Presentation on theme: " Semantics vs Pragmatics Semantics = the study of meaning, esp. denotation (wikipedia). Pragmatics = the study of meaning, esp. denotation and beyond."— Presentation transcript:
Semantics vs Pragmatics Semantics = the study of meaning, esp. denotation (wikipedia). Pragmatics = the study of meaning, esp. denotation and beyond (connotation)
Proposed by Paul H. Grice (i) the act of meaning, implying, or suggesting one thing by saying something else, or (ii) the object of that act. (Stanford, 2010) What is said vs What is implicated What is said can be contradicted, agreed or disagreed with, whereas what is implicated cannot (Cruse, 2011)
A: Has John cleared the table and washed the dishes? B: He has cleared the table. ▪ i. That’s not true. ▪ ii. ? That’s not true, he has washed the dishes. ▪ iii. You’re right. ▪ iv. ? You’re right, he has washed the dishes What is implicated is “he has not washed the dishes” B has said that John has cleared the table and implicated that he has not washed the dishes.
Another example Shut that flaming door! ▪ ?You have every right to be. ▪ ?No, you’re not – you’re only pretending. Anger is not said but implicated. (Cruse, 2011)
Make your 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. Comprised of 4 maxims
Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current pruposes of the exchange in which you are engaged. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Ex. A: What did you have for lunch today? ▪ Sandwich ▪ ?Food ▪ ?I had seven pieces of sandwiches, three of which was slight burnt.
Be relevant A: Have you seen Mary today? B: ?I’m breathing. Make the strongest statement that can be relevantly made, justifiable by your evidence (Levinson, 1983) John captured a wild cat >> Somebody caught an animal.
Avoid obscurity. Avoid ambiguity. Avoid unnecessary prolixity (lengthy, wordy). Be orderly. ? The lone ranger rode off into the sunset and jumped on his horse.
Theoretical Definition: S conversationally implicates p iff S implicates p when: (i) S is presumed to be observing the Cooperative Principle (cooperative presumption); (ii) The supposition that S believes p is required to make S's utterance consistent with the Cooperative Principle (determinacy); and (iii) S believes (or knows), and expects H to believe that S believes, that H is able to determine that (ii) is true (mutual knowledge).
Flouting = Speaker (S) intentionally violates the maxims, knowing that the hearer (H) is well aware of his/her intention. I married a rat. ▪ Metaphoric expression It must be somewhere. ▪ Further search is needed. A: Did you hear about Mary’s B: Yes, well, it rained the whole time (Mary is approaching)
A: I’ll look after Sam for you. Don’t worry. B: Oh, don’t offer her any post-prandial concoctions involving super-cooled oxide of hydrogen.
A: What time is it? B: Some of the guests are already leaving PCI: It must be late. GCI: Not all of the guests are already leaving. A: Where’s John? B: Some of the guests are already leaving. PCI: Perhaps John has already left. GCI: Not all of the guests are already leaving.
What you do not say is not the case Choosing a weaker member of a set implicates that the stronger members do not apply He owns 3 cars. ▪ Imp: He does not own 4 or 5 cars. It made her ill. ▪ Imp: She did not die. The gunman’s target was the PM. ▪ Imp: The gunman did not hit the PM.
Enrichments of what is said. What is simply expressed is stereotypically exemplified. We went to that new restaurant yesterday. ▪ Imp: I had a meal. John is going out with a nurse. ▪ Imp: The nurse is female.
Marked expressions call for marked interpretations. There is a good reason to speak unconventionally. Bill caused the car to stop ▪ Normal: Bill stopped the car. ▪ Imp: Bill did not stop the car in the normal way The corner of Sue’s lips turned slightly upwards ▪ Normal : Sue Smile. ▪ Imp: Sue’s expression is not a smile.
cooperative principle is formulated for instances in which interactants are interested in 'a maximally effective exchange of information' (Grice, 1975: 47). We cannot assume that a writer's primary purpose in writing a literary text is the effective exchange of information nor, even, that the writer necessarily intends the reader to grasp his or her intentions (Hickey, 1998).
the writer at least would like the reader to grasp the basic, literal meaning of his or her written utterance and that the reader shares this desire; as long as this is all that is meant by the effective exchange of information.
Render exactly what S says and implicates Facilitate the communication between S and H Textual equivalence vs Maximal cooperation
น ส ยิ่งลักษณ์ ชินวัตร นายกรัฐมนตรี กล่าว สุนทรพจน์ในพิธีเปิดการประชุม World Economic Forum on East Asia ปี 2555 Ms.Yingluck Shinawatra, the Prime Minister of Thailand, gave the opening speech at ……. (The context is not clear whether it is known that Ms.Yingluck is from Thailand.) observe Maxim of Quantity
การจัดกระบวนการการสื่อสารและแลกเปลี่ยน เรียนรู้กับกลุ่มต่างๆ ในชุมชน ทั้ง 7 หมู่บ้าน ประกอบด้วย กลุ่มผู้นำชุมชน ( ได้แก่ กำนัน ผู้ใหญ่บ้าน กรรมการหมู่บ้าน สมาชิกสภาเทศบาล ) กลุ่มแกนนำชุมชน ( ได้แก่ แม่บ้าน อสม. ผู้สูงอายุ เกษตรตำบล เยาวชน ) เครือข่ายพระสงฆ์ ครู ประชาชนในชุมชน Communication and learning exchange process between different groups from the seven villages i.e. local administrative officers ( the sub-district headman, the village headmen, the village committee members, the municipality members), community leaders (housewives, volunteers, elders, agricultural officers, youths), monks, teachers and other inhabitants
Cruse, D.A. (2011). Meaning in Language. Fawcett, Peter (2003). Translation and Language. Hickey, L. (1998). The Pragmatics of Translation Topics. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010). Implicatures.