Pragmatics, discourse, politeness, persuasion, speech act theories

Confusing discourse

Language is the basis of all human activities; it is used to transmit information, feelings, emotions. It is a symbolic system with several functions; it is called symbolic because we use words as symbols to define things in an arbitrary way, since there is no necessary connection between a word and its meaning.

Process of verbal reference

When we talk, we use words, which are symbols that stand for a referent (non-verbal word); words activate the concept, which is what is understood.

Language as abstraction

We communicate through mental abstraction tacitly accepted, socially agreed upon, and recognizable. We can use:

• Selection: Possibility to choose between synonyms
• Definition: Possibility to use a word even though the meaning is not precise
• Simplification: Possibility to say something which is meaningless (London is beautiful)
• Singling out

Perception of non-verbal world

The perception of the world itself develops into five levels; the first two levels are pre-verbal abstraction (not how we perceive reality), while the other three levels are verbal abstraction (how we perceive reality).

1. Process/event level (PVA): the object itself (sub-microscopic level)
2. Object/experience level (PVA): we recognize/perceive the object
3. Descriptive/naming level (VA): we use labels/words to define things in an arbitrary way
4. Inference level (VA): we talk about something not directly experienced but feasible (we talk about John but John isn't here)
5. Generalization level (VA): we make conclusions, deductions, inferences based on a logical-model we've constructed (we say that Maradona is the best football player in the world, but obviously, we don't know all the football players in the world)

We develop meaning through recognizability, due to:

1. Word-internal factors: the language form and structure, what allows us to understand, for example, that a word is an adjective even if we don't know its meaning
2. Word-external factors: social agreements through the experience with the word (reading, listening), the common ground (what we think people know/believe), and the context.

Context

Even if we have grammatically analyzed a sentence, we can't understand it completely unless we analyze its context. There are three types of context:

1. Situational context: what is seen/perceived during the act of speech (Michelle's knees were like this)
2. Background knowledge, which can be:
   • Cultural, referring to the linguistic and cultural shared background
   • Interpersonal, acquired through previous verbal interactions or joint experiences between the locutors
   • Intertextual, referring to another text
3. Co-text: the textual context, what has already been said in the text

The act of using language to refer to entities in the context is called reference. We can have two types of references:

• Exophoric references (deixis): when there is no previous mention in the text, it is entirely dependent on the outside context
• Endophoric references: the reference has already been mentioned within the same text. (Francesca and her friends. Francesca = exophoric, Her = endophoric)

Exophoric references can also be called deixis. We have four types of deixis:

1. Person deixis: they point to a person in relation to the context of the speech = personal pronouns (I, we, our) and other pronouns with personal referent (both, either)
2. Time deixis: they point to a time in relation to the moment of the speech = time markers (before, later)
3. Place deixis: they point to a place in relation to the spatial context = place markers (where, here), adjectives and pronouns (this, that)
4. Tense and aspect deixis: they express a range of temporary meanings in relation to the present time. Present tense is not only used to talk about habitually occurring events, but it is also used for the historic present, switching from past to present

Endophoric references can be distinguished in:

• Anaphora: when the reference is mentioned in a previous part of the text (Francesca and her friends)
• Cataphora: when the reference is mentioned in a following part of the text, usually used to create suspense. (Those who have read his books can say Twain is a great writer)

Speech act theory

The speech act theory is born in reaction against the traditional semantic, which evaluates language in truth-conditional terms, which means that if a sentence is true (this pen is black) it is meaningful, while if it is false, it is not meaningful. So traditional semantic doesn't consider ambiguous, unclear sentences.

Austin questioned the assumption of truth-conditionality, considering that there are some sentences that are clearly true/false, but the majority of them are ambiguous or unclear, so they must be measured in terms of felicity, the effectiveness of a sentence if it attains its goal.

Speech act theory considers three levels in each sentence:

1. Locutionary level: what is said, the literal meaning, the only level considered by the traditional semantic
2. Illocutionary level: what is meant, the intention of the locutor
3. Perlocutionary level: what our interlocutor is expected to do, the effect we want to produce

The perlocutionary effect can be either physical when the utterance is meant to produce a physical reaction, or psychological when the utterance is meant to produce a state of mind, an attitude, a mood.

All sentences are speech acts because each of them is meant to produce an effect. We can distinguish among:

• Directive acts: clearly meant to make the hearer do something for us (requests, orders, advice, invites..)
• Representative acts: meant to express our interpretation of the world (descriptions..)
• Commissive acts: meant to manifest our intention of performing something (promises, threats..)
• Expressive acts: meant to manifest a psychological condition in relation to social circumstances (Good night, I'm glad/sorry for you..)
• Declarative acts: meant to change the state of things (e.g., "I declare")

Searle distinguished between direct and indirect speech acts:

• Direct speech acts, when the form corresponds to the function; the speaker wants to communicate the literal meaning of the words expressed
• Indirect speech acts, when the form doesn't correspond to the function; the speaker wants to communicate something different from the apparent surface meaning

Illocutionary level is the stage between the locutionary level and the perlocutionary level, between words and actions. If it coincides with the locutionary level, we'll have a direct speech act, while if it is closer to the perlocutionary level, we'll have an indirect speech act.

Searle distinguished between illocutionary point, which is the purpose of a speaker while making an utterance, and illocutionary force, the strength of commitment.

Felicity conditions

In 1969, Searle determined the felicity conditions, in order for the speech act to be appropriately and successfully performed.

1. General condition: the language must be heard and understood by all the participants
2. Preparatory condition: the participants must share the same context, must know what they are talking about
3. Propositional condition: the utterance must be feasible (possible)
4. Sincerity condition: participants must neither play nor lie
5. Essential condition: participants must be committed to what they say and must be in the position to say what they're saying (only a priest can say "I declare you husband and wife")

Speech act theory (scheme)

Austin:

• Utterances must be measured through felicity conditions
• Each sentence (what's your point?) has three levels:
  • Locutionary level (what's your point?)
  • Illocutionary level (what do you want?)
  • Perlocutionary level (you want the other to tell you what they want)

Searle:

• All sentences are speech acts
• Speech acts can be:
  • Directive
  • Representative
  • Commissive
  • Expressive
  • Declarative
• Direct/indirect speech acts
• Illocutionary point/force
• Felicity conditions:
  • General
  • Preparatory
  • Propositional
  • Sincerity
  • Essential

Exchange structure and conversation analysis

These are two approaches to study the way utterances are related in a discourse. Language doesn't exist in isolation: every utterance is part of a coherent and cohesive text; it is affected by the previous one and affects the following one.

To account for this interaction there are two theories: exchange structure (quantitative based) and conversation analysis (qualitative based).

Exchange structure (discourse analysis)

This is an approach taken by Sinclair and Coulthart, who studied primary school lessons. According to them, each conversation develops into five levels, from the lowest to the highest level of abstraction.

1. Act is the lowest rank of abstraction. Their function can be:
   • Initiation act: to start an exchange or to change the topic during the same exchange (do you know that..?)
   • Response act: answer to the initiation act (yes, I do)
   • Fillers: to fill the gap of the conversation (you see, I mean.. not considered as speech acts by Austin & Searle)
   • Acknowledge function: used to signal that you are following (Oh really? Was it? not considered as speech acts by Austin & Searle)
   • Evaluative function: meant to evaluate what the interlocutor said (Interesting!)
   • Discourse markers: used to mark the boundary between ideas (Well, right)
2. IRF moves: gathering of acts in a fixed order, standing for:
   • Initiation: used to give or order information, check if the interlocutor is listening, it implies a response
   • Response: a physical reaction or a verbal answer
   • Follow-up: comment to the response, either signaling you've received the message (Ok, got it) or evaluating what has been said (Very good)
3. Exchange: a series of moves thematically/semantically related, sharing the same content
4. Transaction: a series of exchanges sharing the same situational context
5. Speech event: all transactions combined

Limitations of exchange structure:

• It can be used only in contexts which are similar to a classroom, where there is an asymmetrical power relationship where one of the two interlocutors gives orders (dialogue doctor-patient, trial, quiz shows, interviews, phone calls)
• It considers only task-oriented conversations, not everyday unplanned occasional conversations
• In reality, it allows the presence of a large number of participants, but actually, the roles are predetermined (class: 1. teacher, 2. students)

Exchange structure or discourse analysis (scheme)

Sinclair, Coulthard:

• Each conversation develops into five levels:
  • Act (initiation act, response act, filler, acknowledge function, evaluative function, discourse marker)
  • IRF-move (initiation, response, follow-up)
  • Exchange
  • Transaction
  • Speech event
• Limitations:
  • Asymmetrical power relationship
  • Task-oriented conversation
  • Predetermined roles (but large groups of participants)

Conversation analysis

While exchange structure considers conversation as a predetermined structure, conversation analysis considers it as a free form process.

• It considers also everyday, unplanned, occasional conversations (not task-oriented)
• Without predetermined roles and asymmetrical power relationship
• Small groups of participants
• Short turns

According to C.A., the main purpose of language is conversation itself. The tools for conversation are turn taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences.

Turn taking

A basic requirement for a felicitous conversation is respecting turn-taking, avoiding interruptions and overlaps (start talking before the main information has been given). The speaker can take the floor at TRP (transition relevance point), a moment in which it is possible to change turn.

Adjacency pairs

Chunks of conversation always interconnected. For each sentence, there is a preferred answer: question - answer, greeting - greeting, blame - denial, complaint - apology.

Sequences

Utterances relevant to the same topic. We have:

• Opening/closing sequences: used to signal the intention to interact / that the conversation is about to finish (excuse me, hello / thanks, bye)
• Pre-sequences: used to prepare the ground for the following sequence, to signal the type of utterance that is going to follow (are you free tonight?)
• Insertion sequences: placed between the acts of a speech act in order to clarify the first act

Limitations of C.A.:

• Lack of systematicity: no precise lists/descriptions
• Qualitative approach: it can't afford quantitative results
• Lack of social vacuum: it considers the text as though it was composed only by context

Conversation analysis (scheme)

C.A:

• Conversation is a free form process
• Characteristics:
  • Not task-oriented conversation
  • No predetermined roles (but small groups of participants)
  • No asymmetrical power relationship
  • Short turns
• Tools for conversation:
  • Turn-taking
  • Adjacency pairs
  • Sequences (opening/closing sequences, pre-sequences, insertion sequences)
• Limitations:
  • Lack of systematicity
  • Qualitative approach
  • Lack of social vacuum

Principle of cooperation

According to Grice, we can have a felicitous conversation when the participants share an implicit desire for cooperation, following certain conventions. He determined four maxims on which conversation hinges:

1. Maxim of quantity: accounts for the informativeness; information conveyed must be neither too much, nor too little
2. Maxim of quality: accounts for the truth of the message; the speaker must tell the truth or must assume that they're telling the truth
3. Maxim of relevance: fundamental; the utterance conveyed must be pertinent, coherent, and relevant to the context
4. Maxim of manner: accounts for the clarity, intelligibility of the utterance; it must be clear, concise in order to require less time to be produced and less effort to be understood

It isn't always necessary to respect these maxims, as long as there are implicatures which allow the participants to recover the missing pieces of information. We often don't respect the maxims because we don't want our conversation to get boring and we want to stimulate our interlocutor's brain.

There are five cases of non-respecting the maxims:

• Infringement: limited linguistic competence (we don't remember a grammar rule)
• Flouting: most common case; we emphasize our non-respect so as to make it noticeable and easily recoverable. Figurative language is often involved (metaphors..) (are you hungry? I'm starving)
• Opting out: the interlocutor doesn't want/cannot collaborate and openly expresses their unwillingness/impossibility to cooperate (Where is X? I'm afraid I cannot tell you)
• Coping with clash between maxims: the interlocutor doesn't want/cannot respect a maxim, so they respect all the other maxims giving other information. They try to be as informative as they can, without giving the specific information required (Where is X? Somewhere in North Africa)
• Violation: the interlocutor doesn't want/cannot collaborate, but doesn't want their lack of respect to be noticed (lying, acting)

Non-respecting a maxim doesn't disrupt cooperation when implicatures are available to recover the missing pieces of information. Implicatures can be both:

• The result of cognitive processing of linguistic/semantic elements (but, because, nonetheless..)
• The result of inferences on the basis of co-text and context (situational, cultural, and interactional background)

There are two types of implicatures:

• Conventional implicatures: based on linguistic and cultural conventions. They can be understood also by those who are outside the context. (A. When are you coming to us? B. I'm very busy at the moment = apparently it doesn't respect the maxim of relevance, but the meaning is clear according to our cultural background)
• Conversational implicatures: based on conversational/situational context. They are understood only by those who are in the context (A. What time is it? B. The lesson is going to finish)

Principle of cooperation (scheme)

Grice:

• A conversation can be defined as felicitous only if participants share an implicit desire for cooperation
• Conversation must respect four maxims:
  • Quantity
  • Quality
  • Relevance
  • Manner
• Implicatures: they recover the missing piece of information; they are five:
  • Infringement
  • Flouting
  • Opting out
  • Coping with the clash between maxims
  • Violation
• They can be:
  • Result of cognitive processing of linguistic/semantic elements
  • Result of inferences on the basis of context and co-text
• There are two types of implicatures:
  • Conventional
  • Conversational