Pragmatics-Portfolio assignments concerning pragmatic principles in spoken language. Includes study questions with complete answers.
Table of Contents
(i) Towards the end of his introductory chapter, Levinson (1983: 31) offers the following definition of Pragmatics, which is in line with Gazdar’s (1979) idea of context change
(ii) In How To Do Things With Words, Austin (1962) initially makes a very strict distinction between statements and performatives. This distinction, however, breaks down completely towards the end of his lecture. Illustrate the internal development of Austin’s argumentation.
(iii) Searle suggests a classification of speech acts – according to their illocutionary force – into representatives, expressives, commissives, directives and declaratives. Explain the differences between those five types of acts and find illustrative examples in real language use (i.e. spoken language corpora such as the spoken parts of the COCA or the BNC).
(iv) In syntax, three kinds of sentences are distinguished depending on their structure: declarative sentences, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences. However, sentence type and illocutionary force are not always directly related. For instance, a request can be realized by means of an imperative (“Go away!”), an interrogative (“Would you mind leaving me alone for a while?”), or a declarative (“I would really like to be alone right now.”). Pick a film or TV series you like and find three examples of direct and three examples of indirect speech acts.
(v) Illustrate the differences between maxim violation, maxim flouting and maxim hedging (Grice) with the help of concrete examples!
(vi) well and now - Research question: Are well (286784 tokens) and now (285925 tokens) in their function as discourse marker interchangeable or do they serve specific functions in spoken discourse?
Objectives and Research Focus
This work examines core concepts within the field of Pragmatics, specifically exploring the functional dynamics of context, speech acts, and discourse markers. The primary objective is to analyze how linguistic structures and communicative context interact, using theoretical foundations from authors like Levinson, Austin, Searle, and Grice, and applying them to corpus-based data from spoken language.
- Theoretical definitions of context and its role in pragmatic interpretation.
- Development of Austin's performative theory and the classification of speech acts.
- Analysis of direct and indirect speech acts within contemporary media narratives.
- Investigation into Gricean maxims of conversation and their violations, floutings, and hedgings.
- Functional analysis of the discourse markers "well" and "now" using the COCA corpus.
Excerpt from the Book
(ii) In How To Do Things With Words, Austin (1962) initially makes a very strict distinction between statements and performatives. This distinction, however, breaks down completely towards the end of his lecture.
In his 1955 William James Lectures Austin presents, among others, his concept of performative versus constative utterances, so-called statements. The strict differentiation between the two, however, yields a far more complex definition, which no longer allows for such a clear-cut distinction.
Austin initially defines performatives as the verbal realization of an actual action – in saying what I do, I actually perform that action (Austin 2006: 46 et seq.). He claims that there are specific verbs as well as specific grammatical features that qualify an utterance to belong to the “class” of performative. Verbs such as ‘apologize’, ‘swear’, ‘declare’, ‘christen’, etc. display certain linguistic characteristics which appear to separate them from the rest of the verbs. Considering the following examples:
(1) I (hereby) pronounce you husband and wife.
(2) I (hereby) apologize for my wrongdoing.
(3) I (hereby) promise I will be on time for the meeting.
Even though the semantic content and context of each sample sentence is quite different, all examples listed above use an action-based verb in the present tense form, allow for an insertion of the word hereby before the verb, and are in the first person singular indicative active voice (cf. Archer et al. 2012: 35 et seq. and Austin 2006: 50). Even though they share the structural appearance of regular statements, they, according to Austin’s initial definition, do not report facts and are not themselves true or false (Austin 2006: 47.) A similar sentence with a non-performative verb results in an ungrammatical speech segment:
(4) * I (hereby) love my sister.
(5) * I (hereby) feel drowsy.
Summary of Chapters
(i) Towards the end of his introductory chapter, Levinson (1983: 31) offers the following definition of Pragmatics, which is in line with Gazdar’s (1979) idea of context change: This chapter explores the abstract nature of Pragmatics and how contextual cues shift communicative meaning from pure semantics to context-dependent potentials.
(ii) In How To Do Things With Words, Austin (1962) initially makes a very strict distinction between statements and performatives. This distinction, however, breaks down completely towards the end of his lecture. Illustrate the internal development of Austin’s argumentation.: This chapter traces Austin's transition from a binary view of constatives and performatives to a more integrated, complex theory of speech acts.
(iii) Searle suggests a classification of speech acts – according to their illocutionary force – into representatives, expressives, commissives, directives and declaratives. Explain the differences between those five types of acts and find illustrative examples in real language use (i.e. spoken language corpora such as the spoken parts of the COCA or the BNC).: This section details Searle's taxonomy of speech acts, providing empirical evidence for each type through examples sourced from spoken language corpora.
(iv) In syntax, three kinds of sentences are distinguished depending on their structure: declarative sentences, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences. However, sentence type and illocutionary force are not always directly related. For instance, a request can be realized by means of an imperative (“Go away!”), an interrogative (“Would you mind leaving me alone for a while?”), or a declarative (“I would really like to be alone right now.”). Pick a film or TV series you like and find three examples of direct and three examples of indirect speech acts.: This chapter examines the misalignment between syntactic form and illocutionary force using data from the TV series 'The Big Bang Theory'.
(v) Illustrate the differences between maxim violation, maxim flouting and maxim hedging (Grice) with the help of concrete examples!: This chapter contrasts the distinct communicative strategies of Grice's Cooperative Principle, highlighting how speakers manipulate maxims to generate implicatures.
(vi) well and now - Research question: Are well (286784 tokens) and now (285925 tokens) in their function as discourse marker interchangeable or do they serve specific functions in spoken discourse?: This concluding analysis empirically tests whether the discourse markers "well" and "now" are interchangeable or serve unique pragmatic roles based on COCA corpus findings.
Keywords
Pragmatics, Context, Speech Acts, Performatives, Illocutionary Force, Gricean Maxims, Implicature, Discourse Markers, Spoken Language, Corpus Linguistics, COCA, Semantic Content, Syntax, Communicative Context, Interactional Dialogue
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work primarily addresses key theories in Pragmatics, investigating how language is used in context, how speech acts are performed, and the specific functions of discourse markers in natural spoken communication.
Which specific areas of linguistic theory are addressed?
The central thematic fields include the definition of context (Levinson/Gazdar), speech act theory (Austin/Searle), Grice's Cooperative Principle and Conversational Maxims, and the pragmatic analysis of discourse markers.
What is the primary objective regarding speech acts?
The aim is to illustrate the internal development of speech act theory, moving from the distinction between constatives and performatives to a nuanced classification of illocutionary acts and their realization in syntax.
Which scientific methodology is employed in this study?
The study utilizes both a theoretical literature-based approach to define linguistic concepts and a corpus-linguistic methodology, specifically analyzing data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA).
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the abstract term "Pragmatics," Austin’s theory of performatives, Searle’s classification of speech acts, Gricean maxim exploitation, and a comparative study of the discourse markers "well" and "now."
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Discourse Markers, Context, Gricean Maxims, Implicature, and Corpus Linguistics.
How does this study analyze the discourse markers "well" and "now"?
The study examines their dictionary definitions versus their actual usage in spoken discourse, analyzing their co-occurrence with other phrases like "okay" and "that's" to determine if they are functionally interchangeable.
What distinction is made between maxim violation and maxim flouting?
Maxim violation refers to the quiet, unostentatious failure to fulfill a maxim, often involving deception, whereas maxim flouting is a conscious decision by the speaker to exploit a maxim to signal a specific conversational implicature to the listener.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Janine Lacombe (Autor:in), 2014, Language in Use, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/278799
