BM3 Introduction to English Linguistics Part II Session 5: Pragmatics

Portfolio drop-off options: Due July 9 @ 6pm (can be handed in before) Hand in during/ after lecture of 9 July Drop-off in my mail box (across from A 10 1-103)

Announcements: Class evaluation: online for lecture (this week only) next week for this class Registration for Modulprüfung Information for AM options THU, July2 @ 6pm

Informationsveranstaltung des Seminars für Anglistik und Amerikanistik Informationsveranstaltung 2. Juli 2009, 18.00 Uhr in A 1-0-010 Aufbaumodule Anglistik – Wie belegt und wie dokumentieren? Beenden Sie gerade die BM? Wollen Sie im kommenden Semester AM belegen? Sind Sie nicht ganz sicher, wie Sie kombinieren können/sollen/wollen? Belegen Sie gerade Aufbaumodule? Können Sie Ihre Kombinationsmodule dieses Semester abschließen, oder müssen Sie strecken? Sind Ihre gewählten Veranstaltungen überhaupt kombinierbar? Wer bekommt den Laufzettel und wie gelangen die Noten ins Prüfungsamt? In dieser Informationveranstaltung bekommen Sie Hinweise zur effizienten Belegung von Aufbaumodulen und zum Laufzettelprocedere.

Overview: Where are we? Phonetics/ Phonology Morphology Syntax Semantics Pragmatics Applied Linguistics (Historical Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Textlinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Neurolinguistics, Computational Linguistics, …)

Literature Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N. (2006). An Introduction to Language. 8th ed. Wadsworth. Handke, J. & Intemann, F. (2000). The Interactive Introduction to Linguistics. CD ROM. Version 2.0. München: Hueber. See Handapparat for further introductory books

RECAP Lexical Semantics semantic relations

Semantic Relations Antonymy Homonymy Polysemy Hyponymy Synonymy (hungry ≈ starved; couch ≈ sofa) Complementary Gradable Relational Homophone Homograph Hypernym Hyponym Co-hyponym

Hyponymy Hyperonym Hyponym Hyperonym Hyponym

Are the following pairs complementary, gradable, or relational opposites? good bad expensive cheap parent offspring beautiful ugly false true lessor lessee pass fail hot cold legal illegal larger smaller poor rich fast slow asleep awake husband wife rude polite

Explain the semantic ambiguity by paraphrasing the following sentences: He waited by the bank. Is he really that kind? The proprietor of the fish store was the sole owner. The long drill was boring. When he got the clear title to the land, it was a good deed. It takes a good ruler to make a straight line. He saw that gasoline can explode. You should see her shop. Every man loves a woman. bank sole drill deed ruler that can shop Every a

? ? ? ? ? ? ? Questions ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

RECAP Pragmatics Speech Act Theory (Austin, Searle) (Conversational) Implicatures Cooperative Principle Grice‘s Maxims

Speech Act Theory constative vs. performative utterances ‚simple‘ statement vs. ‚doing-with-words‘ examples: I like chocolate. I command you to be quiet! constative performative

Speech Acts Locutionary Act  The uttered words: what you say Illocutionary Act  The force behind them: what you mean to say Perlocutionary Act  The effect of the utterance: (How) does the hearer react (appropriately)?

Locution, Illocution, Perlocution locutionary speech acts Thanks! Nice desk! illocutionary speech act: compliment She probably wants one, too... perlocutionary speech act: jealousy

Indirect Speech Acts Indirect speech act: rejection Would you like to go out for lunch? I have to work. Indirect speech act: rejection Direct speech act/ illocution: request

Grice I The Cooperative Principle „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.“ i.e. say it appropriately according to the situation Always assume that the speaker follows this principle. If not, this is done for a reason.

Grice II The 4 Maxims Maxim of Quality  Be truthful. Maxim of Quantity  Do not say any more or less than necessary. Maxim of Relevance/ Relation  Make your contribution relevant. Maxim of Manner  Be orderly.

Grice III Conversational Implicatures The speaker deliberately flouts a maxim to convey an additional meaning not expressed literally (conversational implicature).

Flouting of Maxims „Could you pass that napkin there, please?“ „Yes, I am able-bodied.“ „Yes, I could.“ (without doing so)

Flouting of Maxims Flouting which maxim? Implicature? Illocution? „Could you pass that napkin there, please?“ „Yes, I am able-bodied.“ „Yes, I could.“ (without doing so) Flouting which maxim? Implicature? Illocution?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? Questions ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Exercise 16 Determine which of the following sentences are performative sentences by inserting „hereby“ and seeing whether they sound right. e.g. I hereby apologize to you. I hereby know you. (From: Fromkin/ Rodman. ch.5, ex.16) P

Exercise 16 c. I testify that she met the agent. d. I know that she met the agent. e. I suppose the Yankees will win. f. He bet her $2500 that Bush would win. g. I dismiss the class. h. I dismiss the class. We promise to leave early. I owe the IRS $ 1 million. I bequeathe $ 1,000,000 to the IRS. I swore I didn‘t do it. I swear I didn‘t do it. (From: Fromkin/ Rodman. ch.5, ex.16)

Exercise 21 What are the implicatures in the following statements? Statement: „You make a better door than a window!“ Situation: s.o. is blocking your view. Statement: „It‘s getting late.“ Situation: You‘re at a party at 4am. Statement: „Mr. Smith dresses neatly, is well- groomed, and is always on time to class.“ Situation: The summary statement in a letter of recommendation to graduate school. h. Statement: „John or Mary made a mistake.“ Sit.: Looking over work done by John and Mary. (From: Fromkin/ Rodman. ch.5, ex.21)

Exercise 22 What is the conversational implicature in each of the following dialogues? a. Jack: Did you make a doctor‘s appointment? Laura: Their line was busy. d. Jack: How do you like the string quartet? Laura: I thought the violinist was swell. e. Laura: Do you own a cat? Jack: I‘m allergic to everything. g. Laura: Did you mow the grass and wash the car like I told you? Jack: I mowed the grass. h. Laura: Do you want dessert? Jack: Is the Pope Catholic? (From: Fromkin. ch.5, ex.22)

Searle‘s program for analysis of indirect speech act performances Step 1: Understand the facts of the conversation. Step 2: Assume cooperation and relevance on behalf of the participants. Step 3: Establish factual background information pertinent to the conversation. Step 4: Make assumptions about the conversation based on steps 1-3. Step 5: If steps 1-4 do not yield a consequential meaning, then infer that there are 2 illocutionary forces at work.

Searle‘s program for analysis of indirect speech act performances Step 6: Assume the hearer has the ability to perform the act the speaker suggests. The act that the speaker is asking to be performed must be something that would make sense for one to ask. Step 7: Make inferences from steps 1-6 regarding possible primary illocutions. Step 8: Use background information to establish the primary illocution.

HOMEWORK Think of at least 1 topic that we should revise or at least 1 – 2 unanswered questions you would like to discuss next week. Be specific! Send email until Wednesday @ noon.