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