Pragmatics

and
Discourse Studies
12/03/2024
Syllabus and Readings
Definition of pragmatics; Two major schools of thoughts: Anglo-American vs. European;
Significance of Pragmatics; Some basic notions of semantics and pragmatics: Utterance,
Proposition, Sentence, Context, Truth values, Truth condition, Entailment
Implicature; conversational implicature, conventional implicature, properties of conversational and
conventional implicatures
Presupposition; properties of presupposition, different types of analyses: filtering-satisfaction,
cancellation, accommodation
Speech acts; performative vs. constative speech acts, direct vs. indirect speech acts; Felicity
conditions; locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary speech acts; typology of speech acts
Deixis; Deictic vs. non- Deictic expressions, Gestural use vs. symbolic use of deictic expressions;
Basic categories of deixis: Person, Time, Space, Social, and Discourse
Text: Pragmatics by Yan Huang
Reference: Pragmatics by Stephen Levinson, Pragmatics by George Yule
Definition of Pragmatics
➔ Pragmatics is the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on,
the use of language.

➔ The central topics of inquiry of pragmatics include

◆ implicature,
◆ presupposition,
◆ speech acts, and
◆ deixis.
Pragmatics within the broader framework of Semiotics
❖ Pragmatics as a modern branch of linguistic inquiry has
its origin in the philosophy of language.
❖ Semiotics as the study of signs has three distinct
branches:
➢ Syntax: the study of formal relations existing between the signs
➢ Semantics: the study of the relation of signs to what they denote Ru
➢ Pragmatics: the study of the relation of signs to their users and is dolf
Morr Ca
interpreters rn
il liam ap
❖ Stalnaker’s (1972: 383): ‘Syntax studies sentences. W
arles
Semantics studies propositions. Pragmatics is the study Ch
of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are
performed.
❖ Syntax provides input to semantics which provides input
to pragmatics.

Charles Sanders Pierce

Tracing roots of Pragmatics
● Ideal language philosophy
○ Advocated by Gottolb Frege, Alfred Tarski, and Bertrand Russell. Later on, this field is enriched with
the works of Richard Montague, David Donaldson, and David Lewis.
○ Primarily interested on the study of logical systems of artificial languages.
● Ordinary language philosophy
○ Advocated by J.L. Austin, H.P. Grice, Peter Strawson, John Searle, and later Ludwig Wittgenstein
○ Emphasis was placed on natural language and its uses
● Being disappointed with Chomsky’s treatment of language as an abstract, mental
device divorced from the uses and the functions of language, some of his students
like Jerry Katz, J.R. Ross and George Lakoff introduced the study of the natural
language uses. This gradually opens up a wide ranges of linguistic investigations in
the field of historical linguistics, computational linguistics, language acquisition,
intonational structures, cognitive sciences etc.
Two major Schools of Thoughts
1. Anglo-American
pragmatics is defined as the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on,
language use. This is known as the component view of pragmatics, namely, the view
that pragmatics should be treated as a core component of a theory of language, on a par
with phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
2. European Continental
‘pragmatics constitutes a general functional (i.e. cognitive, social and cultural)
perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in the form of behaviour’.
This represents the perspective view of pragmatics, namely, the view that pragmatics
should be taken as presenting a functional perspective on every aspect of linguistic
behaviour.
Significance of studying Pragmatics: Linguistic Underdeterminacy
Linguistically encoded meaning of a sentence radically undermines the
proposition the speaker expresses when (s)he utters the sentence
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp. 1-6

Download the book from the following link:

Yan Huang, Pragmatics
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
14/03/2024
Significance of studying Pragmatics: Simplifying Semantics
Four individuals are involved in the crime
a. At least four individuals are involved in the crime
b. Exactly four individuals are involved in the crime
Clearly, the word ‘four’ is interpreted ambiguously
As per the Occam’s razor, entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessities.

Following the proposal of conversational implicature, it could be concluded that the

at-least-reading is the default reading of any number and exactly-reading is the derived one.

Supports for the abovementioned pragmatic claim:

Soumya has three books. In fact, he has four books.
But,
*Soumya has three books. In fact, he has two books.
Significance of studying Pragmatics: Simplifying Syntax
NP trace: [The boy]i was chased ti by a dog. [+anaphor, -pronominal] lexical anaphora
pro: t do it! [-anaphora, +pronoun] pronoun
PRO: [The boy]i wants to ti quit. [+anaphora, +pronominal]
wh-trace/variable: [Who]i do you doubt ti? [-anaphora, -pronoun] name

Chomsky’s Binding Conditions:

a. An anaphor is bound in a local domain.
b. A pronominal is free in a local domain.
c. An r-expression is free.
Basic Notions: Utterance, Sentence, and Proposition
1. An utterance is the use of a particular piece of
language by a particular speaker on a particular
occasion. Utterance meaning is definable as what
a speaker intends to convey by making an
utterance.
2. Sentence is a well-formed string of words put
together according to the grammatical rules of a
language. Sentence-meaning refers to those
aspects of meaning that are ascribed in the
abstract.
3. A proposition is what is expressed by a sentence
when that sentence is used to make a statement,
that is to say something true or false about some
state of affairs in the external world.
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp 7-13
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
28/03/2024
Context
1. Examples of Linguistic Context
a. āmi jābo nā = I will not go; but, āmi nā jābo ≠ I will not go
b. rāmur gāḍi means a car possessed by Ramu; but, bāgāner sabji does not mean the
vegetable possessed by the garden
2. Examples of Physical Context
a. He hates him. Cp. He hates himself.
3. Examples of Knowledge Context
a. I have visited Delhi - the capital of India! Cp. I have visited Delhi - the capital of USA!
Truth value, truth condition, entailment
1. Utterance cannot have a truth value because it is sensitive to the context.
Utterance can be felicitous or appropriate.
2. Sentence cannot have a truth value but they can have the truth conditions.
(Alfred Tarski)
3. Proposition can have a truth value in virtue of not being sensitive to the
context.
Entailment
Definition: P entails Q iff whenever P = T, Q = T too.
Example:
“someone killed the bank manager” entails “the bank manager is dead” but
presupposes “the bank has a manager”

cp.
Implicature
Oxford philosopher H.P. Grice proposed
theory of Implicature

The theory of implicature contains

discussions of

- Non-natural meaning
- Maxims of conversation
Classical Gricean Theory of Conversational Implicature
Grice has made a distinction between
- natural meaning
if x means p ⊨ p, then p is the natural meaning
Example: Chomsky is a great syntactician
- non-natural meaning
If x means p ⊭ p, then p is not the natural meaning
Example: Chomsky is a great sociologists
+> Chomsky is not at all a sociolinguists
Meaningnon-natural = meaningnn
Speaker meansnn p by ‘uttering’ U to the Addressee if and only if the speaker
intends

(i) Addressee to think p

(ii) Addressee to recognize that S intends him/her to think p

(iii) Addressee’s recognition of Speaker’s intending (i) to be the primary reason for
Addressee thinking p

Note: meaningnn is also known as speaker’s meaning

Speaker’s meaning vs. Sentence meaning
Gricean distinction of natural and non-natural meaning resulted into an important
distinction of utterance meaning (= Speaker’s meaning) and the sentence
meaning.
Sentence meaning can be recognized by the meanings of its constituent parts.
Utterance meaning is not encoded in the meanings of the corresponding
sentential constituents; Utterance meaning is the consequence of the way the
Speaker intends the corresponding sentence has to be interpreted.
A theory of speaker’s / utterance meaning seeks some understanding of the laws
of conversation and cooperation
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp 13-24
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
02/04/2024
Towards a theory of Speaker’s Meaning: Conversational Implicature

● There is an underlying principle that determines the way in which language

is used with maximum efficiency and effectively to achieve rational
interaction in communication.
● This principled approach is conceptualized in terms of
○ The co-operative principle
○ The maxims of conversation
● The cooperative principle and its component maxims ensure that in an
exchange of conversation, the right amount of information is provided and
that the interaction is conducted in a truthful, relevant and perspicuous
manner
Co-operative principle and the maxims of conversation
1. The co-operative principle:
a. Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
2. The maxims of conversation:
a. Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true
i. Do not say what you believe to be false
ii. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
b. Quantity
i. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)
ii. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
c. Relation: Be relevant.
d. Manner: Be perspicuous.
i. Avoid obscurity of expression.
ii. Avoid ambiguity.
iii. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
iv. Be orderly.
What can a speaker do with regard to the maxims?
1. A speaker can straightforwardly observe the maxims
2. A speaker can violate a maxim
3. A speaker can opting out a maxim
4. A speaker can flout or exploit a maxim

Note: Cooperative principle and the maxims are useful in understanding as well as
representing the relation of speaker and hearer from the viewpoint of the topic of a
conversation.
Hedges as the opting out of maxim
1. Quality:
Ex. As far as know, I am not sure if it is true, I may be wrong
2. Quantity:
Ex. I can’t say anymore, probably I don’t need to say this
3. Relation:
Ex. By the way, I am not sure if this is relevant,
4. Manner
Ex. I am not sure if this is clear, this may be a bit tedious
Types of Implicatures

Conversational Implicatureso
Conversational ImplicaturesF

Implicatures

Generalized Conversational Implicatures

Particularized Conversational Implicatures
Conversational Implicatureo
Quality: Satyendranath Bose has invented the Boson particle +> The speaker believe that
Satyendranath Bose has invented the Boson particle and he has enough evidence for his believe

Quantity: John has six credit cards +> John has atmost six credit cards

Relation:

A: What is the time now?

B: The museum has not opened yet.

+> It is at least before the time of opening of the museum.

Manner: John went to a MacDonald’s shop and purchased a burger +> John first went to a
MacDonald’s shop and then purchased a burger
Conversational ImplicatureF
● Quality:
○ Chomsky is a great sociolinguist +> Chomsky is no sociolinguist at all
● Quantity:
○ War is war +> terrible things always happen in war. That’s its nature, and it’s no use lamenting
that particular tragedy.
● Relation:
○ John: Susan can be such a cow sometimes!
○ Mary: Oh! What a lovely day today!!
○ +> One shouldn’t speak ill of people behind their back.
● Manner:
○ John smiled; Cp.
○ The corners of John’s lips turned slightly upward.
○ +> John did not exactly smiled.
Generalized Implicature vs. Particularized Implicature
Generalized Implicature:
Most of Rimpa’s friends believe in marriage.
+> Not all of Rimpa’s friends believe in marriage

Particularized Implicature:
Ranita: Where’s Rimil?
Rimpa: The light in her office is on.
+> Rimil is in her office
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp. 25-32.
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
04/04/2024
Properties of Conversational Implicature

1. Defeasibility vs. cancellability

2. Non-detachability
3. Calculability
4. Non-conventionality
5. Reinforce-ability
6. Universality
 Defeasibility or Cancellability
Conversational implicatures are cancelled if they are inconsistent with (i) semantic
entailments, (ii) background assumptions, (iii) contexts, etc.
(i) His wife is often complaining +> his wife is not always complaining; Cp. His wife is
often, in fact always, complaining
(ii) Rima and Rimil bought an apartment near Garia +> Rima and Rimil jointly bought an
apartment; Cp. The Americans and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962
(iii) Rima: This book costs hundred and twenty five rupees but I forget my purse.
Rimil: Don’t worry. I have hundred and twenty five rupees.
~+> Rimil has only hundred and twenty five rupees.
non-Detachability

Any linguistic expression with the same semantic content tends to

carry the same conversational implicature.
The film almost/nearly won/came close to winning an Oscar
+> The film did not win an Oscar
This shows that conversational implicatures are attached to the
semantic content. In other words, conversational implicatures are
relative to “what is meant”.
Calculability, Non-conventionality, Reinforceability
Calculability means that conversational implicatures can transparently be derived via the
co-operative principle and its component maxims.

Non-conventionality means that conversational implicatures, though dependent on the

saying of what is coded, are non-coded in nature. Ex. Beng. āpni ebār āsun / ār kathā bolte
pārchi nā, āmāke ekṭu beḍote hobe

According to the principle of reinforceability, conversational implicatures can be made explicit

without producing too much of a sense of redundancy.

The soup is warm +> The soup is not hot

The soup is warm but not hot

Note once again conversational implicature is not part of the conventional import of an
utterance.
Universality

Conversational
implicatures tend to be
universal, being motivated
rather than arbitrary.
Two neo-Gricean pragmatic theories of conversational
implicature
1. The Hornian system
○ Horn reduces all of Grice’s maxims, except (i) the maxim of
quality, into two fundamental and antithetical principles: (ii)
Q(uantity)-principle and (iii) the R(elation)-principle
2. The Levinsonian system
○ Levinson reduces Grice’s maxims to (i) Q(uality)-principle, (ii)
I(nformativeness)-principle, and (iii) M(anner)-principle
 Horn’s Q- and R- principles
a. The Q-principle
i. Make your contribution sufficient;
ii. Say as much as you can (given
the R-principle)

b. The R-principle
i. Make your contribution
necessary;
ii. Say no more than you must
(given the Q-principle)
Scalar implicature or Horn-scale (Q-principles)

Cp.
Example of R-principle

John broke a finger yesterday +> The finger was one of John
saḍak durgaṭanāy kumud pāṭā khuiyeche +> pāṭā kumuder
Horn’s proposal and Zipfian economy: The dialectics of interactions

Dialectics of interactions and Zipfian economy

Horn’s Q principle: A hearer oriented Horn’s R principle: A speaker oriented

economy for the maximization of the economy for the minimization of
informational content; equivalent to linguistic form; equivalent to Zipf’s
Zipf’s Auditory Economy (force of Auditory Economy (force of
Diversification) Unification)
Horn’s division of pragmatic labour

The use of marked expression (relatively complex and/or prolix)

when a corresponding unmarked (simpler, less ‘effortful’) alternate
expression is available tends to be interpreted as conveying a
marked message (one which the unmarked alternate would not or
could not have conveyed).
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp. 32-40
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
23/04/2024
The Levinsonian System
1. According to Levinson, Horn failed to draw distinction between
a. semantic minimization (semantically general expressions are preferred to semantically specific ones),
and
b. expression minimization (shorter expressions are preferred to longer ones)
2. Levinson argue for a clear separation between
a. pragmatic principles governing an utterances surface form and
b. pragmatic principles governing its informational content.
3. Levinson reduces the original Gricean program, except the quality principles into
a. Q(uantity) principles
b. I(nformativeness) principles
c. M(anner) principles
4. Each of these principles has two sides:
a. A speaker’s maxim
b. A recipient’s corollary
Q(uantity) principle reinterpreted
Newer version
Older version
Speaker: Do not say less than is
(i) Don’t say less than is required
required (bearing I-principle in
(ii) Don’t say more than is mind)
required
Addressee: What is not said is
not the case.
Three types of Q-implicatures
1. Q-scalar implicature: <x,y> (y +>Q-scalar ~x)
These two paintings are similar +> This two paintings are not identical.
2. Q-clausal implicature: <X(p), Y(p)> [Y(p) +>Q-clausal p or ~p]
Ramu is a left or a liberal +> Ramu is perhaps a left or is perhaps not a left; Ramu is
perhaps a liberal or is perhaps not a liberal.
3. Q-alternate implicature
Van Gogh tried to set up a studio +> van Gogh did not succeed in setting up the
studio
Stir-fry the bean sprouts +> donot boil the bean sprouts
I(nformativeness) principle
Speaker: Do not say more than is required (bearing Q-principle in mind)

Addressee: What is generally said is stereotypically and specifically exemplified.

M(anner) principle
Speaker: Do not use a marked expression without reason

Addressee: What is said in a marked way is not unmarked.

1. Johan stopped the car +> John stopped the car in the usual manner vs. John
caused the car to stop +> John stopped the car in an unusual way
2. Mary left +> Mary left in an usual manner vs. Mary disappeared +> Mary left
all of a sudden and no one noticed this.
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. PP. 40-51
 Pragmatics
and
Discourse Studies
25/04/2024
Conventional Implicature
A conventional implicature is a non-truth-conditional inference
which is not deductive in any general, natural way from the saying
of what is said, but arises solely because of the conventional
features attached to particular lexical items and/or linguistic
constructions.
p therefore q +>> q follows from p: he is a chinese; he therefore
knows how to use chopsticks
p but q +>> p contrasts with q: John is poor but he is honest
even p +>> contrary to expectation: Even his wife didn’t think
that he can teach mathematics
Examples: actually, also, anyway, besides, however, on the other
hand etc.
Properties of conventional implicature
1. Like conversational implicature, conventional implicature does not contribute
to the truth condition to the corresponding sentence.
2. Conventional implicature does not follow the Gricean cooperative principles
and the maxims.
3. Conventional implicatures are attached by convention to particular lexical
items
4. Conventional implicatures are not calculable.via any natural procedure.
5. Conventional implicature are not cancellable
6. Conventional implicatures need not to be universal.
Summary
meaningnn

what is said what is meant

conventionally conversationally

generalized particularized
Presupposition

8th November 1848 - 26th July 1925

Presupposition vs. Implicature
A presupposition is something that must be true in order for the assertion to even make
sense; an implicature is something conveyed between the lines.
His wife is often complaining
+> His wife is not always complaining
>> He has a wife / he is married
Mary believes that John has visited Kafka’s house on Golden Lane in Prague
+> John may have visited Kafka’s house on Golden Lane in Prague
>> Kafka has a house. The house is in the Golden Lane. Golden Lane is in Prague.
Kafka is from Prague.
What is presupposition?
Presupposition can be informally defined as an inference or proposition whose
truth is taken for granted in the utterance of a sentence.

Presupposition acts as a precondition to some sort for the appropriate use of a

sentence.

Presupposition is the part of the background knowledge.

Presuppositions are usually generated by the use of particular lexical item and/or
linguistic constructions
Presupposition triggers
1. Definite descriptions
○ The king of Bombagar is bald >> Bombagar has a king
2. Factive predicates
○ Epistemic / cognitive factives
○ Dilip knows / does not know that swaraj is all about self-rule and decentralization >> swaraj is
all about self-rule and decentralization
○ Emotive factives
○ Dilip regrets for the injustice that he did to Koyel >> Dilip did injustice to Koyel
3. Aspectual / change of state predicates
○ Dilip has / hasn’t stopped lying >> Dillip lies
Presupposition triggers
4. Iteratives:

Anju returned / didnot returned to Chennai >> Anju was in Chennai before

5. Implicative predicates:

John managed /didnot manage to give up smoking >> John tried to give up smoking

6. Temporal clauses

After she shot to stardom in a romance film, Jane married/didn’t marry a millionaire
entrepreneur. >> Jane shot to stardom in a romance film.
Presupposition trigger
7. Cleft sentences

(a) cleft: It was/wasn’t Baird who invented television >> someone invented
television

(b) pseudo-cleft: what Baird invented/didn’t invent was television. >> Baird
invented something

8. Counterfactual conditionals

If an ant were as big as a human being, it could/couldn’t run five times faster than
an Olympic sprinter >> An ant is not as big as a human being
Reference
Yan Huang. Pragmatics. Pp. 54-58, 64-67.