1 / 35

Pragmatics (2)

Pragmatics (2). Dr. Ansa Hameed. Previously…. Pragmatics??? Importance of Context??? Theories Speech Act Theory. Today’s Lecture. Theories: 2. Relevance theory 3. Cooperation theory 4. Argumentation theory Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis. 2. Relevance Theory.

nakia
Télécharger la présentation

Pragmatics (2)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pragmatics (2) Dr. AnsaHameed

  2. Previously…. Pragmatics??? Importance of Context??? Theories Speech Act Theory

  3. Today’s Lecture • Theories: • 2. Relevance theory • 3. Cooperation theory • 4. Argumentation theory • Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis

  4. 2. Relevance Theory • Meaning is not merely a matter of decoding grammar. It is also a matter of knowing which of the many inferences that one can draw from an utterance are relevant. • Relevance is a matter deeply tied to context, point of view, and culture.

  5. 2. Relevance Theory lExample: Sentence 1. May have multiple meanings 2-4. What does it mean? Try to fill in the blanks. 1. Lung cancer death rates are clearly associated with an increase in smoking a. increased smoking = people smoke more b. increased smoking = more people smoke c. increased smoking = ____________________ d. the same people are smoking and dying e. the people smoking and dying are not all ___________ f. the situation being talked about is real (because) g. the situation being talked about is hypothetical ()

  6. 3. Cooperation Theory • COOPERATION THEORY Theway in whichpeople try tomakeconversationswork.

  7. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims • There are foursubprincipleswithinthistheorycalledmaxims • Quantity. (quantity of information) • Quality (betruthful) • Relevance/Relation (berelevance) • Manner (beclear)

  8. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims • The Maxim of Quantity • Be only as informative as required for current conversational purposes. • The Maxim of Quality • Say only what you believe to be true and adequately supported. • The Maxim of Relation • Be relevant. • The Maxim of Manner • Be clear: be brief and orderly and avoid obscurity and ambiguity.

  9. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims 1. Maxim of quantity Make your contribution as informative as required for the current purposes of the exchange. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

  10. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims 2. Maxim of quality Try to make your contribution one that is true. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

  11. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims • 3. Maxim of Relevance • Be relevant • Example: • A Well, how do I look? • B Your shoes are nice.

  12. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims • 4. Maxim of Manner • Avoid obscurity of expression • Avoid ambiguity • Be brief • Be orderly • Example: • A Does your dog bite? • B No. • A [Bends down to stroke it and gets bitten]Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite. • B That isn’t my dog.

  13. 3. Cooperation Theory: Maxims • Infringing a maxim: • Fail to observe a maxim because of their imperfect linguistic performance (a child or a foreign learner): nervousness; drunkenness; excitement; cognitive impairment; incapability of speaking clearly. • Example: • Bush said Gates would not routinely attend Cabinet meetings but would take part in sessions where intelligence was necessary for making decision.

  14. When not observing Maxims…..Implicatures By observing the cooperative principle, interlocutors are able to work out what is meant from what is said. l Utterances do not always carry their literal meaning. l Non-literal meaning must be inferred from context and the cooperative principle. l Non-literal interpretations are referred to as implicatures. l Implicature is a special type of inference in which the hearer makes the assumption that the speaker is NOT breaking one of the conversational maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner.

  15. When not observing Maxims: Face Theory In order to explain why in many cases people express themselves implicitly and indirectly by flouting the four maxims of the cooperative principle, Brown and Levinson (1978) advanced the Face Theory. Leech (1983:132) developed the face theory further and formulated the politeness principle.

  16. When not observing Maxims: Face Theory According to this theory, everybody has face wants, i.e. the expectation concerning their public self-image. In order to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships and ensure successful social interaction, we should be aware of the two aspects of another person's face, i.e. the positive face and the negative face .

  17. 3. Cooperation Theory Limitations of the Cooperative Principles: Different cultures, countries, and communities have their own ways of observing and expressing maxims for particular situations. There is often an overlap between the four maxims. It can be difficult to say which one is operating and it would be more precise to say that there are two or more operating at once.

  18. 4. Argumentation Theory • ARGUMENTATION THEORY • Interdisciplinarystudy of howhumans do reachconclusionsthroughlogicalreasoning • Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions.

  19. 4. Argumentation Theory Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following a set of assumptions or premises a method of reasoning or deduction and a conclusion or point. An argument must have at least two premises and one conclusion

  20. Pragmatic Analysis

  21. Pragmatic Analysis • PRAGMATIC ANALISYS • 1. Related to the situation • 2. Related to the context • 3. Related to the people • 4. Related to the information

  22. Pragmatic Analysis • 1 RELATED TO THE SITUATION Weadaptourconversationtodifferentsituations, dependingonthe place and the time wherethespeechoccurs.

  23. Pragmatic Analysis • 2 RELATED TO THE PEOPLE Dependingonwhoyou are with and therelationbetweenthosepeople, theconversationwillhavedifferentmeaning. Example: Ironicutteranceswithfriends and withunknownpeople.

  24. Pragmatic Analysis • 3 RELATED TO THE CONTEXT Withinthepeople, there are clues in thecontextthatallowustonoticethatirony (tosaytheopposite of whatitactuallymeans) Example: Facial expressions.

  25. Pragmatic Analysis • 4 RELATED TO THE INFORMATION Presuppositionsabouttheworld-knowledge of hearers; i.emeaningsthat can bedeductedbylistenersbecausetheyalreadyknowaboutthatinformation.

  26. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis

  27. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Pragmatics is the study of language usage from a functional perspective and is concerned with the principles that account for how meaning is communicated by the speaker (writer) and interpreted by the listener (reader) in a certain context. Like pragmatics, text analysis is also concerned with language used in particular contexts. It is the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written texts. In other words, it is the study of linguistic units larger than sentences or clauses.

  28. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Discourse Analysis can focus all theories related to Pragmatics to analyse discourses and at the same time it focuses certain features of text as well like: Cohesion Reference Substitution & Ellipsis Conjunction Theme & Rheme

  29. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Cohesion: A text is not a collection of lexical items and/or sentences in random. Instead, it must be semantically unified. In other words, it must have texture, i.e. the property that distinguishes a text from a non-text. The unity of a text can be achieved by a number of semantic and lexicogrammatical means, among which the most important is cohesion .

  30. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Reference Reference refers to the semantic relation in which a word or words are used to enable the addressee to identify someone or something. The word or words used for reference are called the reference item. The person(s) or thing(s) identified by the reference item are called the referent. Reference is a specific nature of information that is signaled for retrieval. The information to be retrieved is the referential meaning. John has moved to a new house. He had it built last year.

  31. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Substitution & Ellipsis Substitution refers to the replacement of one item by another and ellipsis the omission of an item. Unlike reference, which is a relation between meanings, substitution and ellipsis are a relation between linguistic items. Substitution and ellipsis are two closely related processes. A: I ate two eggs and a cup of milk for my breakfast. B: I ate the same.

  32. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Conjunction Conjunction in grammar refers to a word or expression like and, but, or that connects words, phrases, clauses and/or sentences. As one of the major grammatical cohesive ties, however, this term is used to focus on the inter-clausal and inter-sentential levels. In other words, we concentrate on how the conjunctive expressions contribute to the cohesion of a text.

  33. Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis Theme and Rheme Theme can be defined as the element which serves as the point of departure of the message conveyed by the clause. It is the ground from which the clause is taking off. In English, this element always takes the first position of a clause. The remaining part of the message, the part in which the Theme is developed, is called the Rheme . Example: My parents gave me a new bicycle Theme Rheme

  34. Recap Pragmatics Theories Pragmatic analysis Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis Pragmatics as an important factor when it comes to understanding the language in a deeply way as words do not have meaning by themselves.

  35. References Searle, J.R. ; Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (1980). Speechacttheory and Pragmatics. Dordnecht; Holland. Baena, E. ; Lacorte, M. (2002). Para entender laPragmática. Ed. Gredos. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: UniversityPress. http://www.helsinki.fi/~pietarin/publications/Relevance%20theory-Pietarinen.pdf Falk, Julia. Linguistics and Language. 1978. Hocket, F. C. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New Delhi: Oxford. 1958

More Related