TUGAS MID SEMESTER (Pragmatics)

TUGAS MID SEMESTER

(Pragmatics)

Lecturer Dr. Issy Yuliastri. M.Pd

Written by: Gina Tria Astuti

1.      Give three different definitions of pragmatics by three different authors and explain how they are different by comparing the different emphases in the definitions.

 Answer

a.       Lyons (1977a: 17) states that “the applicability [of the distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics] to the description of natural languages, in contrast to the description or construction of logical calculi, is, to say the least, uncertain”.

b.      Searle, Kiefer & Bierwisch (1980: viii) suggest that “pragmatics is one of those words that give the impression that something quite specific and the technical is being talked about when often in fact it has no clear meaning.”

2.      Give 5 different kinds of deixis and examples.

Answer

a.       person deixis

Person deixis concerns the encoding of the role of participants in the speech event. The category first person is the speaker’s reference to himself, second person encoding of the speaker’s reference to one or more addresses, and third person the encoding of reference to persons and entities which are neither speakers nor addresses of the utterance.

Example:

[1] Would his highness like some coffee?

Using a third form person form is one way of communicating distance (and non-familiarity). This can be done in English for an ironic or humorous purpose as when one person (who is very busy in the kitchen) addresses another (who’s being very lazy), as in example above.

[2] Somebody didn’t clean up after himself.

The third person form is also used to make potential accusations (for example, ‘you didn’t clean up’) less direct

[3] Each person has to clean up after him or herself.

The third person to make a potentially personal issue seem like an impersonal one, based on general rule

b.      place deixis

Place deixis concerns the encoding of spatial locations relative to the location of the participants in the speech event. Such distinctions are commonly encoded in demonstrative (as in English this vs that) and in deictic adverb of place (here vs there).

Example:

[1] I am not here now.

If ‘here’ means the place of the speaker’s utterance (and ‘now’ means the time of the speaker’s utterance), then an utterance such as [1] should be nonsense. However, I can say [1] in to the recorder of the telephone answering machine, projecting that the ‘now’ will apply to any time some one tries to call me, and not to when I actually records the words.

[2]	I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad look on its face. It was like, ‘Oh, I’m so unhappy here, will you set me free?’

A similar deictic projection is accomplished via dramatic performance when I use direct speech to represent the person, location, and feelings of someone or something else. For example, I could be telling you about a visit to a pet store, as in [2].

c.       time deixis

Time deixis concerns the encoding of temporal points and spans relative to the time at which an utterance was spoken (or a written message inscribed). Time deixis encodes times on co-ordinates anchored to the time of utterance. Time deixis is commonly grammaticalized in deictic adverbs of time (like English now and then, yesterday and this year).

Example:

[1] Back in an hour.

All these expressions depend for their interpretation on knowing the relevant utterance time. If we don’t know the utterance (i.e. scribbling) time for a note, as in the example above, on an office door, we won’t know if we have a short or a long wait ahead.

[2] Free beer tomorrow.

Similarly, if we return the next day to a bar that displays the notice in [9], then we will still be (deictically) one day early for the free drink.

d.      discourse or text deixis

Discourse deixis is an expression that has its reference within the discourse or text. Examples are in the previous section, in the next chapter, in the rest of this paper, in conclusion, etc. Demonstratives this and that are often discourse deixis. This can be used to refer to a forthcoming portion of the discourse.

Example:

[1] What he really means is this ...

[2] That was the most difficult situation we have ever faced.

　social deixis

Social deixis deals with aspects of sentences in which codification of the social status of the speaker, addressee or third person or entity referred to as well as the social relationships between them takes place.

3.      Why is dexis important in pragmatics?

Explain how it relates to the understanding of meaning of an utterance and give examples.

Answer

Deixis concerns the ways in which languages encode or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech events, and thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterances depends on the analysis of that context of utterance. 

Example

 [1] Meet me here a week from now with a stick  about this big

 [2] I’ll be back in an hour

4.      Explain the difference between conventional implicature and conversational implicature and give example.

Answer

Conversational implicature is a nonconventional implicature based on an addressee’s assumption that the speaker is following the conversational maxims or at least the cooperative principle.

Example:

In the following exchange, B flouts the maxim of manner, thereby implying that an open discussion of the ice cream is not desired:

A: Let’s get the kids something.

B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E C-R-E-A-M-S.

Conventional implicature is an implicature that is part of a lexical item’s or expression’s agreed meaning, rather than derived from principles of language use, and not part of the conditions for the truth of the item or expression.

Example:

A speaker using the word but between coordinate clauses thinks that some contrast or concession relation is relevant between the clauses.

5.      Explain conversational implicature from the point of view of cooperative maximum non-fulfillment, and give at least one example for each of the four maxims.

Answer

A conversational maxim is any of four rules which were proposed by Grice 1975, stating that a speaker is assumed to make a contribution that

• adequately but not overly informative (quantity maxim)
• the speaker does not believe to be false and for which adequate evidence is had (quality maxim)
• is relevant (maxim of relation or relevance), and
• is clear, unambiguous, brief, and orderly (maxim of manner).

      Example

maxim of quantity demands the speaker’s contribution informative as is required and no more informative than is required. Below are the examples of an utterance that obeys the maxim of quantity:

A: “Where are you going?”
B: “I’m going to the post office.”
In the example, B gives comments to A’s statement without adding other information

      Example

maxim of quality requires the speaker not to say what is believed to be false and for which the speaker lacks adequate evidence. Below are the examples of the utterance that obeys the maxim of quality:

A: “Why did you come late last night?”
B: “The car was broken down”
In t he example, B gives the truth that his car was broken down so that he came late.

      Example

maxim of retation required the speaker to be relevant. Below are the examples of utterance that obeys the maxim of relevance:

A: “Where is my box of chocolates?”
B: “It is in your room.”
In the example, B’s reply relates to the question, not talking about something else.

      Example

maxim of Manner requires the speaker to avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity. Maxim of manner demands the speaker to be brief and orderly. Below are the examples of utterance that obeys the maxim of manner:

A: Where was Alfred yesterday?
B: Alfred went to the store and bought some whiskey.
In the example, B’s answer obeys the manner maxim: be orderly, because she gives a clear explanation where A was.

6.      Give the definition(s) of speech act.

Answer

a.       Cook (1989: 23) states that speech acts provides us with a means of probing beneath the surface of discourse and establishing the function of what is being said.

b.      J.L Austin as quoted by Palmer (1981: 161) introduces Speech Act Theory, which explains meaning in communication. He stated that language is used to perform actions. Or in brief, when we speak, as a matter of fact we do speech acts; hence, both focus on how meaning and action are related to language.

c.       Lavinson (1986: 236) mentioned that there are three kinds of acts, LocutionaryAct, Illocutionary Act and Perlocutionary Act.

d.      Austin as quoted by Raskin (1985: 55) stated although Speech act is a means for serious and normal used language, Speech Acts is also applicable to humor. One of the mechanisms to produce humorous effect is by deliberately violating the rules of speech act.

e.       Soedjatmiko (1988: 100) The perlocutionary act is made not inconsequently following the illocutionary act. The hearer deliberately ignores the illocutionary act and accepts the message as stated in the illocutionary act. This being ignorant or pretending to be ignorant is often so unexpected that sounds are humorous, such as in the following example as quoted by him:

A stranger entered the building and asked a boy standing in the lobby, “Can you tell me where Mr. Smith lives?” The lad smiled and replied pleasantly “Yes Sir, I’ll show you.” Six flights the boy pointed out the room as that belonging to Mr. Smith. The man pounded on the door repeatedly and after no response, he commented, “He is not here.” The boy replied, “Oh no sir, Mr. Smith was downstairs waiting in the lobby”

f.       Palmer (1981: 162) stated that in the locutionary act, one is ‘saying something’, yet he may also use the locution for particular purposes, such as to answer a question, to announce a verdict, to give warning, etc. Here, he is performing an illocutionary act. So, if there is someone saying, “Kill her!”, in certain circumstances that utterance has the illocutionary force of – variously – ordering, advising the addressee to kill the woman.

g.      Traugott and Pratt as quoted by Olivia (2001: 14) classify seven types of illocutionary acts. The classifications are: (i) Representatives, (ii)  Expressive, (iii) Verdictives, (iv) Directives, (v) Commissives, (vi) Declarations, and (vii) Phatic Function.

           

7.      Explain locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, give example.

Answer

a.       The first is locutionary act,

According to Schiffrin (1994: 53) locutionary act deals with the uttering of an expression with sense and reference, for example using sounds and words with meaning, for example “This room is hot”, the locutionary act is the utterance itself and its literal meaning.

b.      The second is Illocutionary act.

Schiffrin (1994: 53) said that the illocutionary act deals with performance after uttering a certain sentence in which the speaker brings one or more result of the utterance. For example; when one says, “This room is hot”, he intends someone who hears him, will turn on the Air Conditioner. Illucotionary act is used to maintain the social relationship, open the channel or check that the function is working, either for social reasons (‘Hello’, ‘lovely weather’, ‘do you come here often?’) or for practical ones (‘Can you hear me?’, “Are you still there?’, ‘can you see the blackboard from the back there?’, ‘Can you read my writing?’).

c.       The third is Perlocutionary act.

According to Schiffrin (1994: 54), perlocutionary act deals with the effect on the audience by means of uttering sentences, for example when B hears A say “This room is hot” then B will turn on the air Conditioner or open window.

8.      Speech acts according to Searle’s classification

a.       Representatives

“  The sun is rising brightly, the birds were flying up to the tree”

( assertions and carry the values “ true or false “. It should match the world in order to be true )

b.      Directives

“ don’t do that. Could you bring me that pencil, please?”

( the speaker tries to get the hearer to do something., to direct him/her to do somne goal)

c.       Commisives

“ I won’t do that again, I’m going to do my best next time “

( obligation created and done by the speaker)

d.      Declaration

“ I declare you to be a husband a wife “

e.       Expressive

“ congratulation…you passed the exam “

9.      Mention 3 different theories of politeness.

Answer

a.       Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978) Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees.

b.      Wehmeier (2000, p. 976) Politeness means having or showing good manners and respect for the feelings of others.

c.       Mills, (2003, p. 6). Politeness is the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another

10.  Explain Brown-Levinson politeness strategies and give example.

Answer

on record

An actor goes on record in doing an FTA if it is clear to participants what communicative intention led the actor to do A (i.e. there is just one unambiguously attributable intention with which witnesses would concur). - 'I (hereby) promise to come tomorrow'

off record

In contrast, if an actor goes off record in doing A, then there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent.
'Damn, I'm out of cash, I forgot to go to the bank today', I may be intending to get you to lend me some cash, but I cannot be held to have committed myself to that intent …

Baldly

Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (for example, for a request, saying 'Do X!'). This we shall identify roughly with following the specifications of Grice's Maxims of Cooperation (Grice 1967, 1975) suspended:

a.       urgency or efficiency;

b.      danger to H's face is very small - in H's interest & no great sacrifices of S (e.g., 'Come in' or 'do sit down');

c.       S vastly superior in power to H

Redressive

By redressive action we mean action that 'gives face' to the addressee, that is, that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no face threat is intended or desired.

positive politeness

Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself. PP is approach-based; treating as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked.

negative politeness

Negative politeness is oriented mainly toward partially satsifying (redressing) H's negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination. NP avoidance-based characertized by self-effacement, formality & restraint   hedges on the illocutionary force.