1|Page

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

ISLAMABAD

Name: Shaukat Hussain Afridi

Registration No:
Roll No:
Programme: MA TEFL
Assignment / Subject: Semantics & Discourse (5665)
Submitted by: Shaukat Hussain Afridi
Submitted to:
Date: 30TH September--------------.
2|Page

Q.1: How would you differentiate between semantic and pragmatic

meaning of an utterance? Give suitable examples to explain your
answer.

Ans: Semantics
Semantics, or the study of relationships between words and how we construct
meaning, sheds light on how we experience the world and how we understand
others and ourselves. Explore this concept with a definition and examples, and then
check out the quiz to challenge your newfound knowledge.

Definition of Semantics
Semantics means the meaning and interpretation of words, signs, and sentence
structure. Semantics largely determine our reading comprehension, how we
understand others, and even what decisions we make as a result of our
interpretations. Semantics can also refer to the branch of study within linguistics that
deals with language and how we understand meaning. This has been a particularly
interesting field for philosophers as they debate the essence of meaning, how we
build meaning, how we share meaning with others, and how meaning changes over
time.

Examples of Semantics
One of the central issues with semantics is the distinction between literal meaning
and figurative meaning. With literal meaning, we take concepts at face value. For
example, if we said, 'Fall began with the turning of the leaves,' we would mean that
the season began to change when the leaves turned colors. Figurative
meaning utilizes similes and metaphors to represent meaning and convey greater
emotion. For example, 'I'm as hungry as a bear' would be a simile and a comparison
to show a great need for sustenance.
Let's look at the context of the Shakespearean quote we mentioned earlier:
'Juliet: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo: (Aside) Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Juliet: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
3|Page

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics concerned with the use of language in
social contexts and the ways in which people produce and
comprehend meaningsthrough language. In other words, pragmatics refers to the
way people use language in social situations and the way that language is interpreted.
The term pragmatics was coined in the 1930s by C.W. Morris. Pragmatics was
developed as a subfield of linguistics in the 1970s.

Background

Pragmatics has its roots in philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. Morris, a

psychologist and philosopher, drew on his background in these fields when he laid
out his theory of pragmatics in his book "Signs, Language and Behavior," explaining
that the linguistic term "deals with the origins, uses, and effects of signs within the
total behavior of the interpreters of signs." Signs, in terms of pragmatics, refers not
to physical signs but to the subtle movements, gestures, tone of voice, and body
language that often accompany speech.

Sociology—the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human

society—as well as anthropology also played a large role in pragmatics. Morris
developed his theory based on earlier work he did in editing the writings and lectures
of George Herbert Mead, an American philosopher, sociologist and psychologist, in
the book "Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist," John
Shook writes in Pragmatism Cybrary, an online pragmatism encyclopedia.

In that work, Mead, whose own work also drew heavily on anthropology (the study of
human societies and cultures and their development), explained how communication
involves much more than just the words people use; it involves the all-important
social signs people make when they communicate.

Q.2: How would you define the term ‘reference’? Explain the
difference between ‘anaphoric’ and ‘cataphoric’ references with
relevant examples.

Ans: Reference

Reference is an act by which a speaker or a writer uses language to enable a

listener or a reader to identify something. There are two deferent ways in which
reference items can function within a text. First, exospheric reference that in the case
when the referent refers to an antecedent that comes as a sentence. Second,
4|Page

endophoric reference, which includes two types: anaphora and cataphora. This is
shown in the following way,

Reference 
Situational]Textual
Exophora Endophora to preceding textto following text

Anaphora Cataphora

Anaphora
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976) anaphora “provides a link with a preceding portion
of the text” (p.51). Brown and Yule (1983) state that “anaphoric reference is looking back in
the text for their interpretation” (p.192). Another definition made by Nunan (1993) is that
“Anaphoric reference points the reader or listener „backwards‟ to a previously mentioned
entity, process or state of affairs” (p.22). They mean by this that, anaphoric reference refers
to any reference that “points backwards” to previously mentioned information in text.

For example:

 Liza likes cats. She has four cats.

In this example, the pronoun „she‟ refers to the proper noun „Liza‟ and this anaphoric
reference is created by the personal pronoun „she‟.
 My mother went to Mecca last year. That was her first visit. The demonstrative
reference „that‟ refers to „went to Mecca last year‟.
This reference acts as an anaphoric reference.
 Mary has received too many letters already. Other will have to be declined.
The comparative reference „other‟ refers to „the received letters‟ through contrast with
„the letters to decline‟.
Cataphora
Cataphoric reference is defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as looking forward in the text
in order to know the elements which the reference items refer to. Brown and Yule (1983)
define cataphora as “looking forward in the text for their interpretation”. In addition, Nunan
(1993) identifies cataphoric reference as pointing “…the reader or listener forward - it draws
us further into the text in order to identify the elements to which the reference items refer”
(p.22).That is to say, Cataphora refers to any reference that “points forward” to information
that will be presented later in the text.

Examples:

If they are late again, the employees will probably be reprimanded by the director. The
personal pronoun „they‟ refers to the noun phrase „the employees‟ so, it is a Cataphoric
reference.
5|Page

This section of the chapter will follow the same format as the previous one. Chapter One
Discourse and Cohesion 16 „This‟ is a demonstrative reference, which refers forward to
„section‟.

It is the same book as the one I bought last week.

It is a different book as the one I bought last week.

The comparative references „the same‟ and „a different‟ refer forward to „book‟ the first one is
an example of identity whereas the second is one of difference.

Conclusion
In this chapter we have tackled the definition of discourse analysis which is concerned with
the study of language in use. Also we have mentioned that discourse has two modes:
spoken and written mode, each mode has its characteristics. We have noticed that,
discourse analysts have different views about text and discourse in terms of
interchangeability and differently. In addition, we dealt with cohesion and argued that it has
an important role in achieving a cohesive text or discourse. It has two types lexical and
grammatical cohesion. Cataphoric and anaphoric references are types of referential
cohesion which is under grammatical cohesion. These references help in creating
cohesiveness between the elements of the text.

Q.3: Discuss in detail Grice’s Cooperative Principal? Which of its

maxims do you think is the most commonly flouted in everyday
conversations? Give suitable reasons to justify your answer.
Ans: Grice's Cooperative Principle
The Gricean cooperative principle refers to the concept of the
philosopher Grice about the cooperation between speakers in using the maxims.
The cooperative principle makes our contribution such as it is required, at the
stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in
which we are engaged. Levinson (1985) states that the Gricean cooperative
principle is construed as a theory of communication; it has the interesting
consequence that it gives an account of how communication might be achieved in
the absence of any conventional means for expressing the intended message. A
corollary is that it provides an account of how more can be communicated, in his
rather strict sense of non-naturally meant, than what is actually said.

In sorting out the different conversations can be very complex. There are, however,
four maximsthat can be regarded as general principles in all conversations, those
are:

(1) The Maxim of Quantity, try to make your contribution as informative as is

required, in the other words, do not make your contribution more or less informative
than is required;
Example of violation:
A: What time is it?
B: It's two a'clock, in fact it's four pass two, and now it's Sunday.
6|Page

(2) The Maxim of Quality, try to make your contribution one that is true. At this
point, to make your utterances understandable, you have to avoid saying something
that you believe to be false or lack adequate evidence;
Example of violation:
A: What is the Capital City of Indonesia?
B: I believe it's Bogor, or maybe Jakarta, Indonesia has wide territory.
(3) The Maxim of Relevance, try to make your contributions relevant. It means you
have to say some information which is related to the topic;
Example of violation:
Mom: Have you done your homework?
Son: My bicycle is broken mom.
(4)The Maxim of Manner, try to make your utterance as clear, as brief, and as
orderly as one can in what one says, and avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
Example of violation: "It‟s the taste" (ads of Coca cola).

Q.4: Discuss in detail the conventions of turn taking. Do you think

that an everyday conversation adheres to the conventional norms
of turn taking?

Ans: Turn-Taking in Conversation Analysis

In conversation analysis, turn-taking is a term for the manner in which orderly
conversation normally takes place. A basic understanding can come right from the
term itself: it's the notion that people in a conversation take turns in speaking. When
studied by sociologists, however, the analysis goes deeper, into topics such as how
people know when it's their turn to speak, how much overlap there is between
speakers, when it's OK to have overlap, regional or gender differences in
interrupting, and the like.

The underlying principles of turn-taking were first described by sociologists Harvey

Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson in "A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation" in the journal Language, in the
December 1974 issue.

Competitive Versus Cooperative Overlap

Much of the research in turn-taking has looked into competitive versus cooperative
overlap in conversations, such as how that affects the balance of power of those in
the conversation and how much rapport the speakers have. For example, in
competitive overlap, researchers might look at how one person dominates a
conversation or how a listener might take some power back with different ways of
interrupting.

In cooperative overlap, a listener might ask for clarification on a point or add to the
conversation with further examples that support the speaker's point. These kinds of
7|Page

overlaps help move the conversation forward and aid in communicating the full
meaning to all who are listening.

Or overlaps might be more benign and just show that the listener understands, such
as by saying "Uh-huh." Overlap like this also moves the speaker forward.

Cultural differences and formal or informal settings can change what's acceptable in
a particular group dynamic.

Examples and Observations

 Christine Cagney: I'm being quiet now. That means it's your turn to talk.
Mary Beth Lacey: I'm trying to think of what to say.
(Cagney & Lacey, 1982)

 "Once a topic is chosen and a conversation initiated, then matters of

conversational 'turn-taking' arise. Knowing when it is acceptable or obligatory
to take a turn in conversation is essential to the cooperative development
of discourse. This knowledge involves such factors as knowing how to
recognize appropriate turn-exchange points and knowing how long the
pauses between turns should be. It is also important to know how (and if) one
may talk while someone else is talking—that is if the conversational overlap is
allowed. Since not all conversations follow all the rules for turn-taking, it is
also necessary to know how to 'repair' a conversation that has been thrown
off course by undesired overlap or a misunderstood comment.

"Cultural differences in matters of turn-taking can lead to conversational

breakdown, misinterpretation of intentions, and interpersonal intergroup
conflict."
(Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes, American English: Dialects and
Variation. Wiley-Blackwell, 2006)
 The Wolf: You're Jimmie, right? This is your house?
 Jimmie: Sure is.
 The Wolf: I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems.
 Jimmie: Good, we got one.
 The Wolf: So I heard. May I come in?
 Jimmie: Uh, yeah, please do.
 (Pulp Fiction, 1994)

Q5 Define and differentiate between the following:

a) Cohesion and coherence

b) Illocutionary and Perlocutionary speech acts
c) Presupposition and Implicature
d) Proposition and sentence
Ans:
8|Page

1. Difference between cohesion and coherence

Cohesion is when the link between sentences, words and phrases are visible, or
easily understandable. e.g. Cara loves to cook dinner for her husband Carl.
The dinner that she likes cooking the most is lasagna. Lasagna is a very popular
dish in Italy. Italians are also known for their heavy accents. Accents can tell you
where in the world people come from. There are over 7 billion people on earth.
In this example we can see the clear link between each sentence, even though there
is no set topic/theme in the paragraph. This is cohesion. Cohesion can be evident
without coherence.

Coherence is when the theme or the main idea of the essay or writing piece is
understandable.

E.g. There are different types of nouns in the English language. There are proper
nouns which are the names of people or places, such as Tamara or North Korea.
There are abstract nouns which are used to describe things that aren‟t physical, such
as emotions. There are collective nouns which are used to describe groups of things,
such as a flock of birds.

In this example, the main theme of the paragraph, types of nouns, is constant and
understandable.

2. Illocutionary acts and Perlocutionary speech acts

Illocutionary acts are considered the core of the theory of speech acts. As already
suggested above, an illocutionary act is the action performed by the speaker in
producing a given utterance. The illocutionary act is closely connected with
speaker‟s intentions, e.g. stating, questioning, promising, requesting, giving
commands, threatening and many others. As Yule (Yule, 1996: 48) claims, the
illocutionary act is thus performed via the communicative force of an utterance which
is also generally known as illocutionary force of the utterance.
5 Classifying speech acts
Performative verbs fall fairly naturally under a small number of headings. Consider,
for example, the following:
Assertives
Assertives commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition:
state, suggest, claim, report, warn (that)
Directives
Directives have the intention of eliciting some sort of action on the part of the hearer:
order, command, request, beg, beseech, advise (to), warn (to), recommend, ask, ask
(to)
Commissives
Commissives commit the speaker to some future action:
promise, vow, offer, undertake, contract, threaten
Expressives
9|Page

Expressives make known the speaker's psychological attitude to a presupposed

state of affairs:
thank, congratulate, condole, praise, blame, forgive, pardon
Declaratives
Declaratives are said to bring about a change in reality: that is to say, the worldis in
some way no longer the same after they have been said. The following examples are
illustrative:
resign, dismiss, divorce (in Islam), christen, name, open (e.g. an exhibition),
excommunicate, sentence (in court), consecrate, bid (at auction), declare (at
cricket)
Perlocutionary Act
The last part of the speech act is Perlocutionary act. Perlocutionary act is the effect
of the utterance on the hearer, depending on specific circumstances. This is the
effect on the hearer of what the speaker says. Perlocutionary act is the consequent
effect of the utterance on the hearer, or the overall aim of the utterance (Wagiman,
2008:70). Perlocutionary act is the hearer‟s reaction toward the speaker‟s
utterance. Perlocutionary acts would include such effects as persuading,
embarrassing, intimidating, boring, irritating, or inspiring the hearer. For example, “it
is rain outside!”. The perlocutionary effect from that utterance may the hearer use
umbrella when he or she go to outside, or the hearer keep stay still in the room.

These are the simple example of the speech act with its component:

a) I have a substantial amount of back pay money Locution (the utterance) : I have
a substantial amount of back pay money Illocution (the meaning) : an act of offering
the hearer to ask for money, borrows some money, or has a dinner treat, depending
on the context. Perlocution (reaction) : the hearer asks for some money, borrows
some money, or asks for a dinner treat.

b) You have eye inflammation

Locution (the utterance) : You have eye inflammation Illocution (the meaning) : an
act of ordering the hearer to go to an ophthalmologist to have eye examination or to
treat the eye, depending on the context.

Perlocution (reaction) : the hearer goes to an ophthalmologist or treats the eye.

From the example above, the researcher wish it can give easier for the reader in the
understanding about speech act.

3. Presupposition and Implicature

The presuppositions of an utterance are the pieces of information that the speaker
assumes (or acts as if she assumes) in order for her utterance to be meaningful in
the current context. This broad characterization encompasses everything from
general conversational norms to the particulars of how specific linguistic expressions
are construed. The current section explicates these notions, connects them with
10 | P a g e

specific linguistic phenomena and interactional patterns, and reviews a range of

methods for theorizing about them.1 Theories of presupposition are intimately
related to theories of what discourse contexts are like and the ways in which they
shape, and are shaped by, language use. Unfortunately, there is not space to review
this literature here. Interested readers are referred to Thomason 1990 and Roberts
2004 for general introductions. Influential foundational work in this area includes the
papers collected in Stalnaker 1998; the diverse approaches to modeling common
ground in Gauker 1998, Gunlogson 2001, and Farkas & Bruce 2010; the theory of
indexicals in Kaplan 1978, 1989; the dynamic approaches of Kamp 1981 and Heim
1982; the questiondriven models of Roberts 1996 and Ginzburg 1996; and the goal-
driven models of Perrault & Allen 1980, Allen 1991, Benz et al. 2005b, and Stone et
al. 2007.

Implicature
Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice,
which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed
nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.[1] As an example, the
sentence "Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the
baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her
baby after she got married. Further, if we append the qualification "not necessarily in
that order" to the original sentence, then the Implicature is now cancelled even
though the meaning of the original sentence is not altered. "Implicature" is an
alternative to "implication", which has additional meanings in logic and informal
language.

4. Sentence and Proposition

Does an argument consist of sentences or prepositions? There should not be any
confusion on this point. The sentences, which figure in arguments, express
propositions. Strictly speaking proposition is the constituents of arguments, should,
however, be clear about the distinction between sentence and proposition.

Firstly, all sentences do not express propositions. Only declarative or indicative

sentences press propositions. Questions, (viz., How old are you? "Who is your
father?", 'Are you a student?)', commands ('Go there', 'Get out', 'Take whatever
available') and exclamation (viz, what a book!') are sentences but they do not
express any proposition. Such sentences do have any truth value as they do not
assert or deny anything.

Secondly, a sentence is a linguistic entity belonging to a specific language, whereas

propositions are logical entities having no specific allegiance to any particular
language. Of course, to express a proposition we always need a sentence but a
proposition is different from a sentence.
11 | P a g e

Two or more sentences belonging to the same or to different languages may express
the same proposition. For example, "Ram killed Ravan" and "Ravan was killed by
Ram" are two different sentences in English but both express lie same proposition
Because, the state of affair described by the first sentence is the same as mat of the
second sentence.

So far as the proposition is concerned these two sentences express lay same
proposition. Similarly, the sentence "Ram killed Ravan" can be translated into any
other language like Oriya, Hindi or Sanskrit, and the corresponding sentences in
these languages would express the same proposition.

Thirdly, the same sentence may express different proposition uttered at different
times and in different places. For example, the sentence "The present Prime Minister
of India is a bachelor" uttered in the year 1994 would express a false proposition
whereas the same sentence uttered in the year 2002 would express a true
proposition.

In other words, the states of affair expressed by the two utterances of the same
sentence at different times are different. Even if the sentence is the same, the
propositions expressed by the sentence at difference times would be different. Thus
propositions are distinct from sentences.

Q.6: What are the features of conversational openings and

closings? Explain your answer with suitable examples.

Ans: Introduction
Every conversation is different from all others. Nobody ever had exactly the same private
conversation again, even if he conversed about the same topic. Nevertheless there are certain
items in conversations that are very alike or completely alike, and which seem to be build on
certain schemes. Places in conversations where these schemes occur are openings and closings.

The aim of this paper is to examine the mechanisms behind this phenomenon and to examine if
and how these mechanisms have changed since they were first examined by Schegloff and other
linguists in the 1970’s. For providing the necessary background information, I will first give some
basic features of conversation analysis which are important for the topic, before moving on to
conversation openings and finally to conversation closings.

In openings I will especially focus on the summons-answer structure, identification and

recognition as well as on the changes that had to be made and were made to the structure since
the establishment of number identification. Closings will be examined by their components and
the different possibilities they provide will be analysed.

As stated by Levinson (1983: 309) telephone conversation is one of ―social activities effectively
constituted by talk itself―. This is, that the conversation is not disturbed in its pureness by extra-
linguistic features like ―physical doings and positionings‖ (Schegloff 1973: 323). Participating
hearers have to interpret the utterances with nothing more than voice, words, intonation and
12 | P a g e

pauses which can be analysed linguistically. Also the beginnings and endings – and because of
that also the opening and closing places - of such conversation can clearly be determined, as
telephone conversation usually has a duration of the time of the call. Therefore telephone
conversation is most suitable for linguistic research and I will focus on such conversation only
(Schegloff 1973: 325)

Q.7: Discuss the significance of discourse analysis in language

teaching with special reference to communicative syllabus design.

Ans: Importance of discourse analysis:

The analysis of discourse shares its quest with a number of disciplines in which
language occupies a prominent position being the principal means of human
communication. This overlap is, as Schifrin (1994) points out, obviously due to the
arduousness of describing language in isolation:

It is difficult to separate language from the rest of the world. It is this ultimate inability
to separate language from how it is used in the world in which we live that
provides the most basic reason for the interdisciplinary basis of discourse
analysis. To understand the language of discourse, then, we need to understand the
world in which it resides; and to understand the world in which language resides, we
need to go outside of linguistics. (Schiffrin as cited in Widdowson, 1996, p. 110).
The construction of discourse itself involves several processes that operate
simultaneously. Probing into this construction requires analytical tools that derive
from linguistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and even philosophy,
according to the nature of these processes. Being informed by approaches in
such fields gives DA an interdisciplinary nature and makes it a wide-ranging and
a heterogeneous branch of linguistics with a medley of theoretical perspectives
and analytical methods depending on the aspect of language being emphasized.
It is possible to distinguish several subfields within DA stemming out of works in
different domains. McCarthy (1991) comments that this approach, despite being
interdisciplinary, finds its unity in the description of „language above the
sentence‟ and a concern with the contexts and cultural influences that affect
language in use. In a brief historical overview, he specifies the following main
contributors to DA research, whose interest has been, in some way, the study of
larger stretches of language and their interaction with the external world as a
communicative framework. The following points summarize this complex cross-
affiliation of DA, as expatiated on by McCarthy:

CONCLUSION

It has been demonstrated through this paper that the hybrid approach of discourse
analysis adds novel dimensions to linguistic analysis that go beyond the sentence
and seeks to reveal the regularities of the context of language use, both linguistic
and extra-linguistic. Following this line, it is believed that a host of theoretical insights
13 | P a g e

concerning this interplay between language and context can be exploited to attain
the resolution of a number of practical problems in many domains that involve
language use as a central component. On this premise, a real „boom‟ is taking
place in many fields such as foreign and second language teaching, translation
studies, stylistic studies and so many others, taking a discourse orientation rather
than a traditional sentence orientation.

THE END