• Author / Uploaded
• rainbird_cz

• Categories
• Epistemología
• Comunicación humana
• Comunicación
• Cognición
• Sicología y ciencia cognitiva

Citation preview

Yule, G. - Pragmatics (Oxford University Press 1996) 

Discourse: a set of interconnected texts (de Beaugrande)  language above the sentence or above the clause (Stubbs)  language use, whether speech or writing, seen as a type of social practice (Fairclough)

Chapter 2: Deixis    

pointing. Any ling form used to do this = deictic expression deictic expressions = indexicals „near speaker“ / proximal terms: this, here, now „away from speaker“ / distal terms: that, there, then  proximal terms typically interpreted in terms of the s's location = deictic center

Person deixis  I / you / he, she, it  honorifics (sometimes described as social deixis)  T/V distinction rd  people can use 3 person when addressing somebody in order to put even more distance between each other in order to create humor / scold that person / ...  „we“ can be exclusive or inclusive. The addressee may or may not be included within the „we“ (We can clean up here) Spatial deixis  basic distinction: here and there  some others: yonder (more distant from s), hither (to that place), thence (from that place)  some verbs of motion, such as com and go retain a deictic sense when they are used to mark movement toward the speaker (Come to bed! - to the speaker, Go to bed! - away from the speaker)  deictic projection:  location from s's perspective can be fixed mentally as well as physically. Ss temporarily away from their home will often continue to use 'here' to mean the (physically distant) home.  Ss also project themselves into other locations prior to actually being in those locations (I'll come later)  so we can say things like „I am not here now“ and they actually make sense  the basis of spatial deixis = psychological distance (eg, a speaker my wish to mark something that is physically close, for example a perfume being sniffed, as psychologically distant – I don't like that) Temporal deixis  proximal: now  distal: then (past and future)  expressions like yesterday, tomorrow, today, tonights, next week, last week, this week... depend on knowing the relevant utterance time (deictic center)  if somebody scribbles „back in an hour“ on a piece of paper and we don't know when did they scribble it, we don't know how long we are going to wait.  Also psychologically based: this (coming) weekend  the past tense: distant  something that is treated as extremely unlikely (or impossible) from the speaker's current 1



situation is also marked via the distal (past tense) from: I could swim (when I was I child). I could be in Hawaii (if I had a lot of money).  If clauses use past tense it can be distance either from current time or from current reality or facts

Discourse deixis  former / latter; above / below; previously / next  Have you heard this one?  That was the funniest story I ever heard  Previously on West Wing...  In the next chapter, we consider the role of deixis  This sentence is not true Social deixis  encodes the social relationship between speaker and hearer(s) or between speaker and some other referent, overlaps with personal deixis  Your Reverence / Sir / Professor Smith / Mr. Jones / Johnny / darling. 

deictic center = speaker, moment of speech, speaker's location, current point in discourse, speaker's social position relative to other participant roles.

Deixis and grammar  distinction between the „near speaker“ meaning of direct speech and the „away from speaker“ meaning of indirect speech  the proximal deictic forms of a direct speech reporting communicate a sense of being in the same context as the utterance.  The distal deictic forms of indirect speech event seem more remote.

Chapter 4: Presupposition and entailment  

presupposition: something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions entailment: something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.

Presupposition  a relationship between two propositions.  Mary's dog is cute → Mary has a dog. Mary's dog isn't cute → Mary has a dog.  P → q, NOT p → q.  This property of presup = constancy under negation  presup of a statement will remain constant (true) even when that statement is negated Types of presupposition  words, phrases, structures = potential presup, which can only become actual presup in contexts with speakers  existential presup: possessive construction is associated with a presup of existence  (your car → you have a car)  also assumed in any definite noun phrase (the King of Sweden → the King of Sweden exists)  factive presup: the presupposed info following a verb like „know“ can be treated as a fact (Everybody knows that John is gay) 2

other factive presup verbs: realize, regret, be aware, be odd, be glad  She didn't realize he was ill (he was ill)  We regret telling him (we told him)  I wasn't aware that she was married (She was married)  It isn odd that he left already (he left already)  I'm glad that it's over (it's over) lexical presupposition: the use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presup that another (non-asserted) meaning is understood („I managed to do... → I succeeded in...“)  He stopped smoking (he used to smoke)  they started complaining (they weren't complaining before)  you're late again (you were late before)  s's use of a particular expression is taken to presuppose another (unstated) concept  in factive presup: the use of a particular expression is taken to presuppose the truth of the information that is stated after it. Structural presup  certain sentence structures presuppose that part of the structure is already assumed to be true (most expressedly in wh- questions)  When did he leave? (he left)  where did you buy the bike (you bought the bike)  structurally based presup may represent subtle ways of making information that s believes appear to what l should believe  How fast was the car going when it ran the red light? (the car actually didn't run the red light but by answering how fast it was going, we actually agree it ran the red light) non-factive presup: a presup assumed not to be true  verbs: dream, imagine, pretend  I dreamed I was rich (I was not rich / I am not rich)  We imagined we were in Hawaii (We were not in Hawaii) counter-factual presup: what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true  conditionals:  If I had a yacht... 









The projection problem  the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presuppositions (parts) doesn't survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (wholes) = projection problem  Nobody realized Kelly was ill (Kelly was ill) X  I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill (Kelly wasn't ill)  George regrets getting Mary pregnant but didn't get her pregnant.  Why presuppositions don't project: they are destroyed by entailments  the power of entailment can also be used to cancel existential presup  The King of England doesn't exist! (the King of England → KoE exists) x (KoE doesn't exist). Entailment more powerful than presup. 



pragmatic presuppositions (Tsui):  what the speaker assumes to be true in saying something  what the speaker assumes to be shared knowledge between him/herself and the addressee.  If the speaker says to the addressee 'Could you open the door?' he assumes that it is true that the door is closed, that B is able to close the door... pragmatic presuppositions (Levinson):  presup concerning the relationship holding between speaker and addressee. 3

They do not affect truth conditions T/V distinction, honorifics semantic presuppositions (Levinson):  affected by truth conditions (true, false, not-true-not-false)  what is apparent from the very words uttered (King of Sweden – KoS exists / doesn't exist / there might be something like KoS)  



Ordered entailments  a logical concept:  Rover chased three squirrels:  Something chased three squirrels,  Rover did something to three squirrels  Rover chased three of something  Something happened.  = Background entailments. S will communicate, typically by stress, which of these entailments is assumed to be in the foreground.  Foreground entailment:  Rover chased THREE squirrels, ROVER chased three squirrels  similar function: „it-cleft“ construction  It was Rover that chased the squirrels.

Chapter 5: Cooperation and implicature Cooperative principle  by H. P. Grice  „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.“  maxims:  quantity  Make your contribution as informative as is required  do not make your contribution more informative than is required  flouting: Are you thinking what we are thinking (a Conservative slogan, 2005 elections. The reader is expected to say “Yes, I think the Labour Party has been ruling long enough”)  quality  speak truth  do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence  flouting: I could eat a horse (exaggeration). I think you would be happier in a larger – or a smaller – college (Master of a college to a prospective student, basically saying “you do not fit here”)  relation. Be relevant  flouting: A: So what did you think of Ashley? B: Well, his sister's a good laugh.  manner  Be perspicuous (srozumitelný)  avoid obscurity of expression  avoid ambiguity  be brief  be orderly  flouting: for instance, using overly formal or technical language when talking to novices  violating the maxims: intentionally creating a misleading implicature (deceiving) 4

A: Does your dog bite? B: No. A: (bends down to stroke the dog and gets bitten) Ow! You said your dog didn't bite! A: That isn't my dog. expressions speakers use to mark that they may be in danger of not fully adhering to the principles = hedges 



Hedges  in connection with the maxim of quality: expressions we use when we need to suggest that what we say may not exactly be accurate.  As far as I know, they're married. They are married, I guess.  In relation with the quantity maxim:  As you probably know, I am terrified of bugs. So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran.  In relation with the maxim of relation:  can be found in the middle of s's talk when they things like „Oh, by the way“ and go on to mention some potentially unconnected information during a conversation.  „anyway“ to suggest the ss may have drifted in the discussion  „I don't know if this is important, but some of the files are missing.“  in connection with the maxim of relation (manner):  This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights. I don't know if this is clear at all, but I think the other car was reversing. Conversational implicature  Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese. Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.  Dexter expects Charlene to realize he didn't bring the cheese → conversational implicature. Flouting the maxim of quantity. Generalized conversational implicatures  no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional conveyed meaning (the Charlene and Dexter example)  any phrase with an indefinite article: an X → not speaker's X  I was sitting in a garden one day. (it wasn't my garden)  If the speaker was capable of being more informative (following the quantity maxim), he or she would have said „my garden.“ Scalar implicatures  certain information is always communicated by choosing a word which expresses one value from a scale of values.  All, most, many, some, few  always, often, sometimes  when producing an utterance, a speaker selects the word from the scale which is the most informative and truthful (quantity and quality) in the circumstances  scalar implicature: when any form in a scale is asserted, the negative of all forms higher on the scale is implicated:  I have completed some of the required courses (→ not all, not most, not many, not few but some)  They are sometimes really interesting (→ not always, not often)  when speakers correct themselves on some detail, they typically cancel one of the scalar implicatures  I got some of this jewelry in Hong Kong – um actually I think I got most of it there. (not 5

all) Particularized conversational implicatures  derived from context  Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight? Tom: My parents are visiting.  In order to make Tom's response relevant, Rick has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one college student in this setting expects another to have.  By far the most common → typically just called „implicatures“  flouting the maxim of manner:  Ann: Where are you going with the dog? Sam: To the V-E-T.  Sam expects Ann will know that the dog might understand the word „vet“ and be anxious about it.  Flouting the maxim of relation:  Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? (seeing all the paperwork) Mary: Let's go get some coffee.  Bert: Do you like ice-cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic? (maybe even manner: answering a question with a question) Properties of conversational implicatures  CI are deniable. S can deny them.  You have won five dollars (ONLY five)  to deny this implicature, s can say: You have won five dollars, that's four more than one!  Implicatures can be calculated by the listeners via inference  CI can be calculated, suspended, canceled, and reinforced. None of these properties apply to conventional implicatures Conventional implicatures  not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims They don't have to occur in conversation, they don't depend on special contexts for their interpretation.  Associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used  the word „but“: p but q → p & q plus an implicature of contrast  the word „even“: implicature of contrary to expectation (Even John came → nobody expected he would come)  the word „yet“: implicature that the present situation is expected to be different at a later time (Dennis isn't here yet → he will be there later)  the word „and“:  Mary was happy and ready to work (p plus q) X  She put on her clothes and left the house (q after p)

Chapter 6: Speech acts and events    

Speech Act Theory: developed by John Austin (How To Do Things With Words, 1962) and John Searle speech acts: actions performed via utterances (apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, request,...) the circumstances, including others' utterances, around the speech act = the speech event. It is the nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as 6

performing a particular speech act.  (on a wintry day:) This tea is really cold! (= complaint) Speech acts  have three parts (a teacher to a noisy class: I'll keep you in after the lesson):  Locutionary act: saying the thing. Producing a meaningful linguistic expression. (the act of the teacher saying his piece)  Illocutionary: the function of the utterance. Made by the communicative force of an utterance (statement, offer, explanation, threat,...) = illocutionary force. (the act of making a threat)  Perlocutionary act: the effect of the utterance. Generates the perlocutionary effect. (the act of silencing the students)  One utterance can have various illocutionary forces in various contexts:  I'll see you later (prediction, promise, threat)  how to identify the right illocutionary force? Via IFIDs and felicity conditions  2 macrofunctions of language over speech acts:  transactional function: lang serves in the expression of content and transmission of actual information  interactional function: social relations and personal attitudes Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID)  a performative verb explicitly names the ill act being performed:  I warn / promise / bully / ...  other IFIDs: word order, stress, intonation Felicity conditions  general conditions: the participants can understand the language and they are not play-acting or being nonsensical  content conditions: eg, for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance must be about a future event.  Preparatory conditions:  for a promise: The event will not happen by itself, the event will have a beneficial effect.  For a warning: it isn't clear that the hearer knows the event will occur, the speaker does think the event will occur, the event will not have a beneficial effect.  Sincerity conditions  for a promise: the speaker genuinely intends to carry out the future action  for a warning: the speaker genuinely believes that the future event will not have a beneficial effect  essential condition  for a promise: I intend to create an obligation to carry out the action as promised  the utterance changes my state from non-obligation to obligation  for a warning: the utterance changes my state from non-informing about a bad future event to informing.  Combines with a specification of what must be in the utterance content, the context, and the speaker's intentions, in order for a specific speech act to be appropriately (felicitously) performed. The Perfomative hypothesis  underlying every utterance there is a clause containing a performative verb which makes the illocutionary force explicit = performative hypothesis  I hereby inform/warn/promise/... you, that...  Clean up this mess! (= an implicit performative / primary performative) → I hereby order you to clean up this mess. (= a primary performative) 7

Speech act classification (Searle)  declarations: change the world via their utterance  Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.  representatives: stat what the speaker believes to be the case or not (assertions, conclusions, descriptions)  describing, claiming, predicting, hypothesizing (I came, I saw, I conquered – Caesar)  The earth is flat. Chomsky didn't write about peanuts. It was a warm sunny day.  S makes words fit the world (or belief)  Expressives: state what the speaker feels  apologizing, praising, deplring, regretting (A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle – G. Stein)  I'm really sorry! Congratulations! Oh, yes, great, mmmmm, ssahh!“  s makes words fit the world  directives:  speeach acts to get someone else to do something. Commands, orders, requests, suggestions. Positive or negative.  Commanding, requesting, inviting, suggesting (Better remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all possible doubt – ancient Chinese proverb)  Gimme a cup of coffee. Could you lend me a pen, please?  S attempts to make the world fit the words (via the hearer)  commissives  s use to commit themselves to some future action. Express what s intends.  Promising, offering, threatening, refusing (I'll make him an offer he can't refuse – Puzo)  Promises, threats, refusals, pledges.  I'll be back. I'm going to get it right next time. We will not do that.  S undertakes to make the world fit the words (via the speaker) Direct and indirect speech acts  3 structural forms:  delcarative, interrogative, imperative  3 general communicative functions:  statement, question, command/request  whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function → a direct speech act  whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function → an indirect speech act.  Thus, a declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act, but a declarative used to make a request is an indirect speech act. (My glass is empty → pour me some more. Coud you pass the salt? → pass the salt)  indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness Speech events  SE = an activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome.  It might include and obvious central speech act (I don't really like this – complaint) and other utterances leading up to that central action.  A request usually is not made by means of a single speech act suddenly uttered.

8

Chapter 7: Politeness and interaction Politeness  face = the public self-image of a person. Emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects others to recognize  politeness is a means employed to show awareness of another person's face (either maintaining camaraderie or solidarity) Leech's maxims of the politeness principle  Tact  minimize cost to other maximize benefit to other  Can you take me home  Generosity  minimize benefit to self, maximize cost to self  I can lend you my car  Approbation  minimize dispraise of others, maximize praise of other  This performance was not as horrible it could have been.  Modesty  minimize praise of self, maximize dispraze of self  How stupid of me.  Agreement  minimize disagreement between self and other, maximize agreement between self and other  A: English is difficult. B: True, but the grammar is quite easy, I think.  Sympathy  minimize antipathy between self and other, maximize sympathy between self and other  A: My dog has just died. B: Oh, poor thing. (NOT: Ah yes, the bastard had it coming) Face wants  maintaining public self-image  if a speaker says something that represents a threat to another's expectations regarding selfimage, = a face threatening act  on-record bald FTA: I want some bear  on record mitigated FTA: Do you think I could have some beer?  off record FTA: I could really go for some beer. (indirect, does not imply that the hearer should start doing something)  lessening the possible threat = face saving act. Achieved by respecting the other's negative and positive face Negative and postitive face  negative face: the need to be independent, to have freedom of action and not to be imposed on by others.  positive face: the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others. The need to be connected.  Negative politeness (FSA): showing deference, emphasizing the importance of the other's time or concerns, apology for imposition or interruption.  Positive politeness (FSA): showing solidarity, emphasizing that both speakers want the same thing and that they have a common goal. Self and other: say nothing  Self: (looks in the bag, vainly searching for a pen, not asking the other because it threatens the 9

negative face of the other) Other (seeing it all, offering a pen) Here, use this. Say something: off and on record  Self: (to nobody particular) Hmmm, I wonder where I put my pen Other: (offering a pen) Here, use this.  Self is saying statements off record (hints)  addressing the other directly, expressing our needs: on record  Give me a pen  can be followed by mitigating devices: would you, please  bald on record expressions: between close friends / one side has power over the other (military)  avoiding a FTA is accomplished by face saving acts which use positive or negative politeness strategies Positive and negative politeness  positive politeness strategy: leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, and even friendship  How about letting me use your pen? Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me use your pen. (on record)  too risky → often precede by „getting to know“ talk. (Hi, how's it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same crazy stuff. You také a lot of notes too, huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me use one of your pens.)  in English speaking contexts, FSA is more commonly performed via a negative politeness strategy  question containing a modal verb  Could you lend me a pen? Can I ask you for a pen or something? I know you are busy, but might I ask you if-em-if you happen to have an extra pen?  Expressions of apology for the imposition  negative politeness typically expressed via questions Strategies  solidarity strategy: tendency to use positive politeness forms, emphasizing closeness between speaker and hearer  personal information, use of nicknames, abusive terms, shared dialect or slang expressions, inclusive terms (we, let's)  deference strategy: the tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing the hearer's right to freedom  „formal politeness.“ Impersonal and can include expressions that refer to neither the speaker nor the hearer (Customers may not smoke here, sir)  emphasize the speaker's and the hearer's independence  FSA, however, are enacted even before these strategies are employed. This is done by presequences. Presequences  prepare the ground for a further sequence and signal the type of utterance to follow.  one way of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to halt the potentially risky act  eg: rather than simply making a request, ss will often produce a pre-request:  Her: Are you busy? (pre-request)  Him: Not really. (go ahead)  Her: Check over this memo (request)  Him: Okay (accept)  pre-requests are often treated as requests: 10

Her: Do you have a spare pen? Him: Here. (hands over a pen. Does not say „Yes, I do,“ waiting for Her to ask „Can you lend me some?“)  Him: Do you mind if I use your phone? Her: Yeah, sure. (not „Yes, I do mind“) pre-invitation:  Him: What are you doing this Friday (pre-invitation) Her: Hmm, nothing so far. (go ahead) Him: Come over for dinner (invitation) Her: Oh, I'd like that (accept)  Him: Are you doing anything later (pre-invitation) Her: Oh, yeah. Busy, busy, busy. (stop) Him: Oh, okay. (stop) pre-announcements (to check if somebody is willing to pay attention)  Child: Mom, guess what happened? (pre-an) Mother: (Silence) Child: Mom, you know what? (pre-an) Mother: Not right now, Jacy. I'm busy. (stop Postponement → FSA) 





Impoliteness  by Jonathan Culpeper  impoliteness: communicative strategies that attack one's interlocutor and cause disharmony  bald on-record impoliteness: FTA is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way when face is not irrelevant or minimsed.  Different than an on-record FTA ('I want some beer' is not particularly insulting)  positive impoliteness: damaging the addressee's positive face  ignore, exclude from activity, disassociate, use inappropriate identity markers or honorifics, use obscure or secretive language, seek disagreement, use taboo words, call the other names  negative impoliteness: damaging the addressee!s negative face  frighten, condescend or ridicule, invade the other's space (not giving the opportunity to contribute to the talk, for example), explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect  withhold politeness: the absence of politeness work where it would be expected (e.g refusing to thank somebody)

Chapter 8: Conversation and preference structure Conversation analysis  background in sociology  via ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel): social actors always actively create order through their own behavior. CA examines this behavior and not external factors such as class, race, gender.  floor = the right to speak  turn = having control of a floor  turn taking = in any situation where control is not fixed in advance, anyone can attempt to get control of a turn  turn taking operates in accordance with a local management system. A set of conventions for getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away.  Transition Relevance Place (TRP) = any possible change-of-turn point  identifying TRPs via:  the content of what is said  prosodic structure of the speech 11

 

grammatical structure of the speech aspects of nonverbal behavior (gaze)

Pauses, overlaps, backchannels  interruption: when co-speakers do not wait for a TRP  overlap: when co-speakers anticipate a turn being completed, miscue their entry and come in before the end  transitions with a long silence between turns or with substantial overlap (both speakers trying to speak at the same time) are felt to be awkward  in that case, there is a sense of distance, an absence of familiarity or ease  attributable silence: if one s turns over the floor and the other does not speak. The silence is attributed to the second speaker and becomes significant.  Overlap can be used to express rapport, expressing similar thoughts  Min. Did you see him in the video? Wendy: Yeah – the part on the beach Min: Oh my god // he was so sexy Wendy: he was just being cool  overlap can express competition (prostě někomu skákat do řeči)  „uhs and ums“ as a floor holding device  another floor holding device: there is a larger structure to one's turn:  There are three points I'd like to make... Did you hear about Melvin? - oh it was last October... (storytelling)  backchannels (backchannel signals): devices how s make sure that l are listening. L produce them: nods, smiles, uhs and yeahs Conversational style  two basic conversational styles:  high involvement style: individuals expect that participation in a conversation will be very active, speaking rate will be fast, with almost no pausing between turn, with some overlap or even completion of the other's turns  high considerateness style: slower rate, longer pauses between turns, no overlap, avoid interruption. Adjacency pairs  almost automatic patterns in the structure of conversation, regardless of style  greeting / greeting; question / answer; proposal / acceptance; summons / acknowledgment; accusation / denial; promise / acceptance; compliment / acceptance; compliment / rejection; request for information / refusal; request for information / grant request (however, there is no perfect list of adjacency pairs)  adjacency pairs have a first part and a second part  the utterance of the first part immediately creates and expectation of the utterance of a second part of the same pair.  How are things? The usual.  Thanks You are welcome.  The first and the second part may not necessarily be together: Q1-Q2-A1-A2 = insertion sequence. One adjacency pair within another. Preference structure  basically: request-acceptance  this structural likelihood = preference. A socially determined structural pattern. Does not refer to any individual's mental or emotional desires. An observed pattern in talk, not a personal wish. 12

 

 

 

Preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred social acts  Assessment – agree (disagree dispreferred), invitation – accept (refuse dispreferred),... if there is silence from the other's part, it usually indicates the other would say a dispreferred second part. By being silent, the other invites the speaker to correct his or her initial statement.  Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food there. (1.6 seconds) Sandy: Hmm – I guess the food isn't great. Jack: Nah – people mostly go for the music.  Silence can be seen as non-participation, though, whereby people, when turning to a dispreferred part, mitigate it by uhs and ums or repetition and hesitation, for example. Dispreferred second part for an invitation: Oh, I'd love to, but... how to do a dispreferred:  delay/hesitate (pause, er, em, ah)  preface (well, oh)  express doubt (I'm not sure, I don't know)  token Yes (I'd love to)  apology (I'm sorry)  mention obligation (I mus do X)  appeal for understanding (you see, you know)  make it non-personal (everybody else, out there)  give an account (too much work, no time left)  use mitigators (really, mostly, sort of, kinda)  hedge the negative (I guess not, not possible) to express the preferred is faster → expresses closeness (the end of the utterance is closer to its beginning) a tool for evading dispreferreds: pre-sequences

Repair in conversation  Institutional talk analysis (Shegloff et al. They scrutinized most notably the classroom environment)  repair = correcting in conversation  structuring of repair:  self-initiated self-repair  A: She was giving me a list of all the students from this year. I mean last year. B: Yeah  other-initiated self-repair  A: Well I'm working through the Amfat Corporation B: The who? A: The Amfat Corporation. It's a holding company.  Other-initiated other-repair  A: But you know single beds are awfully thin. B: What? A: Single beds. They're B: You mean narrow? A: Narrow, yeah.  Self-initiated other-repair  A: That guy... what was his name... Bolz... B: Bolzman A: Bolzman 'Birmingham school': classroom interaction  3 basic moves (IRF):  initiating moves (I)  inform. Gives information (The purple ones are the taller ones) 13

direct. Gives orders (You've got to put them on this map) elicit. Requests response (Any other colours?)  cue. Encourages hearer to contribute (Hands up)  nominate. Names responder (Christine?)  check. Checks progress (Finished?)  prompt. Reinforces directives and elicitation (Go on. Hurry up)  responding moves (R)  react. Non-linguistic reply to a directive [nod, raise hand]  reply. To an elicitation. (The result is two)  follow-up moves (F)  accept. Shows heard correct information (Yes. Good. Fine)  evaluate. Evaluates hearer's answer (Good. Interesting) used to analyze transaction of a formal nature with one person in the position of power (doctorpatient, TV quiz shows)  



Initiation discourse acts by Tsui  elicitation  elicit: inform  A: What time will you be finished? B: Lecture ends at half past twelve.  S does not have the information and wants to (sincerely)  S has the need and the right to ask for the information  S has reason to believe that H has the information  S has reason to believe that H is willing to supply the information  elicit: confirm  A: These ARE the students of the English department B: Yes, they are all English majors.  S believes that the exressed proposition is true, but certain things in the context have led him to doubt his belief  H is able to and will confirm that S's assumption is true  elicit: agree  A: I suppose he is a bit senile now, isn't he? B: He looks like it.  S believes that the expressed proposition is self-evidently true  H will agree with S  elicit: commit  A: Can I talk to you? B: Yes, of course. Come in. Lets close the door. Take a seat.  S sincerely wants H to commit himself  H may be able and willing to commit himself  requestives  A: Could I get some handouts? B: Yes, help yourself.  X: So maybe we have a launch tomorrow? Y: OK, yeah, it's yes, it's fine, yes.  S sincerely wants the action to be carried out and believes that the action needs to be carried out  H may be able and willing to carry out the action or to have the action carried out  it is not obvious that H will carry out the action of his own accord  directives  H is able and willing to carry out the action  it is not obvious that H will carry out the action of his own accord  mandatives 14

(wife to a husband, who has a herring): Bring some out, so that Max c'd have some too.  S wants the action carried out and that there is a need for the action to be carried out  S has the authority or the right to get H to carry the action  advisives  I warn you not to stick your nose into other people's business  A: Don't pick it up, it's burning hot B: All right.  Why don't you call to New York and ask for a copy?  S believes that there is a need for the advocated action  S believes that the advocated action is in the interest of H Informatives  reports  A: My spoken English students are going to take me out to dinner and we can B: Thats nice. A: Oh yes, it is.  S believes that the expressed proposition is true and that the expressed proposition is indeed true  it is not obvious that H knows about the event or state of affairs  assessments  A: And I thought that he was very professional about it. B: Oh he IS very professional, he is good.  expressives  A: Welcome back to Hong Kong. B: Thank you.  X: I hope you feel better. Y: Thank you, I do. 



Ethnography of communication  key figure: Dell Hymes  background in anthropology (ethnography = investigating cultures using participant observation and interviews)  any given language use is analyzed (using participant observation and interviews) as part of a whole social situation. Language is not separated from its setting.  Hymes: people have communicative competence = they know how to use language in a contextually appropriate way  (Chomsky: people have linguistic competence = they know the grammar somehow)  Hymes: speech events have a set of components which the analyst needs to look at in order to produce a satisfactory description of any particular speech event:  SPEAKING grid to help analysts to deal with situations being analyzed:  Setting – where the speech event is located in time and space  Participants – who takes part in the speech event, and in what role (speaker, addressee, audience, eavesdropper)  Ends – what purpose of the speech event is, and what its outcome is meant to be  Act sequence – what speech acts make up the speech event, and what order they are performed in  Key – the tone of manner of performance (serious / joking, sincere / ironic,...)  Instrumentalities: what channel or medium of communication is used (speaking, signing, writing, drumming, whistling) and what language / variety is selected from the participant's repertoire  Norms of interaction – what the rules are for producing and interpreting speech acts. What is expected, what is allowed.  Genres – what 'type' does a speech event belong to, and what other pre-existing 15

conventional forms of speech are drawn on or 'cited in producing appropriate contributions to talk (e.g. do people quote from mythology or poetry or scripture?). Language in written documents.

16