From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.

- Pilar Palma del

Paso

UNIT 1: DEFINING PRAGMATICS (chapter 3 in the Albas book)

3.1. THE SCOPE of PRAGMATICS.What is pragmatics? Why do we need pragmatic knowledge in communication?
It deals with MEANING. But many authors have defined it in different ways (in these definitions, elements such
as context, meaning beyond literal meaning, speech acts, deixis, understatement or implicature are
important components of this discipline).
For:
Morris (1938): Pragmatics deals with all the psychological, biological and sociological phenomena which
occur in the functioning of signs.
Levinson (1983): Pragmatics makes reference to the users of language. The notion that pragmatics might

be the study of aspects of meaning not covered in semantics certainly has some cogency. La nocin de que
la pragmtica pueda ser el estudio de aspectos del significado no cubiertos en la semntica realmente tiene
contundencia.

Leech (1983) explains that both Semantics and Pragmatics are concerned with meaning, but the
difference between them lies in two different uses of the verb to mean:
[1] What does X mean?

[2] What did you mean by X?

Semantics would deal with [1], and Pragmatics with [2]. So, Semantic meaning is dyadic and has to do with
words or expressions in a given language regardless of (sin tener en cuenta) particular situations (speakers or hearers),
while pragmatic meaning is triadic and is defined with respect to a speaker or user of the language.
Georgia Greens (1989) definition of Pragmatics is, by contrast, a much broader one:
Linguistic pragmatics as defined here is at the intersection of a number of fields within and outside of cognitive
science: not only linguistics, cognitive psychology, cultural anthropology, and Philosophy (logic, semantics,
action theory), but also sociology (interpersonal dynamics and social convention) and rhetoric contribute to its
domain.
One of Levinsons definitions of Pragmatics as the study of utterance meaning equates it to Schiffrins
definition of Discourse Analysis. But, are Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis the same? Schiffrin notes that the
scope of Pragmatics is wide and faces definitional dilemmas similar to those faced by discourse analysis.
The more we study conversation or any kind of discourse, the more we realise that it is not so much what the
sentences literally mean that matters, as how they reveal the intentions and strategies of the speakers
themselves.
We shall touch upon (mencionar de pasada) aspects of the SPEECH SITUATION, typically regarded (considerados) as
pragmatic: speech acts, deixis, reference, presupposition, implicature, politeness phenomena.
FEATURES OF EVERYDAY LANGUAGE USE THAT ARE IMPORTANT IN PRAGMATICS (Grundy,2008)
del powerpoint y de Doing Pragmatics

1. APPROPRIATENESS (Pertinencia: lo apropiado)

One of the important features of language has to do with appropriate ways of using language to get business
done. Appropriateness is thought in relation to those who use the language and those to whom it is directed
(who says sth, to whom etc.) Its the particular use of language appropriate for the speaker and the user.
Read and look at this comic strip about The Wizard of Oz. (Alice wonders what Srndr Dorth E means, a
sms.)
Do you find it appropriate? Is there anything strange about it? If so, what is it and why is it
strange?
It is not appropriate because the story was written in 19th c. so mobiles were not invented.

From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.- Pilar Palma del
Paso

2. NON-LITERAL, INDIRECT MEANING or INDIRECTNESS (Significado indirecto/no literal)

Human discourse is full of non-literal, indirect meanings in the sense that their literal meanings are not all the
speakers intended them to convey (transmitir). What the utterance really means, what is implied; the hearer
has to decode what is being said.
Consider the mothers question to a daughter: Youre really going out dressed like that?
Why is it indirect? What does she mean with her question?
It is a heavy criticism on her daughters cloths. She wants to influence her daughter to change her outfit.
2

Many appropriate utterances are indirect. Sometimes appropriateness requires indirectness, as for instance in:
A: What do you think of Paula? Is she pretty?
B: Well, shes certainly a very good student.
She answers that in order not to been rude; instead of saying she is not pretty.
3. INFERENCE (Inferencia: es el proceso que lleva a la implicatura)
But how do we get from literal to non-literal, indirect meaning? We have to draw (extraer, sacar) inferences or come
to conclusions as to what the speaker is intending to convey. The receiver must decode and draw an
inference, this is, infer the meaning from it.
Inference is directly related to indirectness because when we choose to be indirect, the hearer always has to
infer what the meaning intended by us was.
A doctor says: The good news is I successfully removed your ovarian cyst!
The patient replies: So I guess the bad news is you somehow destroyed my arm.
So what the patient in this cartoon does is verbalize the inference she made from what the doctor said.

We make inferences in order to understand language. an inference is an assumption or

conclusion that is rationally and logically made, based on the given facts or circumstances rather than on
the basis of direct observation. Sometimes the inference just explicates a message that is in some way unclear.

Ex. Adverts draw our attention with apparently exotic uses of language which we repair with inferences.
In Grundys example: Radion removes dirt AND odours
We infer that other washing powders leave our clothes smelling bad, even though we are not told such a thing.
The advertiser is indirectly implying that other washing powders may leave bad smelling.
4. INDETERMINACY/ Under-determined (Indeterminacin/carcter indeterminado)
Inferences can be taken differently (when a message is not clear, various interpretations can be made).
- When, in everyday language, we find utterances that can be unclear or ambiguous, we say that these
utterances are under-determined, and this is caused cos some meanings are matters (asuntos, materias) of inference,
hence, an utterance might have several possible meanings depending on these inferences we draw and according
to what the addressee (destinatario) thinks the speaker is intending (quiere decir).
e.g. Even Presidents have private lives.
Here, we have to see up to what extent (ver hasta qu punto) Clintons utterance is undetermined. So when he says
Even Presidents have private lives, he is not being completely determinate (definitivo) by saying Even I have, but
by referring to Presidents the hearer will construct the inference that he refers to himself and then clarify the
indeterminacy.
Pragmatics is partly about trying to account
in systematic ways for our ability to
determine what speakers intend even when
their utterances are under-determined. La
pragmtica en parte trata de explicar de maneras
sistemticas nuestra capacidad para determinar lo
que los hablantes quieren decir incluso cuando sus
emisiones son indeterminadas

From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.- Pilar Palma del
Paso

5. CONTEXT (Contexto) aqu tambin entra el co-text

Context is crucial to help us in determining the meaning of an utterance. Context can be social, physical and
cultural.
- Make up your mind about whether the context determines the way we use language or whether the way we use language
determines the context.

- The same utterance in different contexts may mean completely different things. Think of the utterance:
I love people with good manners
A) Said by a person in a conversation about good manners.
B) Said by a person after someone else has been rude to her.
Do a) and b) mean exactly the same?
In A we can understand it literally; but in B is implying that the person who has been rude doesnt have good
manners.
6) RELEVANCE (Relevancia, Sperber y Wilson) very important concept in pragmatics!
Relevance has been seen by Sperber and Wilson as the most important principle in accounting for (explicar,
justicar) the way we understand language. We understand all utterances as relevant and strive to always find the
most relevant understanding possible (Entendemos todos los enunciados como relevantes y nos esforzamos por encontrar siempre el
entendimiento ms relevante posible).

In Grundys (2008: 14) example of the sign pinned to a chair that read:
Sit down with care. Legs can come off
It is more relevant to assume that it refers to the legs of the chair not to those of the person sitting down.
Think of the nowadays famous T.V commercial where George Clooney says: Nespresso; what else?
What is the most relevant assertion intended by the question?
For the lady of the commercial, the most relevant assertion is the Nespresso, not Clooney.
7. ACCOMMODATION (Adaptacin)
As (mientras) we try to determine what people mean by (mediante) what they say, we usually need to accept or
accommodate a good deal of information which we feel is known to both the speaker and ourselves (Grundy).
This background knowledge or accommodation is essential to making sense of exchanges like the following;
Taken from another of the Nespresso commercials:
Weve run out of capsules up there
Heaven can wait, George, but not for its capsules
Think of all the information we have to accommodate in order to understand the real meaning of this exchange
between George and John. (Information about religion, the good is up, the bad down, etc..)
8. REFLEXIVITY (Reflexividad)
When speakers advise others on how they want their message to be taken through some type of comment
(therefore, indeed, in fact,..), this makes it easier for the hearer to understand what we mean.
That is why reflexive uses of language as the following are so common:
We usually provide some sort of comment on how our utterance fits into the discourse as a whole, or on how we want to be
understood. When we do this, we make it easier for our interlocutor(s) to understand what we mean.

Bill Clinton (on his relationship with Monica Lewinsky):

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.
Here indeed, in fact and the emphatic did are examples of reflexive uses of language which tell us about
Clintons commitment to the truth of what he is saying. This means that Clinton is doing an exercise of cogitation
about the foul/dearth he committed. (que Clinton est haciendo un ejercicio de autoreflexin por la falta que cometi).

From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.- Pilar Palma del
Paso

9. MISFIRES (errores pragmticos)

When we dont achieve a norm of talk which exist; when what we said wasnt taken as we intended.
Pragmatic misfires are important because they tell us that there are expected norms for talk by showing us the effect of not
achieving the norm. They occur when a given utterance does not have the expected pragmatic effect.

The following utterance was considered to be a misfire when a reader understood that the suit was a piece of
clothing (when in fact it referred to a legal action): Ambiguity of suit ("traje y demanda)
The tailor pressed one suit in the municipal court
4

And the following headline was a misfire when the reader interpreted that the gun had been found beside the
victim (and not that the victim had found it (which was the intended meaning):
Stolen gun found by the victim
This kind of misfires reminds us of the great care speakers need to exercise in order to convey the intended
meaning successfully.
However, misfires are rare, and normally speakers are able to convey the meanings they intend with remarkable
(extraordinaria) consistency (coherencia).
TO CONCLUDE
Although all the above features have been treated separately for the sake of clarity, the fact is that all or most of
them normally appear together in a bundle (en grupo), as can be seen in the following utterance (made by a
dancing teacher in her class to one of her new students):
Is she your partner? I mean, are you going to dance together?
We can see here how the features of everyday language studied in this unit (appropriateness, indeterminacy,
inference, etc.) work together in order to make the utterance a pragmatic whole:
1) the question the teacher makes is an appropriate way to ask about dancing partners in a dancing class, but
considering the student is new, the teacher realises she has to reformulate her question in order to make sure
the student does not misinterpret the question as one about his private life. Thus we see the element of
reflexivity in the pragmatic marker I mean.
Therefore, the question Is she your partner? is under-determined and can become a misfire if the addressee
does not have a common background and knowledge of the terminology used in a dancing class and of the
context in general. This knowledge will make him work out the right inference as to what the teacher means by
partner (i.e. dancing partner, not girl-friend), therefore making the former interpretation the most relevant.
In this way, the student will learn to accommodate this background information in order to make the correct
interpretation of the teachers utterance.

From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.- Pilar Palma del
Paso

Pages 18 to 20 from Doing Pragmatics.1.3. Deixis, Speech acts, Implicature:

Voy a intentar rematar el captulo mirando las propiedades de una sola emisin (utterance) para explicar
cmo entendemos las emisiones de carcter indeterminado, ms o menos, de la forma en que el emisor intenta
transmitirlas:
Im here now
Aunque esta emisin parezca directa para un pragmtico tiene 3 propiedades muy problemticas:
1. Deixis: tiene que ver con la indeterminidad que solo se puede resolver cd. miramos al contexto, y partic. a tres
aspectos de ese contexto: quien es el hablante y dnde y cundo se emite el enunciado. Esta indeterminidad es
el resultado del uso de las palabras I, here, now del hablante.
Ingls: Deixis is to do with an indeterminacy that can only be resolved when we look at the context, and particularly at three
aspects of that context: who (the speaker is) and where and when (the sentence is uttered). This indeterminacy stems from the
speakers use of the words I, here and now.

(del documento questions from old exams)

Deixis: property of a small set of words to pick out an aspect of the context in which they are uttered. Elements
such as demonstratives, pronouns, tense, place and time adverbs, verbs and other grammatical features that are
tied directly to the context of utterance. They are also called indexical expressions of shifters (decticos o
identificadores) as the referential meaning shifts (cambia) with every new speaker. Deixis concerns (se refiere,
afecta) the ways in which languages encode (codifica) or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or
speech event, and thus (por consiguiente) also concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterances depend on
the analysis of that context of utterance.
http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/deixis.htm
El trmino dexis, del griego sealar o indicar, designa la referencia, por medio de unidades gramaticales de la lengua, a elementos
del contexto de la comunicacin; es pues, sinnimo de referencia exofrica o extralingstica.
Son decticas todas las expresiones lingsticas (del tipo yo, aqu, ahora) que se interpretan en relacin con un elemento de
la enunciacin (interlocutores, coordenadas de espacio y tiempo). La sealizacin dectica es frecuente sobre todo en las conversaciones cara a
cara.
En la teora de la enunciacin (. Benveniste 1966 y 1974), el yo-aqu-ahora constituye el centro dectico o punto cero de las coordenadas
contextuales para la realizacin e interpretacin de cada acto de comunicacin. Es el hablante quien organiza el discurso desde su campo de
referencias, que otorga sentido a los elementos decticos y al propio discurso.
Segn el factor contextual que se seale (los participantes, el momento o el lugar de la comunicacin, o bien el propio texto) se distinguen
varios tipos de dexis, realizadas por categoras gramaticales diversas:

La dexis personal, expresada con pronombres personales de 1. y 2. persona [[yo (m, me), t (te, ti,...)]); tambin, con los de de 3.
persona [l, ella]), pero con stos solo cuando sealan a una persona presente en la situacin; con pronombres posesivos de 1. y 2.
persona ([mi, tu, su, nuestro, vuestro,...]); y con morfemas verbales de 1. y 2. persona, a causa de la elipsis, habitual en espaol, del
pronombre sujeto ([Quiero], en que la o final seala a la persona que habla).

La dexis temporal, realizada mediante adverbios, locuciones y sintagmas adverbiales de presente ([hoy, ahora]), pasado ([ayer, el
mes pasado, hace poco]) o futuro ([el mes prximo, dentro de poco,]) y mediante morfemas de tiempo ([Lleg], [Llegas]).

La dexis espacial, formulada con adverbios de lugar ([aqu, ah, all, all,...]), demostrativos ([este, ese, aquel,]) y verbos de
significado locativo ([traer] al lugar en que se habla, [venir], etc.).

La dexis textual o discursiva, a medio camino entre la dexis y la anfora, realizada con pronombres personales o demostrativos
neutros ([eso, ello, lo]) o expresiones del tipo [lneas ms arriba, como ya hemos comentado, a continuacin], etc.; remite a
fragmentos del texto que se han dicho, o que se van a decir, y que, por lo tanto, estn ya presentes en el entorno comunicativo y son
susceptibles de ser sealados.

Eg. If Mary is travelling to the USA, her mother says: you should bring warm clothes, the weather is
cold there.
There is the index that points to the place, USA, without which the utterance cannot be fully understood or
interpreted.
A person who lives in Malaga says: I enjoy living in this city. This is the demonstrative deictic word which
makes reference to Malaga, the place where the interlocutor lives, works, etc.

From Pragmatics in perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice by Laura Alba Juez + Doing Pragmatics.- Pilar Palma del
Paso

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/actodehabla.htm
2. Emisiones como actos de habla: es la unidad bsica de la comunicacin lingstica, propia del mbito de
la pragmtica, con la que se realiza una accin (orden, peticin, asercin, promesa...).
Esta forma de concebir el lenguaje parte del filsofo britnico J. L. Austin, quien en la dcada de los 40 expuso
en sus clases sus investigaciones pragmticas en torno a la lengua. El trmino fue acuado posteriormente por
un discpulo suyo, el filsofo J. Searle, quien perfeccion y consolid dicha teora.
Segn Austin, al producir un acto de habla, se activan simultneamente tres dimensiones:

Un acto locutivo (el acto fsico de emitir el enunciado, como decir, pronunciar, etc.). Este acto es, en s
mismo, una actividad compleja, que comprende, a su vez, tres tipos de actos diferentes:
o acto fnico: el acto de emitir ciertos sonidos;
o acto ftico: el acto de emitir palabras en una secuencia gramatical estructurada;
o acto rtico: el acto de emitir las secuencias gramaticales con un sentido determinado.

Un acto ilocutivo o intencin (la realizacin de una funcin comunicativa, como afirmar, prometer, etc.)
Un acto perlocutivo o efecto (la (re)accin que provoca dicha emisin en el interlocutor, como convencer,
interesar, calmar, etc.)
De este modo, al emitir un enunciado como [te prometo que lo har] estamos diciendo algo (acto locutivo);
prometiendo una accin (acto ilocutivo) y provocando un efecto (convencer de la promesa al interlocutor).
Segn esta teora, los enunciados no slo sirven para expresar proposiciones con las que describir,
constatar, o sea, decir algo, sino tambin para realizar acciones lingsticas muy diversas en contexto, por
ejemplo, dar una orden o hacer una promesa. La realizacin de tales actos est sujeta a un conjunto de reglas
convencionales, cuya infraccin afectar directamente a los efectos comunicativos del acto.
Searle propuso una tipologa de dichas condiciones; stas se refieren a las circunstancias y al papel de los
participantes del acto de habla, a sus intenciones as como a los efectos que pretenden provocar. Son las
llamadas condiciones de felicidad. As, por ejemplo, para prometer algo a alguien, hay que ser sincero, dirigirse
a un destinatario interesado en la realizacin de esta promesa, no prometer algo imposible de cumplir o cuyo
cumplimiento, por el contrario, resulta evidente, etc.
Searle agrupa los actos de habla en cinco categoras:
1. los actos de habla asertivos dicen algo acerca de la realidad: [el teatro estaba lleno];
2. los directivos pretenden influir en la conducta del interlocutor: [no te olvides de cerrar con llave];
3. los compromisivos condicionan la ulterior conducta del hablante: [si tengo tiempo pasar a saludarte];
4. en los expresivos el hablante manifiesta sus sentimientos o sus actitudes: [lo siento mucho, no quera
molestarle] y
5. los declarativos modifican la realidad [queda rescindido este contrato].