7/28/2019 Crystal Pragmatics
1/2
21 PragmaticsPragmatics tudies he factors ahat govcrn
outchoiceof Languagen social ntcraction and theeffects f our
choiceon othcrs. n theory,we can..r1 nyrhrngwe l.e. r l rnc . e.we
ol low .r ' reenumber of social rules (most of them
unconscioLrsly)hat constraindrc way rve speak.Thereis no law that
sayswe must not tell jokesdururg: funeral, but it is generally'not
done'. Lessobviously, herearcnormsof formality andpolireness hat we
have ntuitivclyassimilated, nd hatwe follow when talking to
peoplewho are older,"f rheoppo.rreer. aqd o on.x(/rt ng inc ' i r
,n'IE,behaviour reconstrainedn similarways.Pragmr i h. ror .J '$ r
l . in luer ' .e r r - . l , t ^nofsounds, ramm ticalconstructions,
ndvocabu-lary fron the resources f the language. one oIthe
constraints re aught o us ar a very earlyage- in British English,
or example, he importrnceof saying leaseand harl yo', ot ljn sone
{amilies) of not referring to an adult female n herpre,ence '
(1.p.n man\ l rnguJSe..rJg-rr i .J i , r i ' . ron, o, Iorm, l ' y
. pol r . . . * . rnd i - r i r r , )are spread hroughour thc
grammatlcal,erical,rnd phonoog,rc : l1srem'. l r imrt r ly -e 'e '
r 'ngmattcrsof social lass, tatus, nd role($10,p. 99).A wcll+tudied
example s the pronoun systcnr,which frequently resents istinctions
hat co'vc1pragmatic ofce - such as the choicebetween rand aors n
French.Languages iffergreatlyn these espects.
olitenessexprcssions,or instance,may van in fre-quencyand
mcaning.Many European anguagesdo not use heir rvord for pldseas
ftequentlyasEnglishdocs;and he function and forceof trdzkt"a mrt r
l 'o . r l re-'e.g. o lourng r, , u. . r i " r r'!{rouldyou like
somemore cake?',Englisb larkto, means'yes',hereasrench
erci*ouldmean'no . ( o-\.nron' of greer g. leire r.rkng. nddrning
also differ greatlyfrom language o lan-guage.n somc countries t is
polire to remark oa host rhar we arc cnjoyingthe food; in othersit
is polite to stay silcnt. On one occasion,at adinner n an
Arabicconrnunity, hepresenr uthormade he mistakcof remarkingon the
excellenceofthe Iood beforehim. Thc host mmediately pologized,and
arranged or rvhat was rhcrc to bereplaced!Pregmaticerrors break no
rules of phorology,. ] nrr \ . or emrnrc\ . heelemenr 'r H"a, t , r
' . .yourmdiesty?,xi1ll l be orrnd n English anguagetextbooksand
didiorarics, brt for most of us the.equenLe\ ror pe-' i ,$,1- rom
pr.,grl | i ( v iewpoinr.Pragmarics as hereforc o bc seen
ssepnr-ate from the' levels ' of
languagccprcsentednlinguisticmodelsof analysisS1J . t is not a
part'o{ language tructure,but its domain s so closely
boLrndup wirh structoralmatters hat it cannotbe gnored n this
section f theencyclopedia.THE IDENTITY OF PRA.GMATICSPragmaticss
not at presenta coherent6eld ofstudy.A
largenumberoffactorsgovernour cnorccof languagen social nteractioD,
nd it is not yetclear what they all are, how .hey are best
ntcr-related,and how best to disringursh hem fromother recognized
reas f linguisric nquiry.Thereareseveral ain areas
foverlap.Sendnti.s \51,7) Pragmatics nd semantics othrake
nLoa..ounr su.h noLror' ' r rhe nre-r ion\o{ the speaker, he
effects f an utterancc n.lis-r .nrr ' . rhr mp' :r ion. r rr fol
low -omerpn*. ng.onerhing n a cr l r in qr/. and rhe
nouledg..beliefs, ndpresuppositionsbout he world uponwhich speakers
nd istenersely when hey nterSt]/,sttrs (S12) and
so.r.lingtuisti.s(5510, 63)These eldsoverlapwith prasDraticsD hcir
studyofrhe social elationships hich cxistbctwcen ar-ticipants,and
ofthe way extralinguistic ctting,ac-dviry, and subjecrmattercan
constrain he choiceof linguistic eatures nd
varieties.PsycholinSuisticsS57,38) Pragmatics Ddpsy-cholinguistics
oth investigate he psychologicalstates nd abilities fthe
participantshat will havea major effectupon their performance such
ac-tors asattention,mmory,andpersonlrlity.DiscowseanabtsisS20) Both
drscourse narysrsand pragmatics re centrallyconcernedwith
thcanalysis l conversation, nd sharcscvcralof thcphilosophical nd
inguisticnotions hathavcbeendeveloped o handle this ropic (suchas
the wayinformation s disributed within a senrence,erctrcforms
(p.105), or the norion of conversational'lna)dlns' p.117)).
A, .r e,ul tof rhe.e r erlapprngrea. f rnte-e+.several
onflictingdefinitions f the scope f prag-maticshavearisen.One
approach ocusses n rhefactors ormally encodedn the structureof a
language honorific orms, ilroas choice, ndsoon).AnorherelJre,r oJ
pdru.u l , r ru o,cn;ntr . ' ,here,pragmaticss seen s hc study
oFall aspectsof meaning ther han those nvolved n the analy-sis of
sentencesn terms of truth condrtrons(p. 07). Othr approaches dopt a
much broaderperspectivc. he broadestsees ragmatics s thestudyof thc
principlesand practiceundcrlyingal1interactiveinguisricperformance
this includingrl l a.pecr. f hngurgeu.dge.
-der.rrnd,ng.nddppropriJrene*.errbook,o- prrgmar . to date..
rccordingl l .'e .enta d i rer , i ry f , . b jcctnrrre. .
120 llt THf STRUCTURIuf LA^.-L,UAaI
7/28/2019 Crystal Pragmatics
2/2
: .r ange f pertiallyconl'ticting
rienterioDsnd::rodolosics,which proponenrsof thc subjecr.er .u re,o
l \e Ho\^evF, .t qL rJ l .e rver, ):rnion Io be a signof
hcalrhygrowth n a sub-,, : . rrmust esaid hat ewother reas f
languase:. havcsucha promisingutrire.) peecn cts
B.rr ish hi losopher. L. Austin 19111960):. :he lirst to draw
arrenrion o the n.rnv rure-:. periormedbv utrerances spart of
intcrpcr-. - : .ommuDicatjon.npart icuhr,hepointcdout:: ranr
urrerances o not communrcatentor-::: rn, but are equivalent to
aciions. Vhen-:one says l apologize. ' , ' l promise.. ' , ' l' a!
a wedding) , r ' l namc hisship . . ' , rhe::::nce immediately
onveys nc*' psychologi:: social eality.An apologv akesplacewhen.
-Dne apologizcs, nd not before. A shLp s,-.J only whcn the act of
naming s completc..:;h cascs,o say is to perform. Austin thus. : .j
these tteranceserformatiues,ecigthem. .:n different from
strtementsrhar convey' ' .alatian constdtiues).n
panicular,performa,:i rre not true or false. f A says'l name rhrs_
. . . , B cannot hensay ThaCs ot rue'!i ipeech act analysis,we
stud_,-he efiect ot' ' . : :nces n hebehaviourf speakerndheuu,
- ' rhr ,e 'o lJ Jr-rn. r run. -r r . r . e re,ognizr, .rre lact
that a communicative ct akesplacc:- )tutiotldry t.t. Secondly,we
look at dre actr:: :! perfornedasa resultof the spcakermakingthe
caseswhcre rsayrng= dong ,:. r, befting,promisirlg,welcoming, nd
warn-- : ::ese, nown as llocztrordlyacts,ar hc core:: . rheoryof
speech crs.Thirdly, we look at, r.:nicular effcct
hespeaker\unerance ason, :!rener, who nay feel amused,persuadcd,. :
:::d, etc.,asa conscquence:hebringingabout.r:h effects s known as a
perlocutionaryact.. nportant to :ppreciate hat he llocurionary_:.
ot an utterance nd ts pcrlocurionary ffecr- . .o! coincide.lfl warn
you againsr particulir-i : oi action, you nay or may nor heed my":
- : : ]8 '' : re are thousands f possiblel locut io,,a.)' - . :nd
sevcralnempts avc eenmade o clas::em ntoa srral l umber frypes. uch
lassr-:::.ns are difficulr,beciuse crl, meanings re: rot easy o
distinguish, nd speakers'nten--.,:re not always lear.One nlluential
rpproach' - : l i rc hasrc pes (af tcr . R. \errlc, 1c-{r l :. : '
. , rat iu. lhr .uerker . , , rnrrr red. -:a 1c oec.ee(. , 1n( ru i
- o i I propo,rr r,
-. 1[fu , betlcE.conlude, deny, cp6n', , , ,y", I h*pe..rker
