated [4] a. Everybody knows that John is gay. (=p) b.
as a relationship between two propositions. If we say that the Everybody doesn't know that John is gay. (=NOTp) c.
sentence in [2a.] contains the proposition p and the sentence John is gay. (= q) d. p » g & N O T p » q
in [2b.] con tains the proposition q, then, using the symbol >>
Notice that, although both speakers disagree about the validity
to mean 'pre
of p (i.e. the statement in [4a.]), they both assume the truth of
supposes', we can represent the relationship as in
q (i.e. [4c.]) in making their statements. The proposition q, as
[2c.]. [2] a. Mary's dog is cute. i=p) shown in [4d.], is presupposed by both p and NOT p,
 remaining constant under negation. of the expressions in [5], the speaker is assumed to be committed to
the existence of the entities named.
Types of presupposition [5] the King of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door, the
Counting Crows
In the analysis of how speakers' assumptions are typically expressed,
We shall reconsider the basis of existential presuppositions latei,
presupposition has been associated with the use of a large number of
but first we should note that there was a different type of
words, phrases, and structures. We shall consider these linguistic
presupposition present in [4]. In [4], the verb 'know' occurs in a
forms here as indicators of potential presuppositions, which can
structure, 'Everybody knows that q\ with q as the presupposi
only become actual presuppositions in contexts with speakers.
tion. The presupposed information following a verb like 'know' can
As already illustrated in examples [1] to [3], the possessive con
be treated as a fact, and is described as a factive presupposition. A
struction in English is associated with a presupposition of ex istence.
number of other verbs, such as 'realize' in [6a.] and 'regret' in 1.6b.],
The existential presupposition is not only assumed to be present in
as well as phrases involving 'be' with 'aware' [6c], 'odd' [6d.], and
possessive constructions (for example, 'your car' >> 'you have a
'glad' [6e.] have factive presuppositions.
car'), but more generally in any definite noun phrase. By using any

26 SURVEY
PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT 27
[6] a. She didn't realize he was ill. b. We (» He was ill) (» We told him) after the wh-iovm (i e. 'When' and 'Where')
regret telling him. with the presupposition that the information is already
c. I wasn't aware that she was known to be the case. (» He left)
married. (» She was married) (» He left (» You bought the bike)
[8] a. When did he leave?
d. It isn't odd that he left early. early) b. Where did you buy the bike?
can lead listeners to
e. I'm glad that it's over. The type of presupposition illustrated in [8]
(»It's over)
There are also a number of other forms [7] a. He stopped smoking. (>> He used to smoke) b.
which may best be treated as the source of lexical They started complaining. (» They weren't
presuppositions. Generally speaking, in lexical presupposition, complaining before)
the use of one form with its asserted meaning is c. You're late again. (» You were late before) In the case
conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that of le xical presupposition, the speaker's use of a particu lar
another (non-asserted) meaning is understood. Each time you expression is taken to presuppose another (unstated) concept,
say that someone 'managed' to do something, the asserted whereas in the case of a factive presupposition, the use of a
meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. When you par ticular expression is taken to presuppose the truth of the in
say that someone 'didn't manage', the asserted meaning is that formation that is stated after it.
the person did not succeed. In both cases, however, there is a In addition to presuppositions which are associated with the
presupposition (non asserted) that the person 'tried' to do that use of certain words and phrases, there are also structural
something. So, 'managed' is conventionally interpreted as presup positions. In this case, certain sentence structures have
asserting 'succeeded' and presupposing 'tried'. Other been ana lyzed as conventionally and regularly presupposing
examples, involving the lexical items, 'stop', 'start', and 'again', that part of the structure is already assumed to be true. We
are presented, with their presuppositions, in [7]. might say that speakers can use such structures to treat
 information as presup posed (i.e. assumed to be true) and So far, we have only considered contexts in which
hence to be accepted as true by the listener. For example, the presupposi tions are assumed to be true. There are, however,
w^-question construction in English, as shown in [8a.] and examples of non factive presuppositions associated with a
[8b.], is conventionally interpreted number of verbs in English. A non-factive presupposition is
one that is assumed not to be true. Verbs like 'dream',
28 'imagine', and 'pretend', as shown in [10], ire used with the
believe that the information presented is necessarily true, presupposition that what follows is not true.
rather than just the presupposition of the person asking the [10] a. I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I was not rich) b. We
question. For example, let's say that you were standing at an imagined we were in Hawaii. (>> We were not in Hawaii)
intersection one evening. You didn't notice whether the traffic c. He pretends to be ill. (>> He is not ill)
signal had We have already noted, at the end of the discussion of deixis,
turned to red before a car went through the intersection. The a structure that is interpreted with a non-factive
car was immediately involved in a crash. You were witness to presupposition ('If I had a yacht, ...'). Indeed, this type of
the crash and later you are asked the question in [9]. structure creates a counter factual presupposition, meaning
[9] How fast was the car going when it ran the red light? If that what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the
you answer the question as asked (Just answer the question!) opposite of what is true, or 'contrary to facts'. A conditional
and estimate the speed of the car, then you would appear to be structure of the type shown in [11], generally called a
accepting the truth of the presupposition (i.e. >> the car ran counterfactual conditional, presupposes that the informa
the red light). Such structurally-based presuppositions may tion in the z/-clause is not true at the time of utterance.
represent subtle ways of making information that the speaker
believes appear to be what the listener should believe. PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT 29
SURVEY
[ 11 ] If you were my friend, you would have helped me. There is a basic expectation that the presupposition of a simple
(>> You are not my friend) sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence
The existence of non-factive presuppositions is part of an inter becomes part of a more complex sentence. This is one version of
esting problem for the analysis of utterances with complex struc the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a com
tures, generally known as 'the projection problem', to be explored bination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some
in the next section. presuppositions (as 'parts') doesn't survive to become the meaning
Indicators of potential presuppositions discussed so far are of some complex sentences (as 'wholes'). This is known as the
summarized in Table 4.1. projection problem. In example [12], we are going to see what
happens to the presupposition q ('Kelly was ill') which is assumed
Type Example Presupposition existential theX » X exists factive I to be true in the simple structure of [12c], but which does not
regret leaving »I left non-factive He pretended to be happy » He 'project' into the complex structure [i2h.]. In order to follow this
wasn't happy lexical He managed to escape » He tried to escape type of analysis, we have to think of a situation in which a person
structural When did she die? >> She died counterfactual If I might say: 'I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that
weren't ill, »I am ill she was ill.'
[12] a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill. (=p) b. Kelly was ill.
TABLE 4.1 Potential presuppositions (=q) c. p » q
(At this point, the speaker uttering [12a.]
The projection problem presupposes [12b.].)
 d. I imagined that Kelly was ill. (=r) e. Kelly was not ill. sequence, 'George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get
(=NOT<?) her pregnant'. Identifying the different propositions involved, as in
[14], we can see that the presupposition q in [14b.] does not survive
(At this point, the speaker uttering [i2d.] as a presupposition of the combined utterances in [14c].
presupposes [i2e.], the opposite of [12b.].) g. I [14] a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. (=p) b.
imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody George got Mary pregnant. (=q)
realized that she was ill. (=r&Cp) h. r &Cp »NOT q
c. p»q
(At this point, after combining r&cp, the presupposition q can no
d. He didn't get her pregnant. (=r)
longer be assumed to be true.) In an example like [12], the
e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant,
technical analysis may be straightforward, but it may be difficult to
but he didn't get her pregnant. (=p & r)
think of a context in which someone would talk like that. Perhaps
example [13] will contex-tualize better. In an episode of a TV soap
opera, two characters have the dialog in [13]. One way to think about the whole sentence presented in [14c] is as
an utterance by a person reporting what happened in the soap opera
[13] Shirley: It's so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. that day. That person will not assume the presupposi tion q (i.e. that
Jean: But he didn't get her pregnant. We know that now. George got Mary pregnant) is true when uttering
If we combine two of the utterances from [13], we have the

30 SURVEY PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT 31

A simple explanation for the fact that presuppositions don't existence of the entity described?
'project' is that they are destroyed by entailments. Remember [15] a. The King of England visited us. b.
that an entailment is something that necessarily follows from The King of England doesn't exist!
what is asserted. In example [13], Jean's utterance of 'he didn't
Instead of thinking that a speaker who utters [15b.] simultan
get her pregnant' actually entails 'George didn't get Mary
eously believes that there is a King of England (=
pregnant' as a logical consequence. Thus, when the person
presupposition) and that there is not a King of England (=
who watched the soap opera tells you that 'George regrets
entailment), we recog nize that the entailment is more
getting Mary pregnant, but he didn't get her pregnant', you
powerful than the presupposi tion. We abandon the existential
have a presupposition q and an entailment NOT q. The
presupposition.
entailment (a necessary consequence of what is said) is
As already emphasized, it may be best to think of all the
simply more powerful than the presupposition (an earlier
types of presuppositions illustrated in Table 4.1 as 'potential
assumption).
presupposi tions' which only become actual presuppositions
The power of entailment can also be used to cancel
when intended by speakers to be recognized as such within
existential presuppositions. Normally we assume that when a
utterances. Speakers can indeed indicate that the potential
person uses a definite description of the type 'the X' (for
presupposition is not being presented as a strong assumption.
example, 'the King of England'), he or she presupposes the
Possessive constructions such as 'his car' have a potential
existence of the entity described, as in the utterance of [15a.].
presupposition (i.e. he has a car) which can be presented
Also, in any utterance of the form 'X doesn't exist', as in
tentatively via expressions such as 'or something', as in [16].
[15b.], there is an entailment that there is no X. But does the
speaker of [15b.] also still have the pre supposition of the [16] a. What's that guy doing in the parking lot?
 b. He's looking for his car or something. the speaker is necessarily committed to the truth of a very
In [16b.], the speaker is not committed to the presupposition large num ber of background entailments (only some of which
(he has a car) as an assumed fact. It is worth remembering are presented in [18 a.-d.]). On any occasion of utterance
that it is never the word or phrase that has a presupposition. [17], however, the speaker will indicate how these
Only speak ers can have presuppositions. entailments are to be ordered. That is, the speaker will
communicate, typically by stress, which entailment is
Ordered entailments assumed to be in the foreground, or more important for
interpreting intended meaning, than any others. For example,
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic concept
in uttering [19a.], the speaker indicates that the foreground
(i.e. having to do with speaker meaning), but instead is
entail ment, and hence her main assumption, is that Rover
considered a purely logical concept, symbolized by II-. Some
chased a certain number of squirrels.
examples of entailment for the sentence in [17] are presented
in [18]. a. Rover chased THREE squirrels.
b. ROVER chased three squirrels.
[17] Rover chased three squirrels. (=p) [18] a.
Something chased three squirrels. (= q) b. Rover did In [19b.], the focus shifts to Rover, and the main assumption
something to three squirrels. (= r) c. Rover chased is that something chased three squirrels. One function of
three of something. (= s) d. Something happened. (= stress in English is, in this approach, clearly tied to marking
t) the main assumption of the speaker in producing an
utterance. As such, it allows the speaker to mark for the
In representing the relationship of entailment between [17] listener what the focus of the message is, and what is being
and [18a.] as p II- q, we have simply symbolized a logical assumed.
con sequence. Let us say that in uttering the sentence in [17],

32 SURVEY PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT 33

A very similar function is exhibited by a structure called
an Ht cleft' construction in English, as shown in [20].
[20] a. It was ROVER that chased the squirrels,
b. It wasn't ME who took your money. Cooperation and implicature
In both examples in [20], the speaker can communicate what
he or she believes the listener may already be thinking (i.e. the
foreground entailment). In [20b.] that foreground entailment
(someone took your money) is being made the shared
knowledge in order for the denial of personal responsibility to
be made. The utterance in [20b.] can be used to attribute the
In much of the preceding discussion, we have assumed that
foreground entail ment to the listener(s) without actually
speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally
stating it (for example, as a possible accusation). It is one
cooperating with each other. For example, for reference to be
more example of more being com
suc cessful, it was proposed that collaboration was a
municated than is said.
necessary factor. In accepting speakers' presuppositions,
listeners normally have to assume that a speaker who says
 'my car' really does have the car that is mentioned and isn't have no communicative value since it expresses something
trying to mislead the listener. This sense of cooperation is completely obvious. The example in [1] and other apparently
simply one in which people having a con pointless expressions like 'business is business' or 'boys will
versation are not normally assumed to be trying to confuse, be boys', are called tautologies. If they are used in a
trick, or withhold relevant information from each other. In conversation, clearly the speaker intends to communicate
most cir cumstances, this kind of cooperation is only the more than is said.
starting point for making sense of what is said. When the listener hears the expression in [1], she first has to
In the middle of their lunch hour, one woman asks another assume that the speaker is being cooperative and intends to
how she likes the hamburger she is eating, and receives the com municate something. That something must be more than
answer in[i]. just what the words mean. It is an additional conveyed
[1] A hamburger is a hamburger. meaning, called an implicature. By stating [1], the speaker
expects that the
From a purely logical perspective, the reply in [1] seems to

34 SURVEY
COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE 35
listener will be able to work out, on the basis of what is Woman: He doesn't. But that's not my dog.
already known, the implicature intended in this context. One of the problems in this scenario has to do with
Given the opportunity to evaluate the hamburger, the communica tion. Specifically, it seems to be a problem caused
speaker of [i] has responded without an evaluation, thus one by the man's assumption that more was communicated than
implicature is that she has no opinion, either good or bad, to was said. It isn't a problem with presupposition because the
express. Depending on other aspects of the context, additional assumption in 'your dog' (i.e. the woman has a dog) is true for
implic both speakers. The problem is the man's assumption that his
atures (for example, the speaker thinks all hamburgers are the question 'Does your dog bite?' and the woman's answer 'No'
same) might be inferred. both apply to the dog in front of them. From the man's
Implicatures are primary examples of more being perspective, the woman's answer pro
communicated than is said, but in order for them to be vides less information than expected. In other words, she
interpreted, some basic cooperative principle must first be might be expected to provide the information stated in the last
assumed to be in operation. line. Of course, if she had mentioned this information earlier,
the story wouldn't be as funny. For the event to be funny, the
The cooperative principle woman has to give less information than is expected.
The concept of there being an expected amount of
Consider the following scenario. There is a woman sitting on
information provided in conversation is just one aspect of the
a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of
more general
the bench. A man comes along and sits down on the bench.
[z] Man: Does your dog bite? 36
Woman: No. 'dea that people involved in a conversation will cooperate
(The man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog
with ; cfo other. (Of course, the woman in [2] may actually be
bites the man's hand.)
indicat- 'ng that she does not want to take part in any
Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn't bite.
cooperative interac tion with the stranger.) In most
 circumstances, the assumption of cooperation is so pervasive Avoid obscurity of expression. .
that it can be stated as a cooperative principle of conversation Avoid ambiguity.
and elaborated in four sub-principles, called maxims, as 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). I
shown in Table 5.1. 4. Be orderly.
The cooperative principle: Make your conversational contribu \v B LE 5.1 The cooperative principle (following Grice 1975)
tion such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which It is important to recognize these maxims as unstated assump
you I are engaged. tions we have in conversations. We assume that people are
norm ally going to provide an appropriate amount of
I The maxims .. ^ information (unlike the woman in [2]); we assume that they
Quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as are telling the I truth, being relevant, and trying to be as clear
is required (for the as they can. Because these principles are assumed in normal
current purposes of the exchange). I 2. Do not make interaction, speakers rarely mention them. However, there are
your contribution more informative than is required. certain kinds of expres sions speakers use to mark that they
Quality Try to make your contribution one that is may be in danger of not fully
true. 11. Do not say what you believe to be false. I 2.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE 37
Relation Be relevant.
Manner Be perspicuous. .
SURVEY
The conversational context for the examples in [3] might be a
adhering to the principles. These kinds of expressions are recent rumor involving a couple known to the speakers.
Cautious notes, or hedges, of this type can also be used to
called hedges. show that the speaker is conscious of the quantity maxim, as
in the initial phrases in [4a.-c], produced in the course of a
Hedges speaker's account of her
The importance of the maxim of quality for cooperative recent vacation.
interac tion in English may be best measured by the number [4] a. As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs.
of expres sions we use to indicate that what we're saying may b. So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff
not be totally accurate. The initial phrases in jja.-c] and the and ran.
final phrase in [3d.] are notes to the listener regarding the
c. I won't bore you with all the details, but it was an excit
accuracy of the main statement.
[3] a. As far as I know, they're married. ing trip.
b. I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding Markers tied to the expectation of relevance (from the
ring on her finger. maxim of relation) can be found in the middle of speakers'
c. I'm not sure if this is right, but I heard it was a secret talk when they I say things like 'Oh, by the way' and go on
ceremony in Hawaii. to mention some poten tially unconnected information during
d. He couldn't live without her, I guess. a conversation. Speakers also seem to use expressions like
'anyway', or 'well, anyway', to indicate that they may have
 drifted into a discussion of some pos sibly non-relevant they are typically not 'as informative as is required' in the
material and want to stop. Some expressions which may act context, they are naturally inter
as hedges on the expectation of relevance are shown as the preted as communicating more than is said (i.e. the speaker
initial phrases in [5a.-c.], from an office meeting. knows the answer). This typical reaction (i.e. there must be
something special' here) of listeners to any apparent violation
of the maxims is actually the key to the notion of
38 SURVEY conversational implicature.
a. I don't know if this is important, but some of the
files are missing.
b. This may sound like a dumb question, but whose
hand writing is this?
c. Not to change the subject, but is this related to the
budget?
The awareness of the expectations of manner may also lead
speakers to produce hedges of the type shown in the initial
COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE
phrases in [6a.-c.], heard during an account of a crash.
Conversational implicature
[6] a. This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in
a car. The basic assumption in conversation is that, unless
b. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to the
lights. cooperative princi ple and the maxims. In example [7],
c. I don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the Dexter may appear to be vio lating the requirements of
other car was reversing. the quantity maxim.

All of these examples of hedges are good indications that the [7] Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the
speakers are not only aware of the maxims, but that they want cheese. Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.
to show that they are trying to observe them. Perhaps such After hearing Dexter's response in [7], Charlene has to
forms also communicate the speakers' concern that their assume that Dexter is cooperating and not totally
listeners judge them to be cooperative conversational unaware of the quan tity maxim. But he didn't mention
partners. the cheese. If he had brought the cheese, he would say
There are, however, some circumstances where speakers so, because he would be adhering to the quantity
may not follow the expectations of the cooperative principle. maxim. He must intend that she infer that what is not
In court rooms and classrooms, witnesses and students are mentioned was not brought. In this case, Dexter has
often called upon to tell people things which are already conveyed more than he said via a conversational
well-known to those people (thereby violating the quantity implicature.
maxim). Such specialized institutional talk is clearly different We can represent the structure of what was said, with
from conversation. b (= bread) and c (= cheese) as in [8]. Using the symbol
However, even in conversation, a speaker may 'opt out' of +> for an impli cature, we can also represent the
the maxim expectations by using expressions like 'No additional conveyed meaning. [8] Charlene: b & c?
comment' or 'My lips are sealed' in response to a question. Dexter: b (+>NOTc)
An interesting aspect of such expressions is that, although It is important to note that it is speakers who
 communicate mean ing via implicatures and it is A number of other generalized conversational
listeners who recognize those com municated meanings implicatures are commonly communicated on the basis
via inference. The inferences selected are those which of a scale of values and are consequently known as
will preserve the assumption of cooperation. scalar implicatures.

Generalized conversational implicatures Scalar implicatures

In the case of example [7], particularly as represented in Certain information is always communicated by
[8], no special background knowledge of the context of choosing a word which expresses one value from a
utterance is required in order to make the necessary scale of values. This is particu larly obvious in terms for
inferences. The same process of calculating the expressing quantity, as shown in the scales in [11],
implicature will take place if Doobie asks Mary about where terms are listed from the highest to the low est
inviting her friends Bella (= b) and Cathy (= c) to a value.
party, as in [9a.], and gets the reply in [9b.]. The context [11] < all, most, many, some, few> <
is dif always, often, sometimes>
ferent from [7], but the general process of identifying When producing an utterance, a speaker selects the
the implica ture is the same as in [8]. word from the scale which is the most informative and
[9] a. Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? truthful (quantity and quality) in the circumstances, as
(b&Cc?) b. Mary: I invited Bella. (b +>NOT c) in [12].
[12] I'm studying linguistics and I've completed some
40 SURVEY of the required courses.
When no special knowledge is required in the context By choosing 'some' in [12], the speaker creates an
to calcu late the additional conveyed meaning, as in [7] implicature (+> not all). This is one scalar implicature
to [9], it is called a generalized conversational of uttering [12]. The basis of scalar implicature is that,
implicature. One common example in English involves any when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all
phrase with an indefinite article of the type 'a/an X', forms higher on the scale is implic
such as 'a garden' and 'a child' as in [10]. These phrases ated. The first scale in [11] had 'all', 'most', and 'many',
are typically interpreted according to the generalized
conversa higher COOPERATION AND
tional implicature that: an X +> not speaker's X.
IMPLICATURE 41
[10] I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked
over the fence. than 'some'. Given the definition of scalar implicature, it
The implicatures in [10], that the garden and the child should follow that, in saying 'some of the required courses',
mentioned are not the speaker's, are calculated on the the speaker also creates other implicatures (for example, +>
principle that if the speaker was capable of being more not most, +> not many).
specific (i.e. more informative, following the quantity If the speaker goes on to describe those linguistics courses
maxim), then he or she would have said 'my garden' and as in [13], then we can identify some more scalar
'my child'. implicatures. [13] They're sometimes really interesting.
By using 'sometimes' in [13], the speaker communicates, via tonight ? Tom: My parents are visiting.
implicature, the negative of forms higher on the scale of In order to make Tom's response relevant, Rick has to draw
frequency (+> not always, +> not often). on some assumed knowledge that one college student in this
There are many scalar implicatures produced by the use of setting expects another to have. Tom will be spending that
expressions that we may not immediately consider to be part evening with his parents, and time spent with parents is
of any scale. For example, the utterance of [14a.] will be quiet (consequently +> Tom not at party).
interpreted as implicating '+> not certain' as a higher value Because they are by far the most common, particularized
on the scale of 'likelihood' and [14b.] '+> not must' on a con versational implicatures are typically just called
scale of 'obligation' and '+> not frozen' on a scale of implicatures. A further example, in which the speaker
'coldness'. appears not to adhere to (i.e. to 'flout') the maxim of
[14] a. It's possible that they were delayed, b. manner, is presented in [17]. [17] Ann: Where are you going
This should be stored in a cool place. with the dog?
Sam: TotheV-E-T.
One noticeable feature of scalar implicatures is that when
speakers correct themselves on some detail, as in [15], they In the local context of these speakers, the dog is known to re
typ ically cancel one of the scalar implicatures. cognize the word 'vet', and to hate being taken there, so Sam
pro duces a more elaborate, spelled out (i.e. less brief)
[15] I got some of this jewelry in Hong Kong—um version of his message, implicating that he doesn't want the
actually I think I got most of it there. dog to know the answer to the question just asked.
In [15], the speaker initially implicates '+> not most' by In [18], Leila has just walked into Mary's office and
saying 'some', but then corrects herself by actually asserting noticed all the work on her desk. Mary's response seems to
'most'. That final assertion is still likely to be interpreted, flout the maxim of relevance.
however, with a scalar implicature (+> not all). [18] Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy?
Mary: Let's go get some coffee.
Particularized conversational implicatures In order to preserve the assumption of cooperation, Leila
In the preceding examples, the implicatures have been will have to infer some local reason (for example, the boss
calculated without special knowledge of any particular may be nearby) why Mary makes an apparently
context. However, most of the time, our conversations take non-relevant remark. The implicature here is essentially that
place in very specific con texts in which locally recognized Mary cannot answer the question in that context.
inferences are assumed. Such inferences are required to In addition to these fairly prosaic examples of
work out the conveyed meanings which result from
implicatures, there are other more entertaining examples, as
particularized conversational implicatures. As an illustra in [19] and [20], where the responses initially appear to
tion, consider example [16], where Tom's response does not flout relevance.
appear on the surface to adhere to relevance. (A simply [19] Bert: Do you like ice-cream?
relevant answer would be 'Yes' or 'No'.) Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?
[ 16] Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party
42 SURVEY
COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE 43
[zo] Bert: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers? won five dollars, that's four more than one! We have already
Ernie: Do chickens have lips? noted with many of the previous examples that implicatures
In [19], Ernie's response does not provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer. can be calculated by the listeners via inference. In terms of
Bert must assume that Ernie is being cooperative, so he their defining properties, then, conversational
considers Ernie's 'Pope' question and clearly the answer is jmplicatures can be calculated, suspended, cancelled, and rein
'Yes'. So, the answer is known, but the nature of Ernie's forced. None of these properties apply to conventional
response also impli implicat ures.
cates that the answer to the question was 'Obviously, yes!'. An
additional conveyed meaning in such a case is that, because Conventional implicatures
the answer was so obvious, the question did not need to be In contrast to all the conversational implicatures discussed so
asked. Example [20] provides the same type of inferencing far, conventional implicatures are not based on the
with an answer 'Of course not!' as part of the implicature. cooperative prin ciple or the maxims. They don't have to occur
in conversation, and they don't depend on special contexts for
Properties of conversational implicatures their interpretation. Not unlike lexical presuppositions,
So far, all the implicatures we have considered have been conventional implicatures are associated with specific words
situated within conversation, with the inferences being made and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words
by people who hear the utterances and attempt to maintain the are used. The English conjunction 'but' is one of these words.
assumption of cooperative interaction. Because these The interpretation of any utterance of the type p but q will be
implicatures are part based on the conjunction p & q plus an implicature of
of what is communicated and not said, speakers can always 'contrast' between the information in p and the information in
deny that they intended to communicate such meanings. q. In [23], the fact that 'Mary suggested black' (= p) is
Conversational implicatures are deniable. They can be contrasted, via the conventional implicature of 'but', with my
explicitly denied (or alternatively, reinforced) in different choosing white (= q).
ways. To take a simple example, there is a standard [23] a. Mary suggested black, but I chose white,
implicature associated with stating a number, that the speaker b. p & q (+>p is in contrast to q)
means only that number, as shown in [21]. Other English words such as 'even' and 'yet' also have
[21] You have won five dollars! (+> ONLY five) As shown conven tional implicatures. When 'even' is included in any
in [2.2], however, it is quite easy for a speaker to sus pend the sentence describing an event, there is an implicature of
implicature (+> only) using the expression 'at least' [22a.], or 'contrary to ex pectation'. Thus, in [24] there are two events
to cancel the implicature by adding further informa tion, often reported (i.e. John's coming and John's helping) with the
following the expression 'in fact' [22b.], or to reinforce the conventional implicature of 'even' adding a 'contrary to
implicature with additional information, as in [22c.]. [22] a. expectation' interpretation of those events.
You've won at least five dollars! [24] a. Even John came to the party.
b. You've won five dollars, in fact, you've won ten! c. You've b. He even helped tidy up afterwards.
 The conventional implicature of 'yet' is that the present situa 'Dennis is here' (= p) to be true later, as indicated in [25b.].
tion is expected to be different, or perhaps the opposite, at a [2.5] a. Dennis isn't here yet. (=NOTp)
later time. In uttering the statement in [25a.], the speaker b. NOT p is true (+> p expected to be true later)
produces an implicature that she expects the statement

44 SURVEY
COOPERATION AND IMPLICATURE 45
It may be possible to treat the so-called different 'meanings' of utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they
'and' in English (discussed in Chapter i) as instances of conven perform actions via those utterances. If you work in a situation
tional implicature in different structures. When two statements where a boss has a great deal of power, then the boss's utterance of
containing static information are joined by 'and', as in [26a.], the the expression in [1] is more than just a statement.
implicature is simply 'in addition' or 'plus'. When the two state [1] You're fired.
ments contain dynamic, action-related information, as in [26b.], the
The utterance in [1] can be used to perform the act of ending your
implicature of 'and' is 'and then' indicating sequence.
employment. However, the actions performed by utterances do not
[26] a. Yesterday, Mary was happy have to be as dramatic or as unpleasant as in [1]. The action can be
and ready to work. (p &t q,+> p plus q) b. She put on quite pleasant, as in the compliment performed by [2a.], the
her clothes and left acknowledgement of thanks in [2b.], or the expression of sur
the house. (p &C q, +> q after p) prise in [2c.].
Because of the different implicatures, the two parts of [26a.] can be [2] a. You're so delicious.
reversed with little difference in meaning, but there is a big change b. You're welcome.
in meaning if the two parts of [26b.] are reversed. c. You're crazy!
For many linguists, the notion of 'implicature' is one of the Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts
central concepts in pragmatics. An implicature is certainly a prime and, in English, are commonly given more specific labels, such as
example of more being communicated than is said. For those same apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request.
linguists, another central concept in pragmatics is the observation These descriptive terms for different kinds of speech acts apply to
that utterances perform actions, generally known as 'speech acts'. the speaker's communicative intention in producing an utter ance.
The speaker normally expects that his or her communica tive
intention will be recognized by the hearer. Both speaker and hearer
are usually helped in this process by the circumstances surrounding
Speech acts and events the utterance. These circumstances, including other utterances, are
called the speech event. In many ways, it is the

In attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce

46 SURVEY SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 47

nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as performing a particular speech act. On a
wintry day, the speaker reaches for a cup of tea, believing that circumstances, you
it has been freshly made, takes a sip, and produces the
utterance in [3]. It is likely to be interpreted as a complaint.
48
[3] This tea is really cold! n\\ utter [4] on the assumption that the hearer will recognize
Changing the circumstances to a really hot summer's day with the effect you intended (for example, to account for a
the speaker being given a glass of iced tea by the hearer, wonderful mell or to get the hearer to drink some coffee).
taking a sip and producing the utterance in [3], it is likely to This is also gener ally known as the perlocutionary effect.
be interpreted as praise. If the same utterance can be Of these three dimensions, the most discussed is
interpreted as two different kinds of speech act, then illocutionary force. Indeed, the term 'speech act' is generally
obviously no simple one utterance to one action interpreted quite larrowly to mean only the illocutionary
correspondence will be possible. It also means that there is force of an utterance. The illocutionary force of an utterance
more to the interpretation of a speech act than can be found in is what it 'counts as'. The same locutionary act, as shown in
the utterance alone. [5a.], can count as a prediction kb.], a promise [5c], or a
warning [56..]. These different analyses kb.-d.] of the
Speech acts utterance in [5a.] represent different illocutionary forces.
[5] a. I'll see you later. (= A)
On any occasion, the action performed by producing an
b. [I predict that] A.
utterance will consist of three related acts. There is first a
c. [I promise you that] A.
locutionary act, which is the basic act of utterance, or
d. [I warn you that] A.
producing a meaningful lin guistic expression. If you have
difficulty with actually forming the sounds and words to One problem with the examples in [5] is that the same
create a meaningful utterance in a language (for example, utterance can potentially have quite different illocutionary
because it's foreign or you're tongue-tied), then you might fail forces (for ex ample, promise versus warning). How can
to produce a locutionary act. Producing 'Aha mokofa' in speakers assume that the intended illocutionary force will be
English will not normally count as a locutionary act, whereas recognized by the hearer? That question has been addressed
[4] will. by considering two things: Illocutionary Force Indicating
Devices and felicity conditions.
[4] I've just made some coffee.
Mostly we don't just produce well-formed utterances with no
IFIDs
purpose. We form an utterance with some kind of function in
mind. This is the second dimension, or the illocutionary act. The most obvious device for indicating the illocutionary force
(the Illocutionary Force Indicating Device, or IFID) is an expression of
The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative
the type shown in [6] where there is a slot for a verb that
force of an utterance. We might utter [4] to make a statement,
explicitly names the illocutionary act being performed. Such
an offer, an explanation, or for some other communicative
a verb can be called a performative verb (Vp).
purpose. This is also generally known as the illocutionary
force of the utterance. [6] 1 (Vp) you that...
We do not, of course, simply create an utterance with a In the preceding examples, [5c.,d.], 'promise' and 'warn' would
func tion without intending it to have an effect. This is the be the performative verbs and, if stated, would be very clear
third dimen sion, the perlocutionary act. Depending on the IFIDs. Speakers do not always 'perform' their speech acts so
 explicitly, but they sometimes describe the speech act being
per
SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 49
formed. Imagine the telephone conversation in [7], between a
man trying to contact Mary, and Mary's friend.
SURVEY
[7] Him: Can I talk to Mary? for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance
Her: No, she's not here. must be about a future event. A further content condition for a
Him: I'm asking you—can I talk to her? promise requires
Her: And I'm telling you—SHE'S NOT HERE! that the future event will be a future act of the speaker. The
In this scenario, each speaker has described, and drawn preparatory conditions for a promise are significantly differ
attention to, the illocutionary force ('ask' and 'tell') of their ent from those for a warning. When I promise to do
utterances. Most of the time, however, there is no something,
performative verb men tioned. Other IFIDs which can be
identified are word order, stress, and intonation, as shown in 50
the different versions of the same basic elements (Y-G) in [8]. there are two preparatory conditions: first, the event will not
hap pen by itself, and second, the event will have a beneficial
[8] a. You're going! [I tell you Y-G] effect. When I utter a warning, there are the following
b. You're going? [I request confirmation about Y-G] c. preparatory condi tions: it isn't clear that the hearer knows the
Are you going? [I ask you if Y-G] event will occur, the sneaker does think the event will occur,
While other devices, such as a lowered voice quality for a and the event will not have a beneficial effect. Related to
warn ing or a threat, might be used to indicate illocutionary these conditions is the sincerity condi tion that, for a
force, the utterance also has to be produced under certain promise, the speaker genuinely intends to carry out the future
conventional conditions to count as having the intended action, and, for a warning, the speaker genuinely
illocutionary force. believes that the future event will not have a beneficial effect.
Finally, there is the essential condition, which covers the fact
Felicity conditions that by the act of uttering a promise, I thereby intend to create
an obligation to carry out the action as promised. In other
There are certain expected or appropriate circumstances, tech words, the utterance changes my state from non-obligation to
nically known as felicity conditions, for the performance of a obligation. Similarly, with a warning, under the essential
speech act to be recognized as intended. For some clear cases, condition, the utter ance changes my state from
such as [9], the performance will be infelicitous non-informing of a bad future event to informing. This
(inappropriate) if the speaker is not a specific person in a essential condition thus combines with a specification of what
special context (in this case, a judge in a courtroom). must be in the utterance content, the con text, and the
[9] I sentence you to six months in prison. speaker's intentions, in order for a specific speech act to be
In everyday contexts among ordinary people, there are also appropriately (felicitously) performed.
pre conditions on speech acts. There are general conditions
on the par ticipants, for example, that they can understand the The performative hypothesis
language being used and that they are not play-acting or being
One way to think about the speech acts being performed via
nonsensical. Then there are content conditions. For example, utter ances is to assume that underlying every utterance (U)
 there is a clause, similar to [6] presented earlier, containing a ative verb (Vp) in the present tense and an indirect object in
performative verb (Vp) which makes the illocutionary force sec ond person singular ('you'). This underlying clause will
explicit. This is known as the performative hypothesis and always make explicit, as in [11b.] and [12b.], what, in
the basic format of the underlying clause is shown in [10]. utterances such as [na.] and [12a.], is implicit.
[10] I (hereby) Vp you (that) U [11] a. Clean up this mess!
In this clause, the subject must be first person singular (T), b. I hereby order you that you clean up this mess.
followed by the adverb 'hereby', indicating that the utterance
SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 51
'counts as' an action by being uttered. There is also a perform
SURVEY
[12] a. The work was done by Elaine and myself. than uttering the implicit version [11a.]. The two versions are
b. I hereby tell you that the work was done by Elaine con sequently not equivalent. It is also difficult to know
and myself. exactly what the performative verb (or verbs) might be for
Examples like [nb.] and [12b.] (normally without 'hereby'), are some utterances. Although the speaker and hearer might
used by speakers as explicit performatives. Examples like recognize the utterance in [14a.] as an insult, it would be very
[iia.] and [12a.] are implicit performatives, sometimes called strange to have [14b.] as an explicit version.
primary performatives. [14] a. You're dumber than a rock.
The advantage of this type of analysis is that it makes clear b. ? I hereby insult you that you're dumber than a
just what elements are involved in the production and rock. The really practical problem with any analysis based
interpretation of utterances. In syntax, a reflexive pronoun on identi
(like 'myself' in [12]) requires the occurrence of an antecedent
(in this case T) within the same sentence structure. The
52
explicit performative in [12b.] provides the T element.
fving explicit performatives is that, in principle, we simply do
Similarly, when you say to someone, 'Do it yourself!', the not know how many performative verbs there are in any
reflexive in 'yourself is made possible by the antecedent 'you' language. Instead of trying to list all the possible explicit
in the explicit version (T order you that you do it yourself). performatives, and then distinguish among all of them, some
Another advantage is to show that some adverbs such as more general classifications of types of speech acts are
'honestly', or adverbial clauses such as 'because I may be late', usually used.
as shown in [13], naturally attach to the explicit performative
clause rather than the implicit version.
Speech act classification
[13] a. Honestly, he's a scoundrel.
One general classification system lists five types of general
b. What time is it, because I may be late?
func tions performed by speech acts: declarations,
In [13a.], it is the telling part (the performative verb) that is representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives.
being done 'honestly' and, in [13 b.], it is the act of asking Declarations are those kinds of speech acts that change the
(the perform ative again) that is being justified by the 'because world via their utterance. As the examples in [15] illustrate,
I may be late' clause. the speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a
There are some technical disadvantages to the performative specific con text, in order to perform a declaration
hypothesis. For example, uttering the explicit performative ver appropriately.
sion of a command [11b.] has a much more serious impact
 [15] a. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and world (of belief).
wife. b. Referee: You're out! Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what
c. Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty. the speaker feels. They express psychological states and can
In using a declaration, the speaker changes the world via be state ments of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow.
words. Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that As illus trated in [17], they can be caused by something the
state what the speaker believes to be the case or not. speaker does or the hearer does, but they are about the
Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions, speaker's experience.
as illustrated in [16], are all examples of the speaker [17] a. I'm really sorry! b.
representing the world as he or she believes it is. Congratulations! c Oh, yes, great,
[16] a. The earth is flat. mmmm, ssahh!
b. Chomsky didn't write about peanuts.
c. It was a warm sunny day. SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 53
In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the
SURVEY
In using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world

Speech act type S = speaker;

(of feeling). Direction of fit
Directives are those kinds of speech acts that X = situation S causes X
Declarations
speakers use to get
someone else to do something. They illustrated in [18], they can be Directives the world make the world fit words
express what the speaker wants. positive or negative. [18] a. Gimme Commissives make the world fit words
They are commands, orders, a cup of coffee. Make it black. words change the world make S believes X S feels X S wants X S
Representatives Expressives words fit the world make words fit intends X
requests, suggestions, and, as
b. Could you lend me a pen, please? tures, are summarized in Table 6.1.
c. Don't touch that.
In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the Direct and indirect speech acts
words (via the hearer). A different approach to distinguishing types of speech acts can be
Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to made on the basis of structure. A fairly simple structural distinction
commit themselves to some future action. They express what the between three general types of speech acts is provided, in English, by
speaker intends. They are promises, threats, refusals, pledges, and, the three basic sentence types. As shown in [20], there is an easily
as shown in [19], they can be performed by the speaker alone, or by
recognized relationship between the three structural forms
the speaker as a member of a group.
(declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general
[19] a. I'll be back. communicative functions (statement, question, command/request).
b. I'm going to get it right next time. [20] a. You wear a seat belt. (declarative) b. Do you
c. We will not do that. wear a seat belt? (interrogative)
In using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to make the world c. Wear a seat belt! (imperative)
fit the words (via the speaker). Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a
These five general functions of speech acts, with their key fea TAB LE 6.1 The five general functions of speech
 acts (following Searle 1979) function, as in [22], where the speaker wants the addressee not to
stand in front of the TV. The basic function of all the utterances in
function, we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an in [22] is a command/request, but only the imperative structure in
direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have an [22a.] represents a direct speech act. The interrogative structure in
indirect speech act. Thus, a declarative used to make a statement is [22b.] is not being used only as a question, hence it is an in direct
a direct speech act, but a declarative used to make a request is an speech act. The declarative structures in [22c] and [22d.] are also
indirect speech act. As illustrated in [21], the utterance in [21a.] is a indirect requests.
declarative. When it is used to make a statement, as paraphrased in
[21b.], it is functioning as a direct speech act. When it is used to [22] a. Move out of the way!
make a command/request, as paraphrased in [21c], it is function b. Do you have to stand in front of the TV?
ing as an indirect speech act. c. You're standing in front of the TV.
d. You'd make a better door than a window.
[21] a. It's cold outside.
b. I hereby tell you about the weather. One of the most common types of indirect speech act in - nglish,
c. I hereby request of you that you close the door. as shown in [23], has the form of an interrogative, but is
Different structures can be used to accomplish the same basic

SURVEY
SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 55
not typically used to ask a question (i.e. we don't expect only able to, or CAN, perform the action. A content condition
an answer, we expect action). The examples in [23] are concerns future action, that the hearer WILL perform the
normally understood as requests. action. This pattern is illustrated in [24]. [24] Indirect requests
[2.3] a. Could you pass the salt? a. Content
b. Would you open this? [2.4c-]• Asking about preconditions technically doesn't count
Indeed, there is a typical pattern in English whereby asking a as making a request, but does allow the hearer to react 'as if
question about the hearer's assumed ability ('Can you?', 'Could the request had been made. Because a request is an
you?') or future likelihood with regard to doing something imposition by the speaker on the hearer, it is better, in most
('Will you?', 'Would you?') normally countsas a request to social circumstances, for the speaker to avoid a direct
actually do that something. imposition via a direct request. When the speaker asks about
preconditions, no direct request is made.
Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater
The preceding discussion is essentially about one person
politeness in English than direct speech acts. In order to under
trying to get another person to do something without risking
stand why, we have to look at a bigger picture than just a
refusal or causing offense. However, this type of situation
single utterance performing a single speech act.
does not consist of a single utterance. It is a social situation
involving participants who necessarily have a social
Speech events relationship of some kind, and who, on a specific occasion,
We can treat an indirect request (for example, the utterances in may have particular goals.
[23]) as being a matter of asking whether the necessary We can look at the set of utterances produced in this kind of
conditions for a request are in place. For example, a situ ation as a speech event. A speech event is an activity in
preparatory condition is that the speaker assumes the hearer is which par ticipants interact via language in some conventional
way to arrive at some outcome. It may include an obvious
 central speech act, such as 'I don't really like this', as in a typically a speech event, as illustrated in [25]. [25] Him: Oh,
speech event of 'complain ing', but it will also include other Mary, I'm glad you're here.
utterances leading up to and sub sequently reacting to that Her: What's up?
central action. In most cases, a 'request' is not made by means Him: I can't get my computer to work.
of a single speech act suddenly uttered. Requesting is Her: Is it broken?
(= hearer WILL Him: I don't know. I'm useless with
condition doX) computers. Her: What kind is it?
'WILL you do X?' Future act of Him: I don't think so. Him: It's a Mac. Do you use them?
hearer Her: What's it doing?
b. Preparatory Hearer is able to 'CAN you do X?' The usefulness of speech act analysis is in illustrating the
condition perform act kinds of things we can do with words and identifying some of
(= hearer CAN the con ventional utterance forms we use to perform specific
doX) actions. However, we do need to look at more extended
interaction to understand how those actions are carried out
c. Questioning a hearer-based condition for
arid interpreted within speech events.
making a request results in an indirect request.
There is a definite difference between asking someone to do
X and asking someone if the preconditions for doing X are in 58 SURVEY
place, as in
Politeness and interaction
56 SURVEY
Her: Yeah.
Him: Do you have a minute?
Her: Sure.
Him: Oh, great.
The extended interaction in [25] may be called a
In much of the preceding discussion, the small-scale
'requesting' speech event without a central speech act of scenarios presented to illustrate language in use have been
request. Notice that there is no actual request from 'him' to populated by people with virtually no social lives. Yet, much
'her' to do anything. we might characterize the question 'Do of what we say, and a great deal of what we communicate, is
you have a minute?' as a determined by our social relationships. A linguistic
interaction is necessarily a social interaction.
SPEECH ACTS AND EVENTS 57 In order to make sense of what is said in an interaction, we
'pre-request', allowing the receiver to say that she's busy or have to look at various factors which relate to social distance
that she has to be somewhere else. In this context, the and closeness. Some of these factors are established prior to
response 'Sure' is taken to be an acknowledgement not only an inter action and hence are largely external factors. They
of having time avail able, but a willingness to perform the typically involve the relative status of the participants, based
unstated action. The ana lysis of speech events is clearly on social values tied to such things as age and power. For
another way of studying how more gets communicated than example, speakers who see themselves as lower status in
is said.
 English-speaking contexts tend to mark social distance exist in the society at large. Within an interaction, however,
between themselves and higher status speakers by using there is a more narrowly specified type of politeness at work.
address forms that include a title and a last name, but not the In order to describe it, we need the concept of face.
first name (for example, Mrs Clinton, Mr Adams, Dr Dang). As a technical term, face means the public self-image of a
We take part in a wide range of interac tions (mostly with per son. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that
strangers) where the social distance deter every one has and expects everyone else to recognize.
mined by external factors is dominant. Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the means
However, there are other factors, such as amount of employed to show awareness of another person's face. In this
imposition or degree of friendliness, which are often sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social
negotiated during an interaction. These are internal to the distance or closeness. Showing awareness for another
interaction and can result in the initial social distance person's face when that other seems socially distant is often
changing and being marked as less, or more, during its described in terms of respect or deference. Showing the
course. This may result, for example, in partici equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often
pants moving from a title-plus-last name to a first-name basis described in terms of friendliness, cama raderie, or solidarity.
within the talk. These internal factors are typically more The first type might be found in a student's question to his
relevant to participants whose social relationships are teacher, shown as [ia.], and a second type in the friend's
actually in the process of being worked out within the question to the same individual, as in [ib.].
interaction. [i] a. Excuse me, Mr Buckingham, but can I talk to you for
a minute? b. Hey, Bucky,
POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 59
got a minute?
Both types of factors, external and internal, have an
influence not only on what we say, but also on how we are It follows from this type of approach that there will be
interpreted. In many cases, the interpretation goes beyond
what we might have intended to convey and includes different 60 SURVEY
evaluations such as 'rude' and 'inconsiderate', or 'considerate'
and 'thoughtful'. Recognizing the impact of such evaluations kinds of politeness associated (and marked linguistically)
makes it very clear that more is being communicated than is with the assumption of relative social distance or closeness.
said. The investigation of that impact is normally carried out In most £nglish-speaking contexts, the participants in an
in terms of politeness. interaction often have to determine, as they speak, the
relative social distance between them, and hence their 'face
Politeness wants'.
It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the
idea of 'polite social behavior', or etiquette, within a culture. It Face wants
is also possible to specify a number of different general In this discussion, let's assume that the participants involved
principles for being polite in social interaction within a in interactions are not living in a context which has created
particular culture. Some of these might include being tactful, rigidly fixed social relationships. Within their everyday
generous, modest, and sym social interac tions, people generally behave as if their
pathetic toward others. Let us assume that participants in an expectations concerning their public self-image, or their face
interaction are generally aware that such norms and principles
 wants, will be respected. If a speaker says something that importance of the other's time or concerns, and even include
represents a threat to another indi vidual's expectations an apology for the imposition or interruption. This is also
regarding self-image, it is described as a face threatening act. called negative politeness. A face saving act which is
Alternatively, given the possibility that some action might be concerned with the person's positive face will tend to show
interpreted as a threat to another's face, the speaker can say solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing,
something to lessen the possible threat. This is called a face and that they have a common goal. This is also called positive
saving act. politeness.
Imagine a late night scene, where a young neighbor is
playing his music very loud and an older couple are trying to Self and other: say nothing
sleep. One of them, in [2], proposes a face threatening act
and the other sug gests a face saving act. One way to see the relevance of the relationship between these
politeness concepts and language use is to take a single speech
[2] Him: I'm going to tell him to stop that awful noise event and map out the different interpretations associated with
right now! different possible expressions used within that event. For exam
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to ple, you arrive at an important lecture, pull out your notebook
stop soon because it's getting a bit late and to take notes, but discover that you don't have anything to
people need to write with. You think that the person sitting next to you may
get to sleep. provide the solution. In this scenario, you are going to be
Because it is generally expected that each person will 'Self, and the person next to you is going to be 'Other'.
attempt to respect the face wants of others, there are many Your first choice is whether to say something or not. You
different ways of perfoiming face saving acts. can, of course, rummage in your bag, search rather obviously
through your pockets, go back into your bag, without uttering
Negative and positive face a word, but with the vague intention that your problem will be
recognized. This 'say nothing' approach may or may not
When we attempt to save another's face, we can pay attention
work, but if it does, it's because the other offers and not
to their negative face wants or their positive face wants. A
because the self asks, as in [3].
person's negative face is the need to be independent, to have
freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. The [3] Self: (looks in bag)
word 'negative' Other: (offers pen) Here, use this.
Many people seem to prefer to have their needs recognized by
POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 6l others without having to express those needs in language.
here doesn't mean 'bad', it's just the opposite pole from When those needs are recognized, as in [3], then clearly more
'positive'. A person's positive face is the need to be accepted, has been communicated than was said.
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. 62 SURVEY
In simple terms, neg Say something: off and on record
ative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the Even if you decide to say something, you don't actually have
need to be connected. to ask for anything. You can (perhaps after your search
So, a face saving act which is oriented to the person's through your bag) simply produce a statement of the type in
negative face will tend to show deference, emphasize the
[4a.] or [4b.]. [4] a. Uh, I forgot my pen. considered appropriate among social equals.
b. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen. However, generally speaking, bald on record expressions are
These, and other similar types of statement, are not directly associated with speech events where the speaker assumes that
addressed to the other. The other can act as if the statements he or she has power over the other (for example, in military
have not even been heard. They are technically described as con texts) and can control the other's behavior with words. In
being off record. In casual descriptions, they might be every day interaction between social equals, such bald on
referred to as 'hints'. Once again, an off record statement may record behavior would potentially represent a threat to the
or may not succeed (as a means of getting a pen), but if it other's face and would generally be avoided. Avoiding a face
does, it will be because more has been communicated than threatening act is accomplished by face saving acts which use
was said. positive or negative politeness strategies.
In contrast to such off record statements, you can directly
address the other as a means of expressing your needs. These Positive and negative politeness
direct address forms are technically described as being on
record. The most direct approach, using imperative forms A positive politeness strategy leads the requester to appeal to
such as those in [5], is known as bald on record. The other a common goal, and even friendship, via expressions such as
person is directly asked for something. those in [8].

[5] a. Give me a pen. b. [8] a. How about letting me use your pen?
Lend me your pen. b. Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me use your
pen.
These bald on record forms may be followed by expressions
like 'please' and 'would you?' which serve to soften the These on record expressions do represent a greater risk for the
demand and are called mitigating devices. speaker of suffering a refusal and may be preceded by some
It is tempting to equate the bald on record approach with all 'get ting to know you' talk, of the kind presented in [9],
direct command forms (i.e. imperatives). This would be designed to
misleading because imperative forms are often used by close establish the necessary common ground for this strategy. [9]
familiars without bsing interpreted as commands. Examples Hi. How's it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be inter
would be a friend of ested in the same crazy stuff. You take a lot of notes too,
fering something to eat, as in [6a.], or trying to help you, as huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me use one of your
in [6b.]. [6] a. Have some more cake. b. pens.
Gimme that wet umbrella. However, in most English-speaking contexts, a face saving act
Emergency situations also occasion the use of direct is more commonly performed via a negative politeness
commands, regardless of who is being addressed, as when strategy. The most typical form used is a question containing
danger prompts use of the expressions in [7]. a modal verb such as [10a.].
[7] a. Don't touch that! [10] a. Could you lend me a pen?
b. Get out of here! b. I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen
or something?
POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 63 c. I know you're busy, but might I ask you if—em—if
There are, consequently, some social circumstances where
using a direct command as a bald on record expression is
you 64 SURVEY a type of expression that is less direct, potentially less clear,
generally longer, and with a more complex structure means
happen to have an extra pen that I could, you that the speaker is making a greater effort, in terms of
know—eh— maybe borrow? concern for face (i.e. po
Using this strategy also results in forms which contain expres liteness), than is needed simply to get the basic message
sions of apology for the imposition, of the type shown in across efficiently.
[10b.]. More elaborate negative politeness work can These observations are summarized in Figure 7.1 overleaf.
sometimes be heard
in extended talk, often with hesitations, similar to that shown in Strategies
[IOC.].
The tendency to use positive politeness forms, emphasizing
It is worth noting that negative politeness is typically
close ness between speaker and hearer, can be seen as a
expressed via questions, even questions that seem to ask for
solidarity strategy. This may be the principal operating
permission to ask a question (for example,'Might I ask ...?')
strategy among a whole group or it may be an option used by
as in [10c.]. On the surface, such questions present an
an individual speaker on a particu lar occasion. Linguistically,
opportunity for the other to answer in the negative to the
such a strategy will include personal information, use of
question without the same refusal effect of responding with a
nicknames, sometimes even abusive terms (particularly
negative to a direct, bald on record imperative. (This
among males), and shared dialect or slang expres sions.
distinction is an important motivation for the distinction
Frequently, a solidarity strategy will be marked via inclusive
between direct and indirect speech acts, discussed already.)
terms such as 'we' and 'let's', as in the party invitation in [11].
Even more relevant for our concern with the pragmatics of
lan guage in use, the availability of the bald on record form, as
well as off record forms, means that the use of a face-saving POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 65
on record form represents a significant choice. The choice of
How to get a pen from someone else be helpful in understanding how participants in an
interaction inevitably understand more than is said.
say something say nothing (but search in bag) The basic assumption, from the per spective of
Pre-sequences politeness, is that face is typically at risk when the self
As already suggested, the concept of face saving may
on record involving other. The greatest risk bald on record ('Give me a pen') \
appears to be when the other is put in a the potentially risky act. For example,
I face
difficult position. One way of avoiding rather than simply make a request,
off record risk is to provide an opportunity for the speakers will often first produce what
('I forgot my pen') other to halt can be described as
needs to accomplish something
saving act

positive politeness negative politenesss ('How about letting me use

your pen?') ('Could you lend me a pen?')
FIGURE 7.1 How to get a pen from someone else
(following Brown and Levinson 1987)
 [13] Her: Are you busy? (= pre-request) Him: Not
[11] Come on, let's go to the party. Everyone will be there. really. (= go ahead)
We'll have fun.
Her: Check over this memo. (= request)
The tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing the Him: Okay. (= accept)
a pre-request. We already noted one example in discussing The advantage of the pre-request element is that it can be
speech events earlier, at the end of Chapter 6. Another is answered either with a 'go-ahead' response, as in [13], or with
presented as [ 13 ], along with one analysis of the structure of a 'stop'response, as in [14].
this interaction.
hearer's right to freedom, can be seen occasion. A deference strategy is sorry.
as a deference strategy. It can be the involved in what (= pre
typical strategy of a whole group or [14] Him: Are you busy? Her: Oh, request) (= stop)
just an option used on a particular
is called 'formal politeness'. It is impersonal, as if nothing is The response in [14] allows the speaker to avoid making a
shared, and can include expressions that refer to neither the request that cannot be granted at the time. Understanding that
speaker nor the hearer (for example, 'Customers may not it is a response to a pre-request also allows us to interpret the
smoke here, sir'). The language associated with a deference expres sion 'sorry', not only as an apology about being busy,
strategy emphasizes the speaker's and the hearer's but also as an apology about being unable to respond to the
independence, marked via an absence of personal claims, as anticipated request.
in [12.], an alternative ver sion of the party invitation in [11]. 1 here is, however, a general pattern of pre-requests actually
[12] There's going to be a party, if you can make it. It will being treated as requests and being responded to, as in [15],
be fun. with the (unstated, hoped for) action being performed.
These general types of strategies are illustrated here via utter [15] Her: Do you have a spare pen?
ances which are actually central to the speech event (for Him: Here, (hands over a pen)
example, invitation). Face saving behavior, however, is often This 'short-cut' process of going from pre-request to granting
at work well before such utterances are produced, in the form of request helps explain the literal oddness of the common
of pre-sequences. pattern in [16].
, y ( p)

66 SURVEY POLITENESS AND INTERACTION 6j

[i6] Her: Do you mind if I use your phone? invitations. As illustrated in [17], with a 'go ahead', and [18],
Him: Yeah, sure. with a 'stop', inviters tend to ask a pre-invitation question
As a literal response, 'Yeah' or 'Yeah, sure' would be the equi and receivers tend to recognize their function.
valent of 'I do mind' and wouldn't count as allowing use of the structure for the interaction. That structure must now be
phone. However, these forms are normally interpreted as a analyzed because it is our comfortable familiarity with its
posi tive response, not to the pre-request, but to the unstated regularity that allows a great deal to be communicated that is
request. Pre-sequences are also commonly used in making never said.
 Him: Come over for
dinner. Her: Oh, I'd like
that.
[18] Him: Are you doing
anything later?
Her: Oh, yeah. Busy, busy,
[17] Him: What are you
busy. Him: Oh, okay.
doing this Friday?
(= pre-invitation) (= go invitation) (= accept)
ahead) (=
(= pre-invitation) (= stop)
Her: Hmm, nothing so far. (= stop)

Children often use pre-announcements to check if their

parents are willing to pay attention, as-in example [19].
[19] Child: Mom, guess
(= pre-announcement) (=
what happened? Mother:
(Silence) Child: Mom, you pre-announcement)
know
what? Mother: Not
right now, Jacy, (= stop)
I'm busy.
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 inter
preted 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

68 SURVEY POLITENESS AND INTERACTION

Conversation and preference

structure
The previous chapter focused on aspects of social awareness which can have an impact on what gets communicated by
what is said during an interaction. The term 'interaction' could actually apply to a very large number of quite different
social encounters. For example, a teacher talking to students in a classroom is one kind of interaction; others include a
doctor talking to a patient in a clinic, or individuals taking part in courtroom proceedings, attending a committee
other different experiences people have in which there is interper
meeting, buying stamps at the post office, and dozens of
sonal exchange of talk. The kind of talk is likely to differ according to the different contexts of interaction. However, the
structure of the talk, the basic pattern of T speak—you speak—I speak—you speak', will derive from that fundamental
acquire first and use most often. This is the structure of conversa
kind of interaction we tion. Conversation structure is
what we have been assuming as familiar throughout much of the preceding discussion. It is time to look more closely at
that structure as a crucial aspect of pragmatics.

Conversation analysis
There are many metaphors used to describe conversation struc ture. For some, conversation is like a dance, with the

conversa
tional partners coordinating their movements smoothly. For others it's like traffic crossing an intersection,
involving lots of alternating movement without any crashes. However, the most widely used analytic approach is based,
not on dancing (there's no music) nor on traffic flow (there are no traffic signals), but on an analogy with the workings of
a market economy.

CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE 71

In this market, there is a scarce commodity called the floor which system is needed most at those points where there is a poss ible
can be defined as the right to speak. Having control of this scarce change in who has the turn. Any possible change-of-turn point is
commodity at any time is called a turn. In any situation where called a Transition Relevance Place, or TRP. Within any social
control is not fixed in advance, anyone can attempt to get control. group, there will be features of talk (or absence of talk) typ ically
This is called turn-taking. Because it is a form of social action, associated with a TRP.
turn-taking operates in accordance with a local manage This type of analytic metaphor provides us with a basic per
ment system that is conventionally known by members of a social spective in which speakers having a conversation are viewed as
group. The local management system is essentially a set of con taking turns at holding the floor. They accomplish change of turn
ventions for getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away. This smoothly because they are aware of the local management system
 for taking those turns at an appropriate TRP. The metaphor can be [2] Jan: Dave I'm going to the store.
applied to those conversations where speakers cooperate and share (2 seconds)
the floor equally. It can also be used to describe those con Jan: Dave?
versations where speakers seem to be in competition, fighting to (2 seconds)
keep the floor and preventing others from getting it. These pat terns Jan: Dave—is something wrong?
of conversational interaction differ substantially from one social Dave: What? What's wrong? Jan:
group to another. In order to illustrate the system at work, we will Never mind.
focus on the conventions of one social group—middle class English
speakers in public—while remaining aware that other social groups Silence at a TRP is not as problematic for the local management
will have substantially different assumptions about the meaning of system as overlap. If the expectation is that only one person speaks
various features. at a time, then overlap can be a serious problem. Returning to
example [1], the final two lines illustrate overlaps, conventionally
marked by a double slash (//) at the beginning of the overlapping
Pauses, overlaps, and backchannels talk. Typically, the first overlap occurs as both speakers attempt to
Most of the time, conversation consists of two, or more, particip ants initiate talk. In accordance with the local management system, one
speaker will stop to allow the other to have the floor. However, for
taking turns, and only one participant speaking at any time. Smooth
two speakers who are having difficulty getting into a shared
transitions from one speaker to the next seem to be val ued.
conversational rhythm, the stop-start-overlap-stop pattern may be
Transitions with a long silence between turns or with sub stantial
repeated.
overlap (i.e. both speakers trying to speak at the same time) are felt
to be awkward. When two people attempt to have a conversation
and discover that there is no 'flow', or smooth CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE 73
The type of overlap shown in [i] is simply part of a difficult
72 SURVEY
first conversation with an unfamiliar person. There are other
rhythm to their transitions, much more is being communicated than
kinds of overlap and they are interpreted differently. For
is said. There is a sense of distance, an absence of familiarity or
ease, as in the interaction shown in [1] between a student and his many (often younger) speakers, overlapped talk appears to
friend's father during their first meeting. function like an expression of solidarity or closeness in
[1] Mr. Strait: What's your major Dave? expressing similar opin ions or values. As shown in [3], the
Dave: English—well I haven't really decided yet. (3 effect of the overlapping talk creates a feeling of two voices
seconds) collaborating as one, in harmony. [3] Min: Did you see him
Mr. Strait: So—you want to be a teacher? in the video?
Dave: No—not really—well not if I can help it. Wendy: Yeah—the part on the beach
(2.5 seconds) Min: Oh my god//he was so sexy
Mr. Strait: Wha—//Where do you— go ahead Dave: I
Wendy: he was just being so cool Min: And all the
mean it's a—oh sorry //1 em—
waves // crashing around him!
As shown in [1], very short pauses (marked with a dash) are simply Wendy: yeah that was really wild!
hesitations, but longer pauses become silences. The silences in [1]
are not attributable to either speaker because each has completed a In example [3], overlap communicates closeness. In example
turn. If one speaker actually turns over the floor to another and the [4], overlap communicates competition.
other does not speak, then the silence is attrib [4] Joe: when they were in
uted to the second speaker and becomes significant. It's an attrib //power las— wait CAN I FINISH?
utable silence. As shown in [2], the non-response of Dave is
Jerry: that's my point I said—
treated, by his girlfriend, as possibly communicating something.
 In example [4], the speakers may appear to be having a discus c. Didn't you know about Melvin?—oh it was last
sion, but they are, in fact, competing for the floor. The point October ...
at which overlap occurs is treated as an interruption and the d. Did you hear about Cindy's new car?—she got it in
first speaker actually has to make a comment about ... The expressions in [6a.] and [6b.] are associated with
procedure (with a louder voice, shown by the capital letters discus sions of facts or opinions whereas those in [6c] and
in 'CAN I FINISH?') rather than about the topic of [6d.] are pre ludes to storytelling. In all cases, they are used
conversation. to get the regular exchange of turn process suspended and
By drawing attention to an expectation that he should be allow one speaker to have an extended turn. Within an
allowed to finish, the first speaker in [4] is appealing to some extended turn, however, speakers still expect their
of the unstated 'rules' of conversation structure. Each conversational partners to indicate that they are listening.
potential speaker is expected to wait until the current speaker There are many different ways of doing this, including head
reaches a TRP. The most obvious markers of a TRP are the nods, smiles, and other facial expressions and gestures, but
end of a struc tural unit (a phrase or clause) and a pause. the most common vocal indications are called backchannel
Notice that, in [4], the first speaker has uttered 'when they signals, or simply backchannels. Some of these are present in
were in—' at the point where the second speaker begins to Mary's con tributions to [7].
talk. There is no pause and it is not the end of a phrase or L7l Caller: if you use your long distance service a lot then
clause. This is a clear interruption and breaks the 'rules'. you'll Mary: uh-uh
Normally, those who wish to get the floor will wait for a poss Caller: be interested in the discount I'm talking about
ible TRP before jumping in. Of course, those holding the because Mary: yeah
floor in a competitive environment will avoid providing Caller: it can only save you money to switch to a
TRPs. To do so, cheaper service Mary: mmm
These types of signals ('uh-uh', 'yeah', 'mmm') provide
74 SURVEY feedback to the current speaker that the message is being
they must avoid an open pause at the end of a syntactic unit. received. They nor mally indicate that the listener is
As illustrated in [5], the speaker fills each of his pauses ('um' following, and not objecting to,
or 'uh'), which are placed inside, not at the end of, syntactic
units. (Just prior to this turn, another speaker had attempted CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE 75
to take the floor, so the speaker in [5] seems concerned to what the speaker is saying. Given this normal expectation, the
protect his turn.) absence of backchannels is typically interpreted as
significant. During telephone conversations, the absence of
[5] I wasn't talking about—um his first book that was—uh
backchannels may prompt the speaker to ask if the listener is
really just like a start and so—uh isn't—doesn't count
still there. During face-to
really.
face interaction, the absence of backchannels may be
Another type of floor-holding device is to indicate that interpreted as a way of withholding agreement, leading to an
there is a larger structure to your turn by beginning with inference of dis agreement. In conversation, silence is
expressions of the type shown in [6]. significant and will be inter preted as meaningful.
[6] a. There are three points I'd like to make—first... b.
There's more than one way to do this—one example
Conversational style
would be ...
 Many of the features which characterize the turn-taking [8] Anna: Hello. Bill: Hi.
system of conversation are invested with meaning by their [9] Anna: How are you? Bill: Fine.
users. Even within a broadly defined community of speakers, [10] Anna: Seeya! Bill: Bye.
there is often sufficient variation to cause potential These automatic sequences are called adjacency pairs.
misunderstanding. For example, some individuals expect that They always consist of a first part and a second part,
participation in a conversation will be very active, that produced by differ ent speakers. The utterance of a first part
speaking rate will be relatively fast, with almost no pausing immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a
between turns, and with some overlap or even completion of second part of the same pair. Failure to produce the second
the other's turn. This is one conversational style. It has been part in response will be treated as a significant absence and
called a high involvement style. It differs substantially from hence meaningful. There is substantial variation in the forms
another style in which speakers use a slower rate, expect which are used to fill the slots in adjacency pairs, as shown
longer pauses between turns, do not overlap, and avoid in [11], but there must always be two parts.
interruption or comple tion of the other's turn. This [11] First Part Second Part
non-interrupting, non-imposing style has been called a high A: What's up? B: Nothin'much.
considerateness style. A: How's it goin'? B: Jus' hangin' in there.
When a speaker who typically uses the first style gets into a A: How are things? B: The usual.
con versation with a speaker who normally uses the second A: Howyadoin'? B: Can't complain.
style, the talk tends to become one-sided. The active The examples in [11] are typically found in the opening
participation style will tend to overwhelm the other style. sequences of a conversation. Other types of adjacency pairs
Neither speaker will necessarily recognize that it is the are illustrated in [12], including a question-answer sequence
conversational styles that are slightly differ ent. Instead, the [12a.], a thanking response [12b.], and a request-accept
more rapid-fire speaker may think the slower paced speaker [12c.].
just doesn't have much to say, is shy, and perhaps boring or
[12] First Part Second Part
even stupid. In return, he or she is likely to be viewed as
a. A: What time is it? B: About eight-thirty.
noisy, pushy, domineering, selfish, and even tiresome.
b. A: Thanks. B: You're welcome.
Features of conversational style will often be interpreted as
c. A: Could you help
personality traits.
me with this? B: Sure.
Not all first parts immediately receive their second parts,
Adjacency pairs how ever. It often happens that a question-answer sequence
Despite differences in style, most speakers seem to find a way will be delayed while another question-answer sequence
to cope with the everyday business of social interaction. intervenes. The sequence will then take the form of
They are Q1-Q2-A2-A1, with the middle pair (Q2-A2) being called an
insertion sequence. Although there appears to be a question
j6 SURVEY (Q2) in response to a question (Qi), the assumption is that
certainly helped in this process by the fact that there are once the second part (A2) of the
many almost automatic patterns in the structure of
conversation. Some clear examples are the greetings and CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE JJ
goodbyes shown in [8] to [10]. insertion sequence is provided, the second part (Ai) of the initial
 question (Qi) will follow. This pattern is illustrated in [13]. [13] lihood is called preference. The term is used to indicate a socially
Agent: Do you want the early flight? (=Qi) Client: What time does determined structural pattern and does not refer to any individ
it arrive? (= Q2) ual's mental or emotional desires. In this technical use of the
Agent: Nine forty-five. (= Az) word, preference is an observed pattern in talk and not a personal
Client: Yeah—that's great. (=Ai) wish.
An insertion sequence is one adjacency pair within another. Preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dis
Although the expressions used may be question-answer preferred social acts. The preferred is the structurally expected
sequences, other forms of social action are also accomplished next act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next
within this pattern. As shown in [14], there is a pair which con act. (The general patterns are presented in Table 8.1.) First part
sists of making a request—accepting the request (Q1-A1), with an Second part
insertion sequence of a question-answer pair (Q2-A2) which Preferred Dispreferred
seems to function as a condition on the acceptance (Ai) being
Assessment agree disagree
provided.
Invitation accept refuse
(Qi = Request) Offer accept decline
[14] Jean: Could you mail this letter Proposal agree disagree
forme? Request accept refuse
Fred: Does it have a stamp on it?
ance is structurally more likely than a refusal. This structural like
Jean: Yeah. Fred: Okay. (Ai = Acceptance) preferred and dispreferred
(Az) TAB LE 8.1 The general patterns of
The delay in acceptance in example [14], an acceptance. An accept
created by the insertion sequence, is one type of indication
that not all first parts necessarily receive the kind of second
78
parts the speaker might anticipate. Delay in response
structures (following Levinson 1983)
symbolically marks potential unavailability of the immediate
(i.e. normally automatic) expected answer. Delay represents In considering requests or offers as first parts, acceptance is
distance between what is expected and what is provided. the preferred and refusal is the dispreferred second part. In
Delay is always interpreted as meaningful. In order to see examples [i5a.-d.], the responses in each second part all
how delay is locally interpreted, we need some analytic terms represent pre ferreds. Thus, acceptance or agreement is the
for what is expected within certain types of adjacency pairs. preferred second part response to a request [15a.], an offer
[15b.], an assessment [15c], or a proposal [isd.].
Preference structure [15] First Part - . Second Part a. Can you help me?
Sure.
Adjacency pairs are not simply contentless noises in sequence. b. Want some coffee? . Yes, please.
They represent social actions, and not all social actions are c. Isn't that really great? " ~ Yes, it is.
equal when they occur as second parts of some pairs. d. Maybe we could go for a walk. That'd be great. To
Basically, a first part that contains a request or an offer is get a sense of how expected these preferred second parts are
typically made in the expectation that the second part will be in the examples in [15], imagine each of the first parts being
 met with silence. We might say that in any adjacency pair,
silence in the second part is always an indication of a CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE 79
dispreferred response.
SURVEY
Indeed, silence often leads the first speaker to revise the first Hesitations and prefaces are also found in dispreferred
part in order to get a second part that is not silence from the second parts to invitations, as shown in [18].
other speaker. This may be clearer via an example, such as [18] Becky: Come over for some coffee later.
[16], where Jack's silence in response to Sandy's comment Wally: Oh—eh—I'd love to—but you
prompts Sandy to restate her assessment. Jack then agrees (a see—I—I'm supposed to get this
preferred) with Sandy's assessment. finished—you know.
[i 6] Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food As is often the case, the expression of a refusal (a dispreferred
there. (1.6 seconds) second) can be accomplished without actually saying 'no'.
Sandy: Hmm—I guess the food isn't great. Jack: Nah—people Something that isn't said nevertheless gets communicated in
mostly go for the music. Notice that Jack's silence occurs [18]. After a preface ('Oh') and a hesitation ('eh'), the second
where he would have had to produce a disagreement (i.e. a speaker in [18] produces a kind of token acceptance ('I'd love
dispreferred to') to show appreciation of the invitation. Then, the other's
response) regarding Sandy's assessment. Non-response understanding is invoked ('you see') and an account is
communicates that the speaker is not in a position to presented ('I'm supposed to get this finished') to explain what
provide the preferred response. prevents the speaker from accepting the invitation. There is
However, silence as a response is an extreme case, almost also a meaning conveyed here that the speaker's
risk ing the impression of non-participation in the circumstances are beyond his control because of an
conversational structure. Generally speaking, when obligation ('I'm supposed to') and, once again, the inviter's
participants have to produce second part responses that are understanding ('you know') is invoked.
dispreferred, they indicate that they are doing something very The patterns associated with a dispreferred second in
marked. English are presented as a series of optional elements in
In example [17], the first speaker has made a statement that [19]. [19] How to do a dispreferred Examples
the second speaker appears to disagree with. Agreement pause; er; em; ah
would be the
preferred second part, eliciting a response other). There is a delay ('em', plus pause) in to say what is being stated.
such as 'Yeah' or even 'I think so'. The getting started and the actual statement a. delay/hesitate
second speaker (Julie) finds herself in the which indicates disagreement only comes b. preface
position of producing a dispreferred. after a preface ('well'), an appeal to the views c. express doubt
[17] Cindy: So chiropodists do hands I guess. of others ('out there'), and a stumbling
Julie: Em—well—out there—they they repetition ('they they'). Even the state ment d. token Yes
contains an expression ('mostly') which e. apology
mostly work on people's feet.
makes the informa tion less challenging to f. mention obligation
Julie's dispreferred second part is marked the claim in the first part. The overall
with initial hesitations, as if it is difficult to effect is that this speaker is presenting herself g. appeal for understanding h. make it
perform this action (essentially correcting the as having difficulty and is unwilling to have non-personal
 expected in Y
i. give an account well; oh you see; you know everybody else; out there
I'm not sure; I don't know too much work; no time left
j. use mitigators that's great; I'd love to I'm sorry; what a pity I really; mostly; sort of; kinda
must do X; I'm I guess not; not possible
k. hedge the negative

80
SURVEY
CONVERSATION AND PREFERENCE STRUCTURE 8l
The overwhelming effect of a dispreferred is that more time
and more language are used than in a preferred. More language
essen tially represents more distance between the end of the
first part and the end of the second part. From a pragmatic
perspective, the expression of a preferred (in response to an
offer or invitation, for example) clearly represents closeness
and quick connection. The expression of a dispreferred, as
mapped out in [19], would represent distance and lack of
connection. From a social perspect
ive, it is easy to see why participants in a conversation might try
to avoid creating contexts for dispreferreds. One obvious
device for accomplishing this is to use those pre-sequences
described at the end of Chapter 7. The best way to avoid a 82
dispreferred second is not to get to the point where a first part
of the pair is uttered. It must follow, then, that conversations
between those who are close familiars will tend to have fewer
Discourse and culture
elaborate dispreferreds than conversations between those who
are still working out their social relationship. The amount of
talk employed to accomplish a particular social action in
conversation is a pragmatic indicator of the relative distance
between the participants.
The emphasis in the preceding chapter was on the sequential
structure of conversation, particularly on aspects of the turn
taking procedures for control of the floor, with less attention
paid to what speakers had to say once they got the floor.
Having gained the floor, speakers have to organize the structure
and content of what they want to say. They have to package
their messages in accordance with what they think their
listeners do and do not know, as well as sequence everything in
 a coherent way. If those speakers decide to write out their
messages, creating written text, they no longer have listeners Discourse analysis
providing immediate interactive feedback. Consequently, they
have to rely on more explicit struc Discourse analysis covers an extremely wide range of
tural mechanisms for the organization of their texts. In this activities, from the narrowly focused investigation of how
expanded perspective, speakers and writers are viewed as using words such as 'oh' or 'well' are used in casual talk, to the study
language not only in its interpersonal function (i.e. taking part of the dominant ideo logy in a culture as represented, for
in social interaction), but also in its textual function (i.e. example, in its educational or political practices. When it is
creating well-formed and appropriate text), and also in its restricted to linguistic issues, dis course analysis focuses on the
ideational func tion (i.e. representing thought and experience record (spoken or written) of the
in a coherent way). Investigating this much broader area of the
DISCOURSE AND CULTURE 83
form and function of what is said and written is called
discourse analysis.
SURVEY
process by which language is used in some context to express Generally, what language users have most in mind is an
intention. assump tion of coherence, that what is said or written will
Naturally, there is a great deal of interest in the structure of make sense in terms of their normal experience of things.
dis course, with particular attention being paid to what makes That 'normal' experi ence will be locally interpreted by each
a well formed text. Within this structural perspective, the individual and hence will be tied to the familiar and the
focus is on topics such as the explicit connections between expected. In the neighborhood where I live, the notice in [ia.]
sentences in a text that create cohesion, or on elements of means that someone is selling plants, but the notice in [ib.]
textual organization that are characteristic of storytelling, for does not mean that someone is sell ing garages.
example, as distinct from opinion expressing and other text
types. [i] a. Plant Sale
b. Garage Sale
However, within the study of discourse, the pragmatic
perspective is more specialized. It tends to focus specifically Although these notices have an identical structure, they are
on aspects of what is unsaid or unwritten (yet communicated) inter preted differently. Indeed, the interpretation of [ib.], that
within the discourse being analyzed. In order to do the some one is selling household items from their garage, is one
pragmatics of dis that requires some familiarity with suburban life.
course, we have to go beyond the primarily social concerns of This emphasis on familiarity and knowledge as the basis of
interaction and conversation analysis, look behind the forms coherence is necessary because of evidence that we tend to
and structures present in the text, and pay much more make
attention to psychological concepts such as background
knowledge, beliefs, and expectations. In the pragmatics of 84 SURVEY
discourse, we inevitably explore what the speaker or writer instant interpretations of familiar material and tend not to see
has in mind. possible alternatives. For example, the question presented in
[2] is easily answered by many people.
Coherence [2] How many animals of each type did Moses take on the
Ark?
If you immediately thought of 'two', then you accessed some group would be something like a prototypical version. For
common cultural knowledge, perhaps even without noticing example within a frame for an apartment, there will be
that the name used ('Moses') was inappropriate. We actually assumed compon ents such as kitchen, bathroom, and
create a coherent interpretation for a text that potentially does bedroom. The assumed ele ments of a frame are generally not
not have it. We are also unlikely to stop and puzzle over 'a stated, as in the advertisement in [5].
male and a female (what?)' as we read about the accident [5] Apartment for rent. $500. 763-6683.
reported in [3]. A normal (local) interpretation of the small fragment of
[3 ] A motor vehicle accident was reported in front of discourse in [5] will be based on not only an 'apartment'
Kennedy Theatre involving a male and a female. frame as the basis of inference (if X is an apartment, then X
We automatically 'fill in' details (for example, a male person has a kitchen, a bath room, and a bedroom), but also an
driving one of the motor vehicles) to create coherence. We 'apartment for rent' advertise ment frame. Only on the basis of
also construct familiar scenarios in order to make sense of such a frame can the advertiser expect the reader to fill in 'per
what might first appear to be odd events, as in the newspaper month' and not 'per year' after '$500' here. If a reader of the
headline in [4]. discourse in [5] expects that it would be 'per week', for
example, then that reader clearly has a different frame (i.e.
[4] Man Robs Hotel with Sandwich
based on a different experience of the cost of apartment
If you created an interpretation for [4] that had the sandwich rental!). The pragmatic point will nevertheless be the same:
(perhaps in a bag) being used as if it was a gun, then you the reader uses a pre-existing knowledge structure to create
activated the kind of background knowledge expected by the an interpretation of what is not stated in the text.
writer (as confirmed by the rest of the newspaper article). You When more dynamic types of schemata are considered, they
may, of course, have created a quite different kind of are more often described as scripts. A script is a pre-existing
interpretation (for example, the man was eating the sandwich know ledge structure involving event sequences. We use
while robbing the hotel). Whatever it was, it was inevitably scripts to build interpretations of accounts of what happened.
based on what you had in mind and not only on what was in For example, we have scripts for what normally happens in
the 'text' in [4]. all kinds of events, such as going to a doctor's office, a movie
theater, a restaurant, or a grocery store as in [6].
Background knowledge [6] I stopped to get some groceries but there weren't any
Our ability to arrive automatically at interpretations of the bas kets left so by the time I arrived at the check-out
unwritten and the unsaid must be based on pre-existing know counter I must have looked like a juggler having a bad
ledge structures. These structures function like familiar day.
patterns from previous experience that we use to interpret Part of this speaker's normal script for 'getting groceries' ob
new experi ences. The most general term for a pattern of this viously involves having a basket and going to the check-out
type is a schema (plural, schemata). A schema is a counter. Everything else that happened in this event sequence
pre-existing knowledge struc ture in memory. is assumed to be shared background knowledge (for example,
If there is a fixed, static pattern to the schema, it is sometimes she went through a door to get inside the store and she
walked around picking up items from shelves).
DISCOURSE AND CULTURE 85
The concept of a script is simply a way of recognizing some
called a frame. A frame shared by everyone within a social expected sequence of actions in an event. Because most of the
 schemata is part of a broad area of investigation generally
known as cross-cultural pragmatics. To look at the ways in
86 SURVEY
which meaning is constructed by speakers from different
details of a script are assumed to be known, they are unlikely cultures will actually
to be ted. por members of the same culture, the assumption of
hared scripts allows much to be communicated that is not
DISCOURSE AND CULTURE 87
said. However, for members of different cultures, such an
assumption can lead to a great deal of miscommunication. require a complete reassessment of virtually everything we have
considered so far in this survey. The concepts and terminology
may provide a basic analytic framework, but the realization of
Cultural schemata those concepts may differ substantially from the English
Everyone has had the experience of surprise when some language examples presented here.
assumed component of an event is unexpectedly missing. I When we reviewed the cooperative principle and the maxims,
remember my first visit to a Moroccan restaurant and the we assumed some kind of general middle-class
absence of one of my 'restaurant script' requirements—there Anglo-American cultural background. What if we assumed a
were no chairs! (The large comfortable cushions were an cultural preference for not saying what you know to be the case
excellent replacement.) It is almost inevitable that our in many situations? Such a preference is reported in many
background knowledge structures, our schemata for making cultures and would clearly require a different approach to the
sense of the world, will be culturally deter mined. We develop relationship between the maxims of quality and quantity in a
our cultural schemata in the contexts of our basic more comprehensive pragmatics.
experiences. When we considered turn-taking mechanisms, we did not
For some obvious differences (for example, cushions explore the powerful role of silence within the normal conversa
instead of chairs), we can readily modify the details of a tional practices of many cultures. Nor did we include a
cultural schema. For many other subtle differences, however, discussion of a socially prescribed 'right to talk' which, in many
we often don't recog nize that there may be a cultures, is recognized as the structural basis of how interaction
misinterpretation based on different schemata. In one proceeds.
reported example, an Australian factory super visor clearly When we explored types of speech acts, we did not include
assumed that other factory workers would know that Easter any observations on the substantial differences that can exist
was close and hence they would all have a holiday. He asked cross-culturally in interpreting concepts like 'complimenting',
another worker, originally from Vietnam, about her plans, as 'thanking', or 'apologizing'. The typical American English style
in [7]. of complimenting creates great embarrassment for some Native
[7] You have five days off. What are you going to do? The American Indian receivers (it's perceived as excessive), and can
Vietnamese worker immediately interpreted the utterance in elicit a reaction similar to apologizing from some Japanese
terms of being laid off (rather than having a holiday). receivers (it's perceived as impossible to accept). Indeed, it is
Something good in one person's schema can sound like unlikely that the division one cultural group makes between any
something bad in another's. two social actions such as 'thanking' or 'apologizing' will be
matched precisely within another culture.
The study of these different cultural ways of speaking is some
Cross-cultural pragmatics
times called contrastive pragmatics. When the investigation
The study of differences in expectations based on cultural focuses more specifically on the communicative behavior of
 non-native speakers, attempting to communicate in their second
language, it is described as interlanguage pragmatics. Such
studies increasingly reveal that we all speak with what might be
called a pragmatic accent, that is, aspects of our talk that
indicate what we assume is communicated without being said.
If we have any hope at all of developing the capacity for
cross cultural communication, we will have to devote a lot
more

88 SURVEY
attention to an understanding of what characterizes pragmatic
accent, not only in others, but in ourselves. I hope that this brief
survey has provided a beginning, and an incentive to explore
further.

DISCOURSE AND CULTURE

SECTION 2
Readings
Chapter 1
Definitions and background

Textl
GEORGIA GREEN:Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum 1989, page 3
The broadest interpretation of pragmatics is that it is the study of understanding intentional human action.
Thus, it involves the interpretation of acts assumed to be undertaken in order to accomplish some purpose.
Assuming that
The central notions in pragmatics must then include belief, intention (or goal), plan, and act.
the means and/or the ends involve communica tion, pragmatics still encompasses all sorts of means of
communi as, for example, when a lifeguard
cation, including nonconventional, nonverbal, nonsymbolic ones
throws a volleyball in the direc
tion of a swimmer struggling in the ocean. The lifeguard believes that the
swimmer wants assistance, and that the swimmer will understand that the volleyball thrown in his direction is
intended (by the lifeguard) to be assistance, and that the swimmer will know how to take advantage of the
lighter than water. That makes at least three beliefs and one inten
volleyball's property of being tion on the
part of the lifeguard, including two beliefs about the swimmer's beliefs, and one about the swimmer's desires.
\> From this description, it seems as if every act in life is part of pragmatics. Do you think that pragmatics is
the study of all actions, or should it be limited to only certain actions? What kind of limitations would you
propose?
READINGS 91
D> The final sentence in this brief extract mentions 'beliefs utterances?
about ... beliefs'. Mow can we know about a person's [> If the swimmer doesn't want assistance (in the example),
beliefs when we are analyzing their actions and how does that affect the analysis?
 to or different from the way pragmatics is defined in Text
Text 2 1?
'Pragmatics: meaning and context.' File 70 in Language
Files: Materials for an Introduction to Linguistics. (6th Chapter2
edn.) Ohio State University Press 1991, page 223 D e i x i s a n d d i st a n c e
To fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we must also
understand the context in which it was uttered. Consider the Text 3
CHARLES FILLMORE: Santa Cruz Lectures on
word ball. In a sentence such as, He kicked the ball into the
net, we may visualize a round, black and white soccer ball Deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club 1975,
about nine inches in diameter. In a sentence such as She pages 40-2
dribbled the ball down the court and shot a basket, we would The most obvious place deictic terms in English are the
visualize a basket ball. Given yet another sentence, She putted adverbs 'here' and 'there' and the demonstratives 'this' and
the ball in from two feet away, we would visualize another 'that', along vith their plural forms; the most obvious time
ball, a golf ball. In these examples, the word ball is deictic words are adverbs like 'now' or 'today'. There are
understood in different ways depend ing on what type of action important distinctions in the uses of these and other deictic
is associated with it. Whatever under words which I would like us to je clear about right away. I
stood meaning is common to ball in all of these contexts will will frequently need to point out
be part of the word's core meaning. If we think of enough whether a word or expression that I am referring to can be
types of balls, we can come up with an invariant core used in one or more of three different ways, and these I will
meaning of ball that will allow speakers to refer to any ball in call gestural, symbolic, and anaphoric. By the gestural use of
any context. Nevertheless, even though we can discover a a deictic expres sion I mean that use by which it can be
word's 'invariant core', we normally understand more than properly interpreted only by somebody who is monitoring
this. It is the CONTEXT that fills in the details and allows full some physical aspect of the com munication situation; by the
understanding—such as the usual color of a soccer ball, the symbolic use of a deictic expression I mean that use whose
size of a basketball, or the weight of a golf ball. The study of interpretation involves merely knowing cer tain aspects of the
the contribution of context to meaning is often called speech communication situation, whether this knowledge
pragmatics. comes by current perception or not; and by the anaphoric use
t> What do you think is the 'invariant core' meaning of the of an expression I mean that use which can be cor rectly
word 'ball', as proposed here? Can you think of any use of interpreted by knowing what other portion of the same dis
the word 'ball' that would not have that 'core' meaning? course the expression is coreferential with.
Can 'the con text' cause a word not to have its 'core' I can illustrate the distinction I'm talking about by taking the
meaning? word 'there'. It has all three uses. Its gestural use can be seen
in a sentence like, 'I want you to put it there'. You have to
[> What does the term 'context' seem to refer to in this text? If know where the speaker is pointing in order to know what
you have a different concept of 'context', how would you place he is indicat
revise this paragraph to illustrate it more clearly? ing. The symbolic use is exemplified in the telephoner's
utterance, 'Is Johnny there?'. This time we understand the
92 READINGS word 'there' as meaning 'in the place where you are'. An
In what ways is the view of pragmatics in this text similar example of the anaphoric use of 'there' is a sentence like 'I
 drove the car to the parking lot and left it there'. In that case
the word refers to a place which had been identified earlier in
the discourse, namely the parking lot. Take another example,
this time one showing just 94 READINGS
Text 4
READINGS 93 QUENTIN SMITH: 'The multiple uses of indexicals' in
the distinction between the gestural and the symbolic use. If dur ing Synthese 78, 1989, pages 182-3
my lecture you hear me use a phrase like 'this finger', the chances are 'I am in last place' is often used to indicate that the speaker is in last
fairly good that you will look up to see what it is that I want you to place. But this sentence is also used on a number of occasions to
see; you will expect the word to be accompanied by a gesture or indicate that somebody else is in last place. I am watching a race and
demonstration of some sort. On the other hand, if you hear me use the person upon whom I have bet, No. 10, drops to the last place. 'I
the phrase 'this campus', you do not need to look up, because you am in last place!' I exclaim in anguish to my compan ion. My
know my meaning to be 'the campus in which I am now located', companion knows perfectly well what I mean—that the person upon
and you happen to know where I am. The for whom I have bet is in last place. Indeed, she replies in kind,
mer is the gestural use, the latter the symbolic use. disagreeing with my statement. 'No you aren't! Look!' she exclaims,
I> Can you transfer this discussion to temporal deixis (as described pointing at No. 10,'You are passing No. 3!'
in Chapter 2), considering 'then' (instead.of there') in gestural, C> Can you think of any other contexts where T is not to be liter
symbolic, and anaphoric uses? ally interpreted as 'the person who is speaking'?
[> Given the three categories described here, which category seems p> Do examples such as these mean that we need a new definition of
to fit the typical uses of deictic expressions such as 'yes terday' the meaning of the word T in English? If yes, what would have to
and 'tomorrow'? be in that definition? If no, how would you explain this type
of'extra' usage?
Place indications take part in the deictic system of a language by
virtue of the fact that for many locating expressions, the location of Text5
one, or another, or both, of the speech act participants can serve as a
GEOFFREY NUNBERG: Tndexicality and deixis' in
spatial reference point. Sometimes all that means is that for an
Linguistics and Philosophy 16,1993, page 41
expression which in a nondeictic u se requires mention of a
reference object, in its deictic use the reference object, taken to be ... you might point at a picture of John Ashberry to identify his most
the speaker's body at the time of the speech act, simply goes unmen recent book, using the demonstrative that, with no restric tion on the
tioned. Take, for example, the expression 'upstairs'. If I say, 'Johnny things you could say about it:
lives upstairs', you will understand me as meaning upstairs of the (94) That is in all the bookstores (on the top shelf, temporarily
place where I am at the time I say the sentence, unless the out of stock).
immediately preceding discourse has provided some other refer
But while John Ashberry might easily say of himself 'I am in all the
ence point. If I say 'Harry lives nearby', the same can be said. You
bookstores,' it would be odd for him to say 'I am on the top shelf or
will understand that Harry lives near to the place where I am when I
'I am temporarily out of stock,' unless it could be supposed that the
say the sentence, again, except for the case where a reference point
fact that an author's book was on the top shelf or was temporarily
has been identified in the immediately preceding discourse.
out of stock carried some noteworthy implications for him.
t> 7s the speaker's body always the unmentioned reference point, as
E> Following on from these examples, could you point to an empty
Fillmore suggests here? Consider the uses of words like 'front',
space on the bookshelf and and ask the owner of the bookstore,
'back', 'down (the street)', 'above', 'outside', and any others that
Is that out of stock?'? If yes, do we have to re formulate the
seem to be similar to 'upstairs' and 'nearby' in the examples.
definition of deixis (i.e. 'pointing via language') when there's
nothing being pointed to?
 is not in the end essential to the case). This, I shall say, is an
READINGS 95
attributive use of the definite description.
[> Why do you think the idea of 'some noteworthy implications' is The contrast with such a use of the sentence is one of those situ
mentioned in this text? Does identifying the reference of deictic ations in which we expect and intend our audience to realize
expressions depend on information about a person's thoughts whom we have in mind when we speak of Smith's murderer and,
and feelings? If yes, can you think of other examples (involving most importantly, to know that it is this person about whom we
other deictic forms)? are going to say something.
\> How does the example with T in this text fit in with your p> Before Donnellan's proposal, many philosophers argued that if
analysis of T in Text 4? a description does not fit anything, then it fails to refer. What is
Donnellan's perspective on this?
Chapter3
p> Using Donnellan's distinction (plus any additional distinctions
Referenceandinference
you think are needed), how would you account for the use of a
Text 6 definite description that does not accurately fit the person or
KEITH DONNELLAN: 'Reference and definite descriptions' in thing?
Philosophical Review 75,1966, pages 285-6 [> Can the attributive versus referential distinction be related to
I will call the two uses of definite descriptions I have in mind the Fillmore's distinction (Text 3) between gestural, symbolic, and
attributive use and the referential use. A speaker who uses a anaphoric uses of deictic expressions?
definite description attributively in an assertion states something
Text 7
about whoever or whatever is the so-and-so. A speaker who uses a
M.A.K.HALLIDAY andRUQAiYA HASAN: Cohesion in
definite description referentially in an assertion, on the other hand,
uses the description to enable his audience to pick out whom or English. Longman 1976, page 31
what he is talking about and states something about that person or There are certain items in every language which have the property
thing. In the first case the definite description might be said to of reference, in the specific sense in which we are using the term
occur essentially, for the speaker wishes to assert some thing about here; that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in
whatever or whoever fits that description; but in the referential use their own right, they make reference to something else for their
the definite description is merely one tool for doing a certain interpretation. In English these items are personals, demonstra
job—calling attention to a person or thing—and in gen eral any tives and comparatives.
other device for doing the same job, another description or a name, We start with an example of each:
would do as well. In the attributive use, the attribute of being the a. Three blind mice, three blind mice.
so-and-so is all important, while it is not in the referen See how they run! See how they run!
tial use. b. Doctor Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain. He
To illustrate this distinction, in the case of a single sentence, stepped in a puddle right up to his middle and never went
consider the sentence, 'Smith's murderer is insane.' Suppose first there again.
that we come upon poor Smith foully murdered. From the brutal
manner of the killing and the fact that Smith was the most lovable c. There were two wrens upon a tree.
person in the world, we might exclaim, 'Smith's murderer is Another came, and there were three.
insane.' I will assume, to make it a simpler case, that in a quite In (a), they refers to three blind mice; in (b) there refers to
ordinary sense we do not know who murdered Smith (though this Gloucester; in (c) another refers to wrens.
96 READINGS READINGS 97
These items are directives indicating that information is to is an adult male,
be retrieved from elsewhere. So much they have in common I say 'My neighbor is a bachelor,' which, let us suppose,
with all cohesive elements. What characterizes this particular entails that he is adult and male. I might just as well have said
type of cohesion, that which we are calling REFERENCE, is the 'my neigh bor is unmarried.' The same information would
specific nature of the information that is signalled for have been con veyed (although the nuances might not have
retrieval. In the case of reference the information to be been exactly the same). That is, the increment of information,
retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the or of content, con veyed by the first statement is the same as
particular thing or class of things that is being referred to; and that conveyed by the second. If the asserted proposition were
the cohesion lies in the continuity of ref erence, whereby the accepted, and added to the common background, the
same thing enters into the discourse a second time. resulting situation would be the same as if the second
I> In this analysis, the assumption is that certain words refer assertion were accepted and added to the background.
to other words. Do you think that this is a helpful or This notion of common background belief is the first approx
misleading assumption? imation to the notion of pragmatic presupposition that I want
to use. A proposition P is a pragmatic presupposition of a
D> Do you agree with the final statement that 'the same thing
speaker in a given context just in case the speaker assumes or
enters into the discourse a second time'? How about
believes that P, assumes or believes that his addressee
example (c), where the analysis proposes that the word
assumes or believes that P, and assumes or believes that his
'another' refers to 'wrens'?
addressee recognizes that he is making these assumptions, or
t> If the word 'there' in (b) is an example of cohesion by refer has these beliefs.
ence, is the word 'there' in the second line of (c) the same?
How do you decide? P> Do you agree that the two utterances quoted in the first
para graph would add exactly the same information to the
t> Is Donnellan's distinction in Text 6 relevant to what these
com mon background?
authors are saying?
E> According to the definition presented in the second para
graph, would it be correct, or not, to say that a pragmatic
Chapter4
P r e s u p p o s iti o n a n d e n t a ilm e n t
pre supposition is any belief of the speaker? (It may be
helpful to look again at Chapter 4, pages 25-30.)
Text 8 t> Can you think of circumstances where it is not
ROBERT C.STALNAKER: 'Pragmatic presupposition' in inappropriate for someone 'to assert something that each
Milton Munitz and Peter Unger (eds.): Semantics and of us assumes the other already believes'?
Philosophy. New York University Press 1974, pages
199- 200 Text 9
Although it is normally inappropriate because unnecessary for GERALD GAZDAR: Pragmatics. Implicature,
me to assert something that each of us assumes the other Presupposition, and Logical Form. Academic Press
already believes, my assertions will of course always have 1979, page 106
consequences which are part of the common background. For (65) John got to safety before the boiler blew up.
example, in a context where we both know that my neighbor (66) John got to the safety handle before the boiler blew up.
 If we assume in (66) that John's getting to the safety handle being 'ambiguous', then we are again left with no principle
pre vented the boiler blowing up, then (66) does not, but (65) for deciding
does, presuppose that the boiler blew up. If we treat before as

READINGS READINGS 99
whether or not the presupposition attaches to a particular sen and talk exchanges seemed to me to exhibit, character istically,
tence. Note also that, if all presupposing constructions are certain features that jointly distinguish cooperative
ambiguous, then the notion of 'infelicity' or 'unacceptability' is transactions:
inapplicable, since we will always have an alternative reading 1. The participants have some common immediate aim,
with respect to which the sentence will be acceptable. like getting a car mended; their ultimate aims may, of
D> How do you account for the fact that 'before' creates a pre course, be
supposition in example (65), but not in (66)? Can you think
of other examples where the use of 'before' does, or does IOO READINGS
not, lead to a presupposition? independent and even in conflict—each may want to get
t> Does 'after' work the same way? Should we define 'before' the car mended in order to drive off, leaving the other
and 'after', not only as opposites, but also as creating stranded. In characteristic talk exchanges, there is a
different presuppositions ? common aim even if, as in an over-the-wall chat, it is a
second order one, namely that each party should, for the
time being, identify himself with the transitory
Chapter5
conversational interests of the other.
C o o p e r a ti o n a n d i m p li c a t u r e
2. The contributions of the participants should be
Text 10 dovetailed, mutually dependent.
PAUL GRICE: 'Logic and conversation' in P. Cole and J. 3. There is some sort of understanding (which may be
L. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: explicit but which is often tacit) that, other things being
Speech Acts. Academic Press 1975, page 48 equal, the transaction should continue in appropriate
I would like to be able to think of the standard type of style unless both parties are agreeable that it should
conversa tional practice not merely as something that all or terminate. You do not just shove off or start doing
most do IN FACT follow but as something that it is something else.
REASONABLE for us to follow, that we SHOULD NOT abandon. But while some such quasi-contractual basis as this may apply
For a time, I was attracted by the idea that observance of the to some cases, there are too many types of exchange, like
CP [co-operative principle] and the maxims, in a talk quarreling and letter writing, that it fails to fit comfortably.
exchange, could be thought of as a quasi-contractual matter, 0 Can you spell out why 'quarreling and letter writing' do not
with parallels outside the realm of discourse. If you pass by fit comfortably with the conditions presented here?
when I am struggling with my stranded car, I no doubt have
some degree of expectation that you will offer help, but once t> What would you call the three 'features' listed here if you
you join me in tinkering under the hood, my expectations were to make them into maxims for cooperative transactions?
become stronger and take more specific forms (in the absence t> Grice emphasizes the word 'reasonable' as he describes his
of indications that you are merely an incompetent meddler); consideration of the cooperative principle and his maxims
 as a kind of contract. Would the cooperative principle, the (42) Yes, and I'm Marie the Queen of Romania.
maxims, and the three features listed here be treated as
But again, for some speakers the convention specifies only a general
'reasonable' in all societies and cultures? strategy, rather than a particular expression: To convey that an
assertion is transparently false, reply with another asser tion even more
Text 11
transparently false.
J. L.MORGAN: 'Two types of convention in indirect speech
I> Do you know any other 'stock expressions' for these types of
acts' in P. Cole (ed.): Syntax and Semantics Volume 9:
occasions (request, challenge, answer to obvious questions, reply
Pragmatics. Academic Press 1978, pages 277-8 to a false assertion)? How would you explain (to some one
Just above I presented cases involving particular expressions learning English as a foreign language, for example) how to work
and the conventionalization of their use for certain out the communicated meaning from the literal meaning?
implicatures, as in the case of If you've seen one, you've seen [> The author uses the term 'convention' in talking about the kinds of
them all, or the original example, Can you pass the salt? I implicatures involved here. Do you think that the examples presented
said in the latter case that it had become a convention of here can be analyzed in terms of conven tional implicatures (as
usage to use this expression, with its lit discussed in Chapter 5, pages 45-6)?
eral meaning, to convey an implicature of request. The O What do you think about the idea that an implicature may begin by
being based on inference, but can become so conven tionalized that
no one has to make the inference any more? Is that the same
question READINGS IOI process as we use in interpreting idioms?

now arises, can there be this kind of conventionalization of rules of Chapter6

conversation? I think there can. For example, it is more or less Speechactsandevents
conventional to challenge the wisdom of a suggested course of action
by questioning the mental health of the suggestor, by ANY Text 12
appropriate linguistic means, as in: JOHN SEARLE: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press
1969,pages 58-9
(37) Are you crazy?
(38) Have you lost your mind? One crucial distinction between promises on the one hand and threats
(39) Are you out of your gourd? on the other is that a promise is a pledge to do something for you, not
to you; but a threat is a pledge to do something to you, not for you. A
and so on. Most Americans have two or three stock expressions promise is defective if the thing promised is something the promisee
usable as answers to obvious questions, as in: does not want done; and it is further defective if the promisor does not
(40) Is the Pope Catholic? believe the promisee wants it done, since a non-defective promise
(41) Do bagels wear bikinis? must be intended as a promise and not as a threat or warning.
But for some speakers the convention does not specify a particular Furthermore, a promise, unlike an invitation, normally requires some
expression, and new ones are manufactured as they are needed. It sort of occasion or situation that calls for the promise. A crucial
seems that here a schema for implicature has been con ventionalized: feature of such occa sions or situations seems to be that the promisee
Answer an obvious yes/no question by replying with another question wishes (needs,
whose answer is very obvious and the same as the answer you intend desires, etc.) that something be done, and the promisor is aware of this
to convey. wish (need, desire, etc.). I think both halves of this double condition
In a similar way, most speakers have a small number of expres sions are necessary in order to avoid fairly obvious counter examples.
usable as replies to assertions, with the implicature that the assertion I> This paragraph lists several required features for a speech act to
is transparently false—(42), for example: count as a promise. Do you agree that all these features are
 necessary? Are other crucial features not included here? would more naturally describe it as a warning or possibly even a
threat. But why, then, is it possible to use the locution 'I promise' in
One can, however, think of apparent counter-examples to this
such a case? I think we use it here because 'I promise' and 'I hereby
condition as stated. Suppose I say to a lazy student, 'If you don't hand
promise' are among the strongest
in your paper on time I promise you I will give you a failing grade in
the course'. Is this utterance a promise? I am inclined to think not; we

IO2 READINGS
READINGS 103
illocutionary force indicating devices for commitment areas of experience, our language provides us with categorical
provided by the English language. For that reason we often distinc tions. But it is to commit a fundamental and obvious
use these expressions in the performance of speech acts error to assume that the distinctions made by our vocabulary
which are not strictly speaking promises, but in which we necessarily exist in reality. Language provides us with verbs
wish to emphasize the degree of our commitment. To like order, request, beg, plead, just as it provides us with
illustrate this, consider another apparent counter-example to nouns like puddle, pond, lake, sea, ocean. But we should no
the analysis along different lines. Sometimes one hears people more assume that there are in pragmatic reality distinct
say 'I promise' when making an emphatic assertion. Suppose, categories such as orders and
for example, I accuse you of having stolen the money. I say, requests than that there are in geographical reality distinct cat
'You stole that money, didn't you?'. You reply, 'No, I didn't, I egories such as puddles, ponds and lakes. Somehow, this
promise you I didn't'. Did you make a promise in this case? I assump tion slips unnoticed into Searle's introduction to his
find it very unnatural to describe your utterance as a promise. taxonomy:
This utterance would be more aptly described as an emphatic What are the criteria by which we can tell that of three
denial, and we can explain the occur rence of the illocutionary actual utterances one is a report, one a prediction and one a
force indicating device 'I promise' as derivative from genuine promise? In order to develop higher order genera, we must
promises and serving here as an expres sion adding emphasis first know how the species promise, prediction, report, etc.
to your denial. differ from one another.
> Do you agree that having used the words 7 promise', you (Searle, J. 1979.: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge:
could later claim that 'strictly speaking' you did not make a Cambridge University Press, page 2.)
promise because you meant something else? But it would be strikingly inappropriate if one were to begin a
t> What seem to be the conditions for an utterance containing treatise on expanses of water on the world's surface in this
the IFID T promise' to serve as an emphatic denial? way: What are the criteria by which we can tell that of three
actual expanses of water, one is a puddle, one a pond, and one
t> Is the recognition of speech act conditions related at all to
the cooperative principle as discussed in Text 10? (It may a lake? In order to develop higher order genera, we must first
be help ful to refer to the discussion of felicity conditions in know how the species puddle, pond, and lake differ from one
Chapter 6, pages JO-I.) another.
In defence of Searle it could be argued, first, that the
Text 13 comparison is unfair: if one had chosen monkeys and giraffes
GEOFFREY LEECH: Principles of Pragmatics. (say) instead of ponds and puddles, the example would have
Longman 1983, pages 177-8 been less ridiculous. But my reply is (a) that one has no right
In referring to human conversational behavior, as to other in advance to assume that such categories exist in reality
 (although one might discover them by observation); and (b) l> What would distinguish the definition of a puddle, in
that in actuality, when one does observe them, illocutions are Leech's view, from the kind of definition of a promise
in many respects more like puddles and ponds than like presented in Text 12?
monkeys and giraffes: they are, that is to say, dis
[> Do you think that Leech's argument is based on an
tinguished by continuous rather than by discrete
important issue, or just a minor point? How do you think
characteristics. t> What exactly is the argument being Searle would respond to this criticism from Leech?
presented here against the idea that we can identify a speech
act as a prediction or not?

104 READINGS READINGS I05

Chapter7 semblance of harmony and cohesion....
P o lit e n e s s a n d i n t e r a c ti o n
[> In what ways is this definition of politeness more or less
Text 14 specific than the general social meaning of politeness you
ROBIN LAKOFF: Talking Power. The Politics of are familiar with?
Language. Basic Books 1990, pages 34, 36, 38
Distancing cultures weave remoteness into their language. The
Indirectness can function as a form of politeness. Politeness is attribution of responsibility represents an intrusion of the per
a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate sonal: it suggests that individuals with different interests are
interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and involved in the discussion. So grammatical devices that
confrontation inher ent in all human interchange. We like to minimize a speaker's personal involvement are favored—for
think of conversation as conflict-free, with speakers normally instance, pass ive verb forms and impersonal forms like one.
being able to satisfy one another's needs and interests. But, in Words that threaten to convey or evoke dangerous emotion
fact, we enter every conver sation—indeed, every kind of are replaced with safer ones, which suggest that no emotion is
discourse—with some personal desideratum in mind: perhaps involved. This formal language is the language of diplomacy,
as obvious as a favor or as subtle as the desire to be likeable. bureaucracy, and the pro
For some of these needs, participants can accede to each fessions. Diplomats speak of an incident when they mean that
other, and both gain their desires; but with others, one must their countries are in a virtual state of war; bureaucrats talk of
lose, however minimally, for the other to win. One per son revenue enhancement when they renege on a promise of no
must tell another something that the other doesn't want to new taxes; doctors discourse on iatrogenesis when they mean
hear; one person must refuse another's request; one person they did something that made the patient sick. These words
must end a conversation before the other is quite willing to provide a suffer between pure denotative meaning and its
go. In such cases, there is the danger of insult and, emotional wal lop: the hearer, in all probability, knows
consequently, the break down of communication. If societies perfectly well what the speaker intends; but the latter has
did not devise ways to smooth over moments of conflict and chosen deliberately Latinate rords from a sector of the
confrontation, social rela tionships would be difficult to vocabulary not rich in emotional con
establish and continue, and essen tial cohesion would erode. notations, so as to lessen the danger of collision.
Politeness strategies are the means to preserve at least the
 [> Can you think of other examples of distance politeness in ques tions: 'Are you really happy with your life?' To the
lan guage use? properly brought-up Easterner, such behavior was permissible
only after years of earning it, and maybe not then. Easterners
|> Can you think of situations or special circumstances where
fell into one of several schools of thought about the character
the type of distance politeness, as defined here, is ignored?
of Californians: either that they had the simplicity of children
is essential to realize that camaraderie can be conventional and should be patron ized; or that they were rough frontier
.... 3ut ... someone unaccustomed to conventional camaraderie sorts, probably raised by wolves (and you know how wolves
will take it as genuine, arising out of long acquaintance and are); or that they were truly wonderful people who could get
the develop lent of mutual liking and trust. Modern to know you as well after two seconds as would take most of
camaraderie probably aegan in California as an outgrowth of us a lifetime. All of these attitudes assumed, of course, that
the human potential move ment of the 1960s and 1970s. For a the camaraderie was real rather than conventional.
while it was a bane to visiting Easterners, who were
[> What examples of language use would you predict (or have
confounded by the Californian's appearance of good you experienced) as representative of 'conventional cama
fellowship and deep caring; the immediate first-naming, raderie' in contrast to 'distance politeness'?
touching, looking deep into the eyes, and asking truly caring

IO6 READINGS READINGS IO7

Text 15 behavior would you look for in order to decide whether this
GABRIELE KASPER: 'Politeness' in R. E. Asher (ed.): The suggestion is true or not?
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume 6.
I> Can you characterize the normal behavior of your own social
Pergamon 1994, page 3209
group as having more 'hearer-beneficial' acts? What about
Some types of linguistic action are carried out more frequently in 'hearer-costly' acts? Are there other social groups with whom
some cultures than in others. Hearer-beneficial acts such as com you share the same language, but whose politeness strategies
plimenting and thanking occur more regularly in some Western appear to be different?
contexts (e.g., the USA) than in some Asian cultures (e.g., main land
D> Where does Lakoff's 'conventional camaraderie' (Text 14) fit into
China), reflecting both the strong positive politeness orienta tion and
the distinction that Kasper is making here?
reluctance to impose on others in mainstream American culture, on
Text 16
the one hand, and the assumption, in China, that par ticipants act
PENELOPE BROWN and STEPHEN LEVINSON: Politeness.
according to their social positions and associated roles and
Cambridge University Press 1987, page 281
obligations, on the other. Also, hearer-costly acts such as refusals are
perceived as being more socially offensive by Japanese and Chinese In language the constraints are more on form than on content (or at
interlocutors and thus tend to be avoided, whereas it seems more least form provides a more feasible area of study). The ways in
consistent with American interlocutors' right to self determination which messages are hedged, hinted, made deferential, and embed
not to comply with another person's wishes. ded in discourse structures then become crucial areas of study. But
such areas are also the concern of pragmatics, the study of the
0 Can you think of other 'hearer-beneficial acts' and other
systematic relation of a language to context. The special interest of
'hearer-costly acts'? For example, what is an invitation or a
sociolinguistics in our view is in the differential use of such
complaint? Is it possible that the concepts of 'cost' and 'benefit'
pragmatic resources by different categories of speakers in differ
may be culturally determined?
ent situations. It is in this way that we derive our slogan
t> There is a suggestion in this text that people in the USA are more 'Sociolinguistics should be applied pragmatics.'
concerned with their rights as individuals than with their social
t> Do you agree with the assumption that pragmatics comes first
roles and obligations. What kind of evidence from language
 and then is 'applied' to the social use of language, or should it C o n v e r s a ti o n a n d p r e f e r e n c e s t r u c t u r e
be the other way round?
Text 17
t> Notice that the concepts of 'hedge' and 'hint' are used here. Recall
HARVEY SACKS: Lectures on Conversation. Volume i.
the use of 'hedges' on implicatures in Chapter j, pages 38-9
(which themselves may be termed 'hints'); would such Blackwell 1992, pages 3-4
phenomena in the use of language be better analyzed as aspects I'll start off by giving some quotations.
of politeness? Is pragmatics really just the study of lin (1) A: Hello.
guistic politeness? B: Hello.
Does the 'slogan' at the end of this text provide a better (or (2) A: This is Mr Smith may I help you.
worse) perspective on pragmatics than those offered in Texts 1 B: Yes, this is Mr Brown.
and 2 earlier?

Chapter8

108 READINGS
READINGS 109
(3) A: This is Mr Smith may I help you. do you spell your name?') meant that you would have serious
B: I can't hear you. A: This is Mr trouble getting the caller's name, if you got the name at all....
Smith. B: Smith. Looking at the first exchange compared to the second, we
These are some first exchanges in telephone conversations col can be struck by two things. First of all, there seems to be a fit
lected at an emergency psychiatric hospital. They are between what the first person who speaks uses as their
occurring between persons who haven't talked to each other greeting, and what the person who is given that greeting
before. One of them, A, is a staff member of this psychiatric returns. So that if A says, 'Hello,' then B tends to say 'Hello.'
hospital. B can be either somebody calling about themselves, If A says 'This is Mr Smith may I help you,' B tends to say
that is to say in trouble in one way or another, or somebody 'Yes, this is Mr Brown.' We can say there's a procedural rule
calling about somebody else. there, that a person who speaks first in a telephone
I have a large collection of these conversations, and I got conversation can choose their form of address, and in
started looking at these first exchanges as follows. A series of choosing their form of address they can thereby choose the
persons who called this place would not give their names. form of address the other uses.
The hospital's concern was, can anything be done about it? I> Do you think that the 'procedural rule' presented here
One question I wanted to address was, where in the course of applies to all 'first exchanges' in telephone conversations? t>
the conversation could you tell that somebody would not give Can you describe this 'procedural rule' in terms of preference
their name? So I began to look at the materials. It was in fact structure (as outlined in Chapter 8, pages -78-82) by
on the basis of that question that I began to try to deal in including example (3) in your analysis?
detail with conversations.
[> What advantages and disadvantages do you think there are
I found something that struck me as fairly interesting quite in using telephone data as the basis for analyzing how
early. And that was that if the staff member used 'This is Mr conversa tion works?
Smith may I help you' as their opening line, then
overwhelmingly, any answer other than 'Yes, this is Mr Text 18
Brown' (for example, 'I can't hear you,' 'I don't know,' 'How H. SACKS, E.SCHEGLOFF, and G.JEFFERSON: 'A simplest
 systematics for the organization of turn-taking in (7) Length of conversation is not specified in
conversa tion' in Language 50,1974, pages 700-1 advance. (8) What parties say is not specified in
To merit serious consideration, it seems to us, a model should advance.
be capable of accommodating (i.e., either be compatible with, (9) Relative distribution of turns is not specified in
or allow the derivation of) the following grossly apparent advance. (10) Number of parties can vary.
facts. In any conversation, we observe the following: (n) Talk can be continuous or discontinous.
(12) Turn-allocation techniques are obviously used. A
(1) Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs. current speaker may select a next speaker (as when
(2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time.
he addresses a question to another party); or parties
(3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are
may self-select in starting to talk.
com mon, but brief.
(13) Various 'turn-constructional units' are employed; e.g.,
(4) Transitions (from one turn to a next) with no gap and
turns can be projectedly 'one word long', or they can
no overlap are common. Together with transitions
be sentential in length.
charac terized by slight gap or slight overlap, they
(14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking
make up the vast majority of transitions.
errors and violations; e.g., if two parties find
(5) Turn order is not fixed, but varies.
themselves
(6) Turn size is not fixed, but varies.

READINGS III
IIO READINGS
talking at the same time, one of them will stop This exchange makes sense. It is orderly, not random. We may
prema turely, thus repairing the trouble. characterize B's (non)response with an infinite variety of neg
I> Can you divide these fourteen statements into two groups— atives. It is not a question, not a promise, not a lecture, and so
one that applies to all conversations and one that applies forth. However, given that questions call for answers, it is
to only some conversations in some contexts? What kinds relev antly not an answer.
of situations or people appear to create exceptions? > Why do you think the word 'relevantly' is emphasized in this
[> Should these statements be restricted to any conversation text? Does this mean that every '{non)response' counts as
that is middle-class American and basically friendly? Can relevantly not something in conversation?
you think of different factors such as social class, culture, t> Consider what speaker A says in reaction to the
ethnic ity, relationship, age—or any others that will have '(non)response'. What kind of speech act is this? Does this
an effect on how turn-taking proceeds? utterance tell us anything about the relationship between
the two speakers (i.e. strangers, acquaintances, or
Text 19
intimates)?
JACK BILMES: Discourse and Behavior. Plenum Press
Chapter 9 Discourse
1986, page 166
and culture
Consider the following exchange:
A [addressing B]: Where are you going? Text 20
JOHN GUMPERZ and JENNY COOK-GUMPERZ:
B [no response]
A The hell with you. 'Introduction: language and the communication of
social identity' in J. Gumperz (ed.): Language and
 Social Identity. Cambridge University Press 1982, even though people in situations such as we study agree on
page 12 the overall purpose of the interaction, there are often radical
Although the pragmatic conditions of communicative tasks are differences as to what expectations and rights are involved at
theoretically taken to be universal, the realizations of these any one time.
tasks as social practices are culturally variable. This variation [> There is a suggestion here that 'pragmatic conditions' can
can be analyzed from several different perspectives, all of be treated as 'universal' (i.e. applicable everywhere). Can
which of course co-occur in the actual practices. you suggest some examples of pragmatic universals? How
(1) Different cultural assumptions about the situation and about 'Be polite'? Any others?
about appropriate behavior and intentions within it. (2) [> Can you think of any examples that would support the idea
Different ways of structuring information or an argument that 'appropriate behavior' differs in different cultures
in a conversation. (prag matically speaking)?
(3) Different ways of speaking: the use of a different set of I> Do you agree with these authors that there are different
unconscious linguistic conventions (such as tone of ways of 'structuring an argument'? How is an argument
voice) to emphasize, to signal local connections and to structured in English? How could it be structured any
indicate the significance of what is being said in terms other way?
of overall meaning and attitudes.
By 'different cultural assumptions' we refer to the fact that,

112 READINGS READINGS 113

Text 21 Daite sigaretu [give (me) a cigarette]. A Russian requesting a
JENNY THOMAS: 'Cross-cultural pragmatic failure' cigarette in this country and using a similar strategy would
in Applied Linguistics 4/z, 1983, page 105 either have wrongly encoded the amount of politeness s/he
'Free goods' are those which, in a given situation, anyone can intended (covert grammatical or pragma linguistic failure) or
use without seeking permission, for example, salt in a seriously misjudged the size of imposition (sociopragmatic
restaurant (providing, of course, that you are having a meal in failure).
that restaur ant and have not simply wandered in from the > The author is writing ('in this country') about Britain. Do
street with a bag of fish and chips). Generally speaking, what you think her observation on salt in a restaurant is based
an individual regards as 'free goods' varies according to on a uni versal component of a 'restaurant script'? In a
relationships and situation. In one's own family or home, family context, do you agree that 'most things ... are
most things (food, drink, books, baths) are free goods. In a treated as free goods'? What about other cultures you are
stranger's house they are not. Cross familiar with?
culturally, too, perceptions of what constitutes 'free' or 'nearly > The examples in this text are physical objects. There are
free' goods differ. In Britain, matches are 'nearly free', so one also cultural differences in what kind of information is
would not use a particularly elaborate politeness strategy to considered 'free goods'. What constraints are there, in
request one, even of a total stranger. In the Soviet Union cultures you are
cigarettes are also virtually 'free' and a request for them familiar with, on asking people about certain topics (for
demands an equally minimal degree of politeness, such as example, their political views, religion, marital status,
 income, cost of their possessions, bathroom behavior, his point of view, the key issue for this man was his independence,
sexual practices)? his freedom of action. The key issue for the woman was their
interdependence—how what he did made her feel. He interpreted her
> What do you think the distinction is between the two kinds insistence on their interdependence as 'manipula
of 'failure' (pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic) tion': She was using her feelings to control his behavior.
described here?
p Do you agree with the analysis presented here? Are there other
implicatures possible from what is said in the dialog?
114 t> We are used to thinking that the term 'cross-cultural' will apply to
Text 22 people from different countries. Is it appropriate to think of the
DEBORAH TANNEN: You Just Don't Understand. interactions between males and females within one country
Wm. Morrow 1990, page 40 (sharing a lot of one culture) as a site for the study of
A woman was telling me why a long-term relationship had ended. cross-cultural pragmatics? What kinds of differences might be
She recounted a recurrent and pivotal conversation. She and the man worthy of investigation?
she lived with had agreed that they would both be free, but they
would not do anything to hurt each other. When the man began to
sleep with other women, she protested, and he was incensed at her
protest. Their conversation went like this:
SHE: How can you do this when you know it's hurting me?
HE: How can you try to limit my freedom?
SHE: But it makes me feel awful.
HE: You are trying to manipulate me.
On one level, this is simply an example of a clash of wills: What he READINGS 115
wanted conflicted with what she wanted. But in a fundamental way, it
reflects the difference in focus I have been describing. In arguing for
READINGS
SECTION 3
References

level (marked ■□□), more advanced and

The references which follow can be classified into introductory
consequently more tech
nical (marked ■■□), and specialized, very demanding (marked
Chapter 1
Definitions and background
■■■
STEVEN DAVIS (ed.): Pragmatics. A Reader.
Oxford University Press 1991
This is a collection of thirty-five papers, originally published in journals dealing mainly with philosophical
issues in the recent history of pragmatics.
■□□
GEORGIA GREEN:Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum 1989
This is an introduction which focuses on linguistic pragmatics as 'the study of understanding intentional
human action', with a strong emphasis on grammatical issues.
■□□
GEOFFREY LEECH:Principles of Pragmatics.
Longman 1983
This introductory text presents a rhetorical model of pragmatics, attempting to describe 'principles and
maxims of good com
REFERENCES 117
municative behaviour'. Pragmatics is defined as 'the study of Blackwell 1993
how utterances have meanings in situations', with an This is a comprehensive introduction to pragmatics as 'the
emphasis on the analysis of politeness. study of the conditions of human language use as these are
■■ determined by the context of society'. There is a strong
STEPHEN c. LEVIN SON: Pragmatics. emphasis on the ways in which society's institutions govern
Cambridge University Press 1983 the use of language.
This widely used introductory text offers several different ■an
definitions of pragmatics and presents 'an overview of some of JAN NUYTS andjEF VERSCHUEREN (eds.):
the central tasks that pragmaticists wrestle with'. The A Comprehensive Bibliography of Pragmatics. Volumes
emphasis is on linguistic and philosophical issues. 1-4. John Benjamins 1987

■ DD
This remarkable resource provides a wide range of references.
JACOB MEY:Pragmatics: An Introduction. The very useful diagrams in the Subject Index (pages 51-69)
 act as a guide to the wide areas of study covered by insights into the nature of deixis.
pragmatics.
■DO
ROGER WALES: 'Deixis' in P. Fletcher and M. Garman
C h a p t e r 2 D e i xi s a n d (eds.): Language Acquisition (2nd edn.) Cambridge
d i st a n c e University Press 1986
This is a review paper covering studies of the first appearance
STEPHEN ANDERSON and EDWARD KEENAN: 'Deixis' in and development of deictic forms in the early language of
Timothy Shopen (ed.): Language Typology and young children.
Syntactic Description. Volume 3: Grammatical ■■□
Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University JURGEN WEISSENBORN and WOLFGANG KLEIN (eds.):
Press 1985 Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis
This paper presents a review of the range of deictic and Demonstration. John Benjamins 1982
expressions used in a wide variety of languages. This is a collection of fourteen papers on different types of
deixis in a wide range of languages.
ROBERT JARVELLA and WOLFGANG KLEIN (eds.):
Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related
Topics. John Wiley & Sons 1982 Chapter3
Refer enc e and infer enc e • ; - > ; ;:
This is a collection of fifteen papers on different aspects of
deixis by both linguists and psychologists, incorporating
studies on deixis and the blind and in the sign language of the HERBERT CLARK and DEANNA WILKES-GIBBS: 'Referring
deaf. as a collaborative process' in Cognition 22, 1986
This important paper presents evidence for the ways in which
■ ■D
speakers in conversation collaborate to create referring
JOHN LYONS : Natural Language and Universal
expressions.
Grammar. Cambridge University Press 1991
Chapters 8 and 9 in this collection of essays provide a lot of

Il8 REFERENCES REFERENCES 119

■■ J
This collection of essays covers many topics in pragmatics,
GILES FAUCONNIER: Mental Spaces.
including reference (Chapters 5 and 6), from a perspective that
Cambridge University Press 1994
emphasizes function (what language is used for).
This is a very original approach to the ways in which we
■an
connect words to referents, emphasizing the assumption of
JOHN LYONS: Semantics. Volume 1.
shared know ledge and the role of pragmatic connections.
Cambridge University Press 1977
■■D Chapter 7, on reference, sense, and denotation, presents a com
TALMY GIVON: Mind, Code and Context: Essays prehensive background to the basic issues in the traditional
in Pragmatics. Lawrence Erlbaum 1989
 semantic treatment of how words are used to refer. NEIL SMITH andDEiRDRE WILSON: Modern
Linguistics. Penguin 1979
■ ■■
GEOFFREY NUNBERG: The Pragmatics of Chapters 7 and 8 of this text provide a detailed review of
Reference. Indiana University Linguistics Club presup position, entailment, and the role of ordered
1977 entailments.
This dissertation uses the idea that words can be shown to ■■■
have endless possible referents to argue for a pragmatic ROB VAN DER SANDT: Context and
analysis in which word-meanings cannot be separated from Presupposition. Croom Helm 1988
'knowledge of other kinds of conventions and social This book reconsiders the connection between presupposition,
practices'. context, and the projection problem.

Chapter 4 Chapter5
P r e s u p p o s iti o n a n d e n t ailm e n t C o o p e r a ti o n a n d i m p li c a t u r e

man
NOEL BURTON-ROBERTS: The Limits to Debate. A Revised DIANE BLAKEMORE: Understanding Utterances.
Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge An Introduction to Pragmatics. Blackwell 1992
University Press 1989
This is an introduction to pragmatics in which Relevance is
This book represents one of the few recent attempts to taken to be the central concept.
reconsider the basic concepts involved in presupposition.
■■■
CHOON-KYU OH and DAVID DINEEN (eds.): Syntax and LAURENCE HORN: 'Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic
Semantics Volume n: Presupposition. Academic Press inference: Q-based and R-based implicature' in Deborah
1979 Schiffrin (ed.): Meaning, Form and Use in Context:
Linguistic Applications. Georgetown University Press
This collection of sixteen papers, plus an extensive
bibliography, illustrates the types of controversies 1984
surrounding the nature of presupposition. Many are presented This paper proposes an alternative approach to analyzing how
in very technical language. implicatures arise, using two instead of four maxims.
■ ■L

IZO REFERENCES REFERENCES IZI

■■Li whose ideas are considered by many to be the foundation of
PAUL GRICE: Studies in the Way of Words. con temporary pragmatics.
Harvard University Press 1989
■■■
This volume includes the collected papers of the philosopher
 Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 16,1990 both conditions and applications of the concept of a speech
There is a collection of sixteen papers, presented as a act.
parasession within these published proceedings, on the legacy
■■■
of Grice, cover ing a wide range of issues in the analysis of
JOHN SEARLE: Expression and Meaning. Studies in the
meaning.
Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press 1979 A
■■: collection of seven papers, including one on indirect speech
DAN SPERBER and DEIRDRE WILSON: Relevance. acts and another on a taxonomy of illocutionary acts. These
Blackwell 1986 fre quently cited papers represent a development of the ideas
Presented as a study of human communication, this book takes pre sented earlier in Searle (1969).
the single maxim of Relevance as the key. Arguments and ■■
illustra tions are presented to support the contention that JEF VERSCHUEREN: What People Say They Do With
'communicated information comes with a guarantee of Words. Ablex 1985
relevance'.
This book presents a critical review of problems in speech act
theory and a proposal for a different approach based on the
Chapter 6 study of linguistic action.
Speechactsandevents

■■ ii Chapter7
J.AUSTIN: How to Do Things with Words. (2nd P o lit e n e s s a n d i n t e r a c ti o n
edn.) Clarendon Press 1975
■■D
The original work which introduced the concept of language SHOSHANA BLUM-KULKA and GABRIELE KASPER: Journal
use as a form of action. of Pragmatics 14/2 (Special Issue on politeness), 1990
■DC This collection of six papers includes a review paper by
KENT BACH and ROBERT HARNISH: Linguistic Kasper on current research issues as well as three reports on
Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press 1979 Two the develop ment of politeness behavior in children.
linguists present a detailed framework for the analysis of
■■1
speech acts.
PENELOPE BROWN and STEPHEN LEVINSON: Politeness.
JOHN SEARLE: Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge
of Language. Cambridge University Press 1969 University Press 1987

The best known work on the topic, with detailed discussion of This is the most comprehensive book on linguistic politeness,

122 REFERENCES REFERENCES 123

offering lots of detailed discussion and illustrations from PAUL DREW and JOHN HERITAGE (eds.): Talk at Work:
different languages. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge
University Press 1992
■■D
This is a collection of fifteen papers on the general topic of Strategy. Sage 1983
inter action in work contexts (for example, news interviews, This is a collection of fourteen papers on conversation as
court pro ceedings, doctor's office). interper sonal communication, viewed from a range of
perspectives.
■ DG
M.DUFON, G.KASPER, S.TAKAHASHI, and N. YOSHINAGA: ■■a
'Bibliography on Linguistic Politeness' in Journal of HARVEY SACKS: Lectures on Conversation. Volumes
Pragmatics 21,1994, pages 527-78 1-2. Blackwell 1992
This is an extremely useful listing of published work These two volumes present the original lecture material in
concerned with language and politeness. which the foundations of conversation analysis were
■■a established.
ERVING GOFFMAN: Forms of Talk. University of BBD
Pennsylvania Press 1981 DEBORAH TANNEN: Conversational Style: Analyzing
This is a collection of five important papers by one of the most Talk Among Friends. Ablex 1984
influential writers on language and social interaction. This book presents extensive illustration of different aspects
of con versational style as 'the basic tools with which people
Chapter 8 communicate'.
Conversation and preference structure ■an
TEUN VAN DIJK: Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
■an
Volume 3: Discourse and Dialogue. Academic Press
MAXWELL ATKINSON and JOHN HERITAGE (eds.): Structures
1985
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge University Press 1984 This volume contains sixteen papers illustrating a range of
differ ent perspectives on aspects of interactive talk.
This is a collection of sixteen papers by some of the best
known writers on conversation analysis.
Chapter 9
■■;
Discourse and culture
JACK BILMES: 'The concept of preference in
conversation analysis' in Language in Society 17,1988 Ban
This paper presents a review of the uses of the term S.BLUM-KULKA, j.HOUSE, and G.KASPER (eds.): Cross
'preference' and argues for a more precise application of the cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex 1989
analytic concept. This is a collection of ten papers describing studies
■■a undertaken within the framework of the Cross-cultural
ROBERT CRAIG and KAREN TRACY (eds.): Speech Act Realization Project.
Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and
124 REFERENCES REFERENCES 125
GILLIAN BROWN and GEORGE YULE: Discourse
Analysis. Cambridge University Press 1983
This is a standard textbook with a linguistic focus on the
study of discourse.
■■□
JOHN GUMPERZ: Discourse Strategies. Page references to Section 1, Survey, are given at the end of each
Cambridge University Press 1982 entry.
This is a collection of ten papers by one the most influential a d j a c e n c y p ai r A sequence of two utterances by different
writers on social interaction and cross-cultural speakers in conversation. The second is a response to the
communication. first, e.g. ques tion-answer. [77]
a n a p h o r The word, typically a pronoun, used to maintain ref e
■■a
GABRIELE KASPER and SHOSHANA BLUM-KULKA (eds.): r e n c e to someone or something already mentioned, e.g. 'An

Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press old man was limping towards us. He slowly came into view.'
1993 [23]
a n t e c e d e n t The initial expression used to identify someone or
This is a collection of eleven papers on various pragmatic
something for which an an a p h o r is used later, e.g. 'AM old
aspects of second language learning.
man was limping towards us. He slowly came into view.'
[23]
DEBORAH SCHIFFRIN: Approaches to Discourse. a t t ri b u t a b l e sil e n c e The absence of talk when a speaker is
Blackwell 1994 given the right to speak in conversation. [73]
This is a guide to several different frameworks for doing a tt ri b u ti v e u s e Using an expression to identify someone or
discourse analysis. some thing without being committed to the existence of an
actual per son or thing, e.g. 'the first person to walk on
ANNA WIERZBICKA: Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Mars'. [18]
Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter
b a c k c h a n n e l s / b a c k c h a n n e l si g n a l s Vocal
indications of
1991
atten tion, e.g. 'uh-huh', 'hmm', when someone else is talking.
This is a book about how cultural values and norms shape [75] b a c k g r o u n d e n t ail m e n t Any logical consequence of an
differ ent modes of interaction. utter ance. [33]
b a l d o n r e c o r d Utterances, e.g. orders, directly addressed to
SECTION 4 another where the illoc uti o n a r y fo r c e is made explicit. [63]
Glossary
c a t a p h o r a The
use of a word (typically a pronoun) to
introduce someone or something that is more fully identified
 later, e.g. 'He slowly came into view. An old man was expected relationships in experience
limping towards us.' [23] c o h e r e n c e The familiar and

126 REFERENCES GLOSSARY 127

which we use to connect the meanings of utterances, even meaning is con structed. [87]
when those connections are not explicitly made. [84] c u l t u r al s c h e m a t a Pre-existing
knowledge structures based
c o m m i s s i v e A speech act in which the speaker commits him on experience in a particular culture. [87]
or herself to some future action, e.g. a promise. See Table 6.1.
[54] c o n s t a n c y u n d e r n e g a ti o n Quality of the p r e s u p p o s i tio n d e c l a r a ti o n A
speech act that brings about a change by being
of a statement remaining true when the statement is negated. uttered, e.g. a judge pronouncing a sentence. See Table 6.1.
[26] c o n t e n t c o n d i t i o n s In order to count as a particular type [53]
of
speech act, an utterance must contain certain features, e.g. a 128 GLOSSARY
promise must be about a future event. [50] d e f e r e n c e s t r a t e g y Feature
of interactive talk emphasizing n
e g a - tive politen ess, the non-personal, and freedom from
c o n t e x t The physical environment in which a word is used:
cf. co-text. [21] imposition. [66] d e i c ti c c e n t e r The speaker's location/time.
c o n t r a s ti v e p r a g m a ti cs The study of culturally different ways [9]
of using language. [88] deictic expression See deixis. [9]
d e i c t i c p r o j e c t i o n Speakers acting as if they are somewhere
c o n v e n ti o n al i m p li c at u r e An additional unstated meaning
asso ciated with the use of a specific word, e.g. 'A but B' else. [13]
implies a contrast between A and B, so 'contrast' is a d e i x i s 'Pointing' via language, using a d ei c ti c e x p r e s s i o n , e.g.
conventional implicature of 'but'. [45] 'this', 'here'. [9]
c o n v e r s a ti o n al i m p li c a t u r e An additional unstated meaning d i r e cti v e A speech act used to get someone else to do

that has to be assumed in order to maintain the coo p e r ati ve p something, e.g. an order. See Table 6.i. [54]
ri n ci pl e, e.g. if someone says 'The President is a mouse', d i r e c t s p e e c h a c t Speech act where a direct relationship exists

something that is literally false, the hearer must assume the between the structure and communicative function of an
speaker means to convey more than is being said. [40] utter ance, e.g. using an interrogative form ('Can you ... ?')
c o n v e r s a ti o n al s t yl e Particular way of participating in
to ask a question ('Can you swim?'): cf. in dire ct s p e e c h a ct.
conversa tion. [76] [55]
c o o p e r a ti v e p ri n ci p l e A basic assumption in conversation that d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s The study of language use with reference

each participant will attempt to contribute appropriately, at to the social and psychological factors that influence
the required time, to the current exchange of talk. [37] communica tion. [83]
d i s p r e f e r r e d The structurally unexpected next utterance as a
c o - t e x t The linguistic environment in which a word is used:
cf. context. [21] response, e.g. an invitation is normally followed by an
c o u n t e r f a c t u a l p r e s u p p o s i ti o n The assumption that certain
accept ance, so a refusal is dispreferred. [79]
information is the opposite of true. [29] d i s t al Away from the speaker, e.g. 'that', 'there': cf. p r o xi m a l . [9]

c r o s s - c u l t u r a l p r a g m a t i c s The study of different

e l l i p s i s The
absence of a word or words from a structural
expectations among different communities regarding how
slot. [23] e n t a i l m e n t Something that logically follows from
 what is taking part in conversation. [76]
asserted. [25] es s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n In performing a s p e e c h a c high involvement style An active, fast-paced, overlapping way of taking
t, a requirement part in conversation. [76]
that the utterance commits the speaker to the act honorific Expression which marks that the addressee is of higher status.
[10]
performed. [51] exclusive 'we' Addressee excluded: cf. inclusive
'we'. [11] e x i s t e n t i a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n An assumption that
ideational function The use of language as a means of giving structure
someone or to thought and experience. [83] Illocutionary Force Indicating Device
something, identified by use of a noun phrase, does exist. [27] (IFID) Indication in the
explicit performative A speech act containing a performative verb: speaker's utterance of the communicative force of that utterance. [49]
cf. implicit performative. [52] ex p r e s si v e A speech act in which illocutionary act or force The communicative force of an utterance.
the speaker expresses feelings [48]
or attitudes, e.g. an apology. See Table 6.i. [53] implicature A short version of conversational implicature. [35] implicit
performative A speech act without a performative verb: cf. explicit
faceA person's public self-image. [60] performative. [52]
f a c e s a v i n g a c t Utterance
or action which avoids a potential inclusive 'we' Speaker and addressee included: cf. exclusive 'we'. [11]
threat to a person's public self-image. [61] indexicals Like deictic expressions, forms used for 'pointing' via
language. See deixis. [9] indirect speech act Speech act where
GLOSSARY 129 an indirect relationship
face threatening act Utterance or action which threatens a person's exists between the structure and communicative function of an
public self-image. [61] face wants A person's expectations that their utterance, e.g. the use of an interrogative ('Can you... ?') not to ask a
public self-image question, but to make a request ('Can you help me with this?'): cf.
will be respected. [61] factive presupposition The assumption that direct speech act. [55] inference The listener's use
information stated of additional knowledge to make
after certain words, e.g. 'know', 'regret', is true: cf. non-factive sense of what is not explicit in an utterance. [17] insertion sequence A
presupposition. [27] felicity conditions The appropriate conditions for two part sequence that comes between the first and second parts of
a speech act to another sequence in conversation. [77] interlanguage pragmatics The
be recognized as intended. [50] first part The first utterance in an study of how non-native speakers
adjacency pair, e.g 'How are communicate in a second language. [88] interpersonal
you?' See also second part. [77] function The use of language for maintaining social roles and
floor The current right to speak in a conversation. [72] foreground taking part in social interaction. [83]
entailment The main logical consequence of an utterance. [33] frame A
pre-existing knowledge structure with a fixed static lexical presupposition The assumption that, in using one word, the
pattern. [86] speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be under stood. [28]
local management system A metaphor for describing the con ventions for
general conditions Preconditions on performing a speech act. [50] organizing the right to speak in conversation. [72] locutionary act The
generalized conversational implicature An additional unstated meaning basic act of uttering a meaningful linguistic form. [48]
that does not depend on special or local knowledge: cf. conversational
implicature. [41] manner One of the maxims, in which the speaker is to be clear, brief,
and orderly. See Table 5.1. [39] maxim One of the four sub-principles of
hedges Cautious notes expressed about how an utterance is to be taken, the cooperative principle.
e.g. 'as far as I know' used when giving some informa tion. [38] See manner, quantity, quality, and relation. See also Table 5.1. [37]
high considerateness style A non-interrupting, non-imposing way of mitigating device Expression used to soften an imposition, e.g. 'please'.
 [63] positive face. [61]

negative face The need to be independent, not imposed on by others: cf.

130 GLOSSARY GLOSSARY 131

negative politeness Awareness of another's right not to be imposed
on: cf. positive politeness. [62] 13Z GLOSSARY
negative politeness strategy An attempt to demonstrate aware ness pragmatic connection A conventional association between a
of another's right not to be imposed on: cf. positive po liteness person's name and a kind of object, e.g. 'Shakespeare' used to
strategy. [64] identify a book. [20]
non-factive presupposition The assumption that certain in pragmatics The study of speaker meaning as distinct from word or
formation, as presented, is not true: cf. factive presupposition. sentence meaning. [4]
[29] pre-announcement Utterance before an announcement to check if
an announcement can be made. [68]
off record Utterances not directly addressed to another. [63] on preference/preference structure A pattern in which one type of
record Utterances directly addressed to another. [63] overlap
utterance will be more typically found in response to another in a
More than one speaker talking at the same time in conversation.
conversational sequence, e.g. an acceptance will more typi cally
[72]
follow an invitation than a refusal. [79]
preferred The structurally expected next utterance used in a
particularized conversational implicature An additional un stated
response. [79]
meaning that depends on special or local knowledge: cf.
pre-invitation Utterance before an invitation to check if an
conversational implicature. [42]
invitation can be made. [68]
performative hypothesis A proposal that, underlying every utter
preparatory conditions Specific requirements prior to an utterance
ance, there is a clause with a verb that identifies the speech act.
in order for it to count as a particular speech act. [50]
[51]
performative verb A verb that explicitly names the speech act, e.g. pre-request Utterance before a request to check if a request can be
the verb 'promise' in the utterance 'I promise to be there'. [49] made. [67]
perlocutionary act/effect The effect of an utterance used to per presupposition Something the speaker assumes to be the case. [25]
form a speech act. [48,49] primary performative An utterance which performs a speech act
person deixis Forms used to point to people, e.g. 'me', 'you'. [9] but which does not contain a performative verb. [52]
politeness Showing awareness of another person's public self image projection problem The problem of the presupposition of a simple
face wants. [60] structure not surviving when part of a more complex structure.
positive face The need to be connected, to belong to a group: cf. [30]
negative face. [62] proximal Near speaker, e.g. 'this', 'here': cf. distal. [9]
positive politeness Showing solidarity with another: cf. negative psychological distance Speaker's marking of how close or dis tant
politeness. [62] something is perceived to be. [13]
positive politeness strategy An appeal to solidarity with another:
cf. negative politeness strategy. [64] quality One of the maxims, in which the speaker has to be truth ful.
potential presupposition An assumption typically associated with See Table 5.1. [38]
use of a linguistic form, e.g. the use of the verb 'regret' in 'He quantity One of the maxims, in which the speaker has to be neither
regrets doing that' carries an assumption that he actually 'did that'. more or less informative than is necessary. See Table 5.1. [38]
[27]
pragmatic accent Aspects of talk that indicate what is assumed to range of reference All the possible referents identifiable by use of
be communicated without being said. [88] a word. [21]
 'there': cf. temporal deixis. [9]
GLOSSARY 133 s p e e c h a c t An action performed by the use of an utterance to
r e f e r e n c e An act by which a speaker uses a word, or words, communicate. [47]
to enable a listener to identify someone or something. [17] r e f
e r e n t i a l u s e Using an expression to identify someone or 134
something when the person or thing is assumed to be known: speecheventA set of circumstances in which people interact
cf. attributive use. [18] in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome. [47,57]
r e f e r ri n g e x p r e s si o n A linguistic form which enables a s t r u c t u r a l p r e s u p p o s i ti o n The assumption that part of a
listener, or reader, to identify something. [17] struc ture contains information being treated as already
r el ati o n One of the m a xi m s , in which the speaker has to be rel
known. [28] s y n t a x The study of the structures connecting
evant. See Table 5.1. linguistic forms. [4]
r e p r e s e n t a ti v e A s p e e c h a c t in which the speaker states what
is believed or known, e.g. an assertion. See Table 6.1. [53] t a u t o l o g y An apparently meaningless expression in which
one word is defined as itself, e.g. 'business is business'. [35] t e
s c al a r i m p li c a t u r e An additional meaning of the negative of m p o r a l d e i x i s Forms used to point to location in time, e.g.
any value higher on a scale than the one uttered, e.g. in 'now', 'then': cf. sp ati al d ei xis . [9]
saying 'some children', I create an implicature that what I t e x t u a l f u n c t i o n The use of language in the creation of well
say does not apply to 'all children'. [41] formed text. [83]
s c h e m a (plural s c h e m a t a ) A pre-existing knowledge structure
T r a n siti o n R el e v a n c e Pl a c e ( T R P ) A possible change of
in memory typically involving the normal expected patterns speaker point in an interaction. [72]
of things, e.g. an apartment schema has a kitchen, a t u r n The opportunity to speak at some point during a
bedroom, etc. [85] conversation. [72]
s c ri p t A pre-existing knowledge structure for interpreting
t u r n - t a k i n g The change of speaker during conversation. [72]
event sequences, e.g. a visit to the dentist has a script of T / V d i sti n c ti o n A distinction between forms used for a
specific events in sequence (which might start with giving familiar ('tu') and a non-familiar ('vous') addressee, in French
one's name to the receptionist and finish with making a and other languages. [10]
further appointment). [86]
s e c o n d p a r t The second or response utterance in an adjacency zeroanaphora The absence of an expression in a structural
pair, e.g. 'Fine, thanks'. See first p a rt. [77] slot where one is assumed, as a way of maintaining
s e m a n ti c s The study of how words literally connect to things, reference, e.g. 'Mary mowed the lawn and then _ watered
or more generally, the investigation of meaning as encoded it.' [23]
in lan guage. [4]
si n c e ri t y c o n d i ti o n s Requirements on the genuine intentions
of a speaker in order for an utterance to count as a
particular speech act. [51]
s o ci al d ei xi s Forms used to indicate relative social status. [10] s
oli d a ri t y s t r a t e g y An emphasis on the closeness of speaker
and addressee. [65]
s p a ti al d e i x i s Forms used to point to location, e.g. 'here',
 GLOSSARY 135
GLOSSARY
Acknowledgements

The author and publisher are grateful to the following for

permission to reproduce extracts from copyright material:
Academic Press, Inc. and the authors for extracts from Gerald
Gazdar: Pragmatics. Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical
Form (1979); J. L. Morgan: 'Two types of convention in indirect
speech acts' in Peter Cole (ed.): Syntax and Semantics Volume 9:
Pragmatics (1978).
Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. for an
extract from Robin Tolmach Lakoff: Talking Power: The Politics
of Language, copyright ® 1990 by Robin Tolmach Lakoff.
Blackwell Publishers for an extract from Harvey Sacks: Lectures
on Conversation (1992).
Cambridge University Press and the authors for extracts from
Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson: Politeness (1987); John
Gumperz and Jenny Cook-Gumperz: 'Introduction: language and
the communication of social identity' in J. Gumperz (ed.):
Language and Social Identity (1982); John Searle: Speech Acts
(1969).
Elsevier Science Ltd., The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington
0x5 iGB, UK for an extract from Gabriele Kasper: 'Politeness' in
Ron Asher (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics
Volume 6 (1994), copyright® 1994.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. and the author for an extract
from Georgia Green: Pragmatics and Natural Language
Understanding (1989).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 137