Pragmatics ELT J 1994 Peter Tan 100
-
Upload
paul-john-hughes -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Pragmatics ELT J 1994 Peter Tan 100
7/21/2019 Pragmatics ELT J 1994 Peter Tan 100
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pragmatics-elt-j-1994-peter-tan-100 1/1
ey concepts in LT
Pragmatics
The philosopher Charles Morris
saw
pragmatics
as
part
of
the science
of
signs
or
sem iotics. S emiotics
could be divided up into three branch es of enquiry:
syntactics (or syntax), which is the study of the formal
relations
of
s igns to one another ; semantics, the study
of the relations
of
signs
to
the objects
to
which
the
signs are app licable ; and pragm atics, the study of the
relations of signs to interpreters . (Levinson 1983:1). It
has since then been common
to
divide
the
study
of
language into for levels: phonology, syntax, semantics,
and pragmatics. Phonology, syntax, and semantics are
often seen as the three components of grammar, which
investigates language without specific reference to
context
or
to interpreters. Pragmatics would therefore
be distinguished from the other levels as the branch of
linguistics that investigates the rules and principles
that govern language
in use in its
various contexts
(situational, sociological, ideological, etc.).
By
defi-
nition, therefore, pragmatics
is
inter-disciplinary
in
nature.
Basic
to all
pragm atic rese arch
is
speech-act theory,
first developed
by
Austin
and
Searle,
and
Grice s
theory of implicature. Speech-act theory sees language
use not merely
as
saying,
but
also
as
doing.
If
using
language
is
doing something , there must be
a
doer,
S,
and also someone, H, to whom or for whom the action
speech act)
is
done. W hich speech
act is
being per-
formed
is
determined not only
by
the form
of
words
used, but also who S and H are and how they are
related,
and the
physical contex t.
An
utterance like
Ca n you play the pian o? is mo re likely to be interpre-
ted as a request if H is obviously able to do so, and S is
in
a
position
to
ask H to, and
if
there
is a
piano
in
the
vicinity.
If
these conditions
do not
apply (e.g.
H has
just recovered from
a
s troke,
or is
the parent
of
S ,
or
there
is
no piano
in
the vicinity), the utteranc e would
more likely be interpreted as
a
question.
Whereas speech-art theory focuses
on
rules
for the
appropriate performance of particular spe ech a cts,
Gric e s theory
of
implicature focuses
on
principles
that inform
the
problem -solving task
of
determining
the particular speech act being performed. An implica-
ture is distingu ished from w hat is sa id (what is in the
sentence,
as it
were). Based
on
Gric e s theory, there-
fore, the earlier utterance Ca n you play the piano ?
can be discounted as a (mere) question
if
H obviously
has the ability to play the piano, because such an inter-
pretation wou ld be in breach of the maxim of Qu antity,
one of the mixtures
of
the Co-op erative Principle, i.e.
too much has been said.
The C o-operative Principle ( ma ke your contribution
such as
is
required,
at
the stage
at
which
it
occurs, by
the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are enga ge d ) is the one generally used to
reach the implicatures of utterances, and can be broken
down into four broad categories
of
maxims: Quality
(speak
the
truth,
and
what
you
have evidence
for),
Quantity (say neither too much nor too little), Manner
(avoid verbosity, obscurity, etc.),
and
Relation (talk
relevantly).
More recent developments have concentrated on nar-
rowing or expanding the Co-operative Principle. Sper-
ber
and
Wilson (1986),
for
instance, propose
the
principle
of
relevan ce, and suggest that all the earlier
maxims can be subsumed under this principle. Others
like Leech (1983) propose more principles, such as the
Politeness Principle, th e Irony Principle, and the Ban-
ter Principle. Formu lations like I m a terrible cook
may be taken not seriously
in
spite
of
the m axim
of
quality) because of the dictates of the Modesty M axim ,
one
of
the maxim s
of
the Politeness P rinciple. B rown
and Levinson (1987) provide an alternative treatment
of politeness in terms of S s and H s face requirem ents.
Received August 1993
urther reading
Brown P.
an d S
Levinson.
1987. Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge Universi ty Press .
Leech
G N
1983.
Principles
o
Pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Levinson S
1983.
Pragmatics. Cambr idge :
Cambridge University Press.
Sperber D
and
D Wilson.
1986.
Relevance:
Communication
Blackwell .
and Cognition. Oxford:
Dr Peter Tan, Department of English Language and
Literature, National University of Singapore
10 0
ELT Journal Volume 48/1 January 1994© Oxford Un iversity Press 1994
a t L i v e r p o ol Uni v e r s i t yL i b r a r y on N o v e m b e r 3 ,2 0 1 5
h t t p : / / e l t j . oxf or d j o ur n a l s . or g /
D o wnl o a d e d f r om