Notes: English Linguistics II — Text Linguistics & Pragmatics (Page-by-Page)

Page 1

  • ENGLISH LINGUISTICS II
  • (1) Introduction - Text Linguistics and Pragmatics

Page 2

  • 0/1 Organizational Issues
    • BLACKBOARD: required reading texts & slides
    • LIBRARY - BOOKS: reserve shelf – English Linguis6cs II
    • TUTORIAL: there will be a doodle to agree on a time (Tutor: Marit HOGENBIRK)

Page 3

  • 0/2 Book Recommendations
    • 1. TEXT LINGUISTICS
    • SCHUBERT, Christoph (2012): Englische Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Schmidt.
    • ESSER, Jürgen (2009): Introduction to text- linguistics. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
    • RENKEMA, JAN (2004): Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    • 2. PRAGMATICS
    • BUBLITZ, Wolfram (2009): Englische Pragmatik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
    • GRUNDY, Peter (2000): Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    • YULE, George (1996): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 4

  • 0/3 Today’s Programme
    1. DEFINING THE FIELD: PRAGMATICS & TEXT LINGUISTICS
    • What is pragma-linguistics?
    • Which interests do both disciplines share?
    1. INDETERMINACY & UNDERDETERMINATION
    • Why is language in use often under-determined?
    • How is pragmatic meaning made?
    1. APPROPRIATENESS & RELEVANCE
    • How do we make utterances appropriate and relevant in context?
    • What is context?
    1. OBJECTS OF ENQUIRY IN PRAGMATICS
    • What are the main objects of study in pragmatics?

Page 5

  • 1/0 Language in Context – Introductory Sample

    • LOUIS: Frank (.) I’m thinkin about moving to another swamp.
    • FRANKY: =Oh, really?
    • LOUIS: I’::m just not comfortable living in a swamp where assassination attempts are taking place. Every loon with a vendetta, every snake with a sinus headache frightens me.
    • FRANKY: =Yeah, snap out of it Louis.
    • LOUIS: Oh Frank, I had no move, I love Budweiser, and I love the frogs.
    • FRANKY: Oh yeah, you’re good buddies, I forgot.
    • LOUIS: Oh, excuse me. If you would remember last summer, I invited them to that barbecue.
    • FRANKY: Well, Luois, you wanted to cook them at that barbecue.
    • LOUIS: (1 sec.) But at least I invited them, You wouldn’t have invited them at all.

  • Transcript of TV-Commercial BUDWEISER Lizards ‘Moving to another swamp’ 1997

Page 6

  • 1/1 Text Linguistics
    1. A ROUGH DEFINITION: Text linguistics deals with the structure and linguistic make-up of texts and their uses/functions in communication (texts as vehicles of communication, as vessels of knowledge (= understanding texts)) (FIX 2009, 12)
    2. MAIN QUESTIONS ASKED:
    • 1) Defining what is a text (linguistically)
    • 2) Which types of texts are there and how do they differ structurally/stylistically
    • 3) What do we do with texts in practical action (e.g., order goods, offer condolences, exchange greetings)
      • FIX, Ulla (2009): Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Textlinguistik. In: Deutsch als Fremdsprache Vol. 46/1 (2009), 11-20.

Page 7

  • 1/2 Pragmatics
    1. A ROUGH DEFINITION: deals with the meanings of language utterances intended by speakers (speaker meaning) and understood by hearers (hearer meaning) in their contexts (= reading between the lines) (BUBLITZ 2009, 14)
    • Pragmatics is the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on, the use of language. (HUANG 2007, 2)
  • 2. UNDERLYING RATIONALE 1) language is used to get things done (semiosis/semotic work) – using language is acting (‘doing things with words’, Austin 1962) 2) language is more than lexis/grammar – it also comprises knowledge of use/context and the competence to phrase things in order to say exactly what you mean
    • BUBLITZ, Wolfram (2009): Englische Pragmatik. Eine Einführung. HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 8

  • 1/3 Everyday Notions of Pragmatics & Text
    • 1. PRAGMATIC(S): pragmatic; practical, realistic as opposed to theoretical, speculative, idealistic.
    • cf. linguistic pragmatics: methods/theories of language description oriented towards context and use rather than the system of a language (lexis/grammar)
    • 2. TEXT: typically understood as written piece of communication (from Lat. texere/textus – weave/cloth); usually a longer, more complex piece of writing (print), i.e. sequences of sentences; ‘texts as carriers of sense’ and ‘texts as products of mental processes’ (ADAMZIK 2004, 11)
    • ADAMZIK, Kirsten (2004): Textlinguistik. Eine einführende Darstellung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Page 9

  • 1/4 Origins of Pragmatics
    1. DEVELOPMENT: originates in ordinary language philosophy; MORRIS (1938): pragmatics – the relation of signs to their users and interpreters; Grice, Searle, Wittgenstein developed a theory of language use; pragmatics opposed Chomsky’s idea of language as an abstract mental device.
    2. VIEWS
    • 1) component view (Anglo-American): pragmatics is a core component of a theory of language alongside phonology, morphology, syntax, etc.
    • 2) perspective view (Continental European): pragmatics is a functional (cognitive, social, cultural) perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in the form of behaviour
      • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 10

  • 1/5 Origins of Text Linguistics
    1. DEVELOPMENT: originates in rhetoric (language needs to be appropriately and effectively used); many academic disciplines dealt with texts long before text linguistics (e.g., literature, theology/hermeneutics, law); another forerunner is stylistics, where contextual appropriateness is key.
    2. VIEWS/STAGES
    • 1) trans-clausal approach: studies the means used to connect clauses/sentences (formal, text grammar)
    • 2) comm.-pragmatic approach: studies the correlation between communicative functions and textual forms (genre, register, types)
    • 3) cognitive approach: studies the production and reception (interpretation) of texts
      • ADAMZIK, Kirsten (2004): Textlinguistik. Eine einführende Darstellung. FIX, Ulla (2009): Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Textlinguistik.

Page 11

  • 2/1 Indeterminacy of/Underdetermined Meaning
    1. KEY IDEA: under-determinacy thesis (HUANG 2007, 6) states that certain linguistic phenomena can be handled naturally only when factoring in extra-linguistic, pragmatic factors such as context, real-world knowledge, and inference (going at what is meant by logical operations)
    2. LINGUISTIC STRUCTURES CONCERNED:
    • 1) Pronouns
    • 2) Lexical Ambiguity
    • 3) Syntactic Ambiguity
    • 4) Grammatical Structures (Morphology, Syntax)
      • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 12

  • 2/2 Pronouns – Pointing/Indexical Expressions
    • PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN CONVERSATIONAL INTERACTION
      1) You and you, but not you, stand up
    • PRONOUNS IN TEXT
      1) a) The authorities barred the anti-globalization demonstrators because they advocated violence.
      2) b) The authorities barred the anti-globalization demonstrators because they feared violence.

Page 13

  • 2/3 Ambiguity – Lexical & Grammatical
    • LEXICAL AMBIGUITY
      3 John is looking for his glasses. a) glasses = spectacles b) glasses – drinking vessels
    • SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY
      4 They are cooking apples
      a) What are they doing in the kitchen? They are cooking apples.
      b) What kind of apples are those? They are cooking apples.

Page 14

  • 2/4 Grammatical & Morphological Structures
    • POSSESSIVE ‘S’
      a) I have borrowed Jane’s car. (the car Jane owns)
      b) I would hate to have Simon’s job. (the job Simon does)
      c) Yesterday’s events really shocked the country’s president (the president who heads the country)
      d) Jane’s father has bought her a car.
    • WORD STRUCTURE – PHRASE STRUCTURE
      a) child actor – child psychologist
      b) additive free – 50 per cent extra free

Page 15

  • 2/4 Saying vs. Meaning
    • THE RIFT BETWEEN SAYING/UTTERING AND MEANING: it is perfectly normal in ordinary language to say less than we mean or to mean more or something else than we say. This rift between saying/uttering and meaning is typical of all pragmatic concerns. We use context to determine meaning.

Page 16

  • 2/5 Indirectness & Non-Literalness
    • CONVENTIONAL INDIRECTNESS: Uberances are also under-determined when conventional indirectness is used; we perform one linguistic action but actually mean/indicate another.
    • Examples (A–I):
      7 A: There is a big bookshop over there. (We could go buy the book in there)
      B: No. (I don’t want to go in there.)
      8 Is it tea or coffee? (Will you have tea or coffee?)
      9 Are we all here now? (Let’s get started./Please, someone go and look for people missing.)

Page 17

  • 2/6 Indirectness CONVENTIONAL INDIRECTNESS
    • 10 This place is a complete mess. (You really have to clean it up.)
    • 11 You wouldn’t by any chance have a minute to spare, would you? (I would like to talk to you.)
    • The examples show: we rely on context/knowledge of situations for meaning. Indirectness has become conventionalized; we think of it as normal. However, we need to relate two kinds of meanings: direct/literal and indirect/non-literal.

Page 18

  • 2/7 Non-Literalness – Metaphor & Metonymy
    • METAPHOR: e.g., Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read but not curiously; some few to be read wholly, with diligence and attention (Francis Bacon). Reading is eating/Products of the intellect are foods.
    • READING IS EATING/PRODUCTS OF THE INTELLECT ARE FOODS
    • 12 We’ve been hailing over this manifesto and the ideological hardliners were defeated. (ARGUMENT IS WAR)
      Christmas is behind us now but Easter will be coming up soon. (TIME IS PLACES IN SPACE THAT WE PASS ON A JOURNEY)
      Time flies. (TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT)
      She couldn’t contain her anger anymore and finally blew her top. (ANGER IS PRESSURIZED SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER)

Page 19

  • 2/8 Non-Literalness – Metonymy
    • METONYMY: For the busy weekend ahead the restaurant needed some more hands. (HAND STANDS FOR PEOPLE)
    • Moscow denies any involvement in the pro-Russian separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine. (PLACE STANDS FOR INSTITUTION)
    • The saxophone has just gone out to get some coffee. (INSTRUMENT STANDS FOR PERSON)
  • NONLITERAL MEANING-MAKING
    1) Humans make systematic connections between concepts and use one to mean another (cognitive aspect).
    2) The non-literal expressions have become so conventionalized that we think of them as natural.

Page 20

  • 2/9 Two Types of Meaning
    • All examples involve two types of meaning: what we literally say and what we contextually/conventionally mean. Pragmatics explains the relation between those two types of meaning.
    • 1. SENTENCE MEANING (PRE-CONTEXTUAL): the meaning-potential of a sentence in the abstract language system (lexical meanings, paradigmatic/syntagmatic relations) – lexical/grammatical knowledge needed (of interest to semantics)
    • 2. SPEAKER OR UTTERANCE MEANING (CONTEXTUAL): the meaning that a speaker intends to convey in a given situation/context by making an utterance; speaker meaning ideally corresponds to hearer meaning – communicative/pragmatic knowledge needed (interest to pragmatics)

Page 21

  • 2/10 Two Types of Meaning – Example
    • A: Could you hand me that book?
    • B: yeah, sure (10 sec.)
    • A: Today would be nice.
    • 1. SENTENCE MEANING (PRE-CONTEXTUAL): A/1: asking for ability; A/2: expressing potential
    • 2. SPEAKER OR UTTERANCE MEANING (CONTEXTUAL): A/1: requesting an action; A/2: requesting an action (
      ‘give it to me now!’)

Page 22

  • 2/11 Reasons for Rift between Saying and Meaning
    1. COMPLEXITY OF THOUGHT/MATTER: the matter you talk about is too complex – invites vagueness and imprecision
    2. SENSITIVE SOCIAL SITUATIONS: some situations call for implicit or indirect uberances, i.e., contexts of potential offense or deliberate vagueness/under-determination of meaning
    3. PLAYFULNESS/SELF-DISPLAY: indirectness/non-literalness might aim at teasing, joking or showing off cleverness
    4. TIME ECONOMY: time constraints open up lead us to say less than we actually mean; we leave things out; we assume hearers know
    • BUBLITZ, Wolfram (2009): Englische Pragmatik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 28ff.

Page 23

  • 3/1 Appropriateness & Relevance
    1. APPROPRIATENESS: For an utterance to be appropriate it must be optimally suited to achieving the communicative business at hand; an utterance is appropriate if it fits the situation and is effective for both speaker and hearer.
    2. RELEVANCE: everything we seek to understand has to be given the appropriate relevance
    • 16: Only open restraining bar shortly before you get off.
    • 17: No smoking.
    • 18: Would you like tea or coffee? Is it tea or coffee?

Page 24

  • 3/2 Appropriateness & Relevance
    • 19: A: Let’s go to the movies tonight. B: I have to study for an exam. (SEARLE 1975: 61)
    • 20: A: Would you like one of those cookies? B: There must be 2,000 calories in there.
    • 21: A: haven’t seen Doris for a while – how is she? B: deliriously happy.

Page 25

  • 3/3 What is Context?
    • CONTEXT – SIGNIFICANCE & APPROACHES
    • Sentences and contexts need to be paired to get at speaker-meaning (also hearer or uberance meaning) and to be able to understand the meaning of a text properly.
    • Context is one of those notions used widely in linguistics literature but difficult to define precisely (HUANG 2007, 13).
    • From a relatively theory-neutral point of view, context may be defined as referring to any relevant features of the dynamic setting or environment in which a linguistic unit is systematically used.
    • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 26

  • 3/4 Three Types of Context
    1. PHYSICAL CONTEXT: physical setting of the utterance (place, time, people – spatio-temporal location of utterance)
    • Example: He’s not the chief executive; he is. He’s the managing director.
    • Bring that thing over here and put it on there.
    • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 27

  • 3/5 Three Types of Context
    1. LINGUISTIC CONTEXT (co-text): surrounding utterances in the same discourse (previous/consecutive sentences)
    • Example: I found Ed Smith’s article offensive and wrong in its various assumptions. To declare Germany’s footballer’s cleverer than Brazil’s by drawing on just one match (…) is foolish. His “anecdotal” evidence is just that. (ECONOMIST, INTELLIGENT LIFE, Jan/Feb. 2015: 16)
    • A: Who gave the waiter a tip? B: Helen?
    • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 28

  • 3/6 Three Types of Context
    1. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE CONTEXT (real-world knowledge, common ground); any information derivable from world knowledge that may be relevant to understanding an utterance/text; also: background assumptions (individual/social)
    • 1) I went to Beijing last month. The Forbidden City was magnificent.
    • 2) I went to Paris last month. The Forbidden City was magnificent. (humorous juxtaposition showing shared knowledge vs. different context)
    • Alcohol behind the wheel will kill you. (Don’t drink and drive.)
    • HUANG, Yan (2007): Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Page 29

  • 4/1 Major Objects of Enquiry in Pragmatics
    1. DEIXIS – Use of deictic expressions: non-symbolic language signs point us to elements of the physical, linguistic, or general knowledge context
    • Example: This here is genuine, but that there is a fake.
    1. ENTAILMENTS & INFERENCES: logical conclusions or assumptions deriving from lexical meanings and semantic relations in sentences (sentence-meaning)
    • Example: The soldier was killed in the war. (=> He is dead/no longer alive. Someone shot him.)

Page 30

  • 4/2 Major Objects of Enquiry in Pragmatics
    1. PRESUPPOSITIONS: assumptions speakers have prior to making an utterance; presuppositions are tacitly communicated along with the utterance
    • Examples: My flat is bright and spacious. (>> I have a flat)
    • He started smoking again. (>> He had stopped smoking)
    • If I were there I would help him. (>> I am not there/I cannot help.)
    1. SPEECH ACTS: utterances perform linguistic actions (cf. ‘doing things with words’) – types of speech acts and how they are linguistically expressed vary a lot
    • Example: I promise I’ll come shopping with you. (not allowed: *I promise I went shopping with her yesterday.) (COMMISSIVE SPEECH ACT)
    • Please, come shopping with me. (DIRECTIVE)

Page 31

  • 4/3 Major Objects of Enquiry in Pragmatics
    1. CO-OPERATION & IMPLICATURE: in conversational interaction, communicators rely on each other’s cooperative behaviour; willing to take everything said as meaningful, relevant, and understandable; if utterances do not connect, listeners infer meaning (implicatures)
    • Example A: Will you come shopping with me? B: I really had a dreadful day at work today. (Yes/No)
  • 36: A: Will you, please, come shopping with me? B: I really had a dreadful day at work today. (Yes/No)

Page 32

  • 4/4 Major Objects of Enquiry in Pragmatics
    1. POLITENESS: in social interaction we avoid imposing on others and keep self-image and others’ image untainted; politeness/tact underpins many pragmatic/linguistic strategies
    • Example: I am awfully sorry to bother you. Could I ask you whether you would by any chance have the time to look through this report? You’ve done this job incredibly well last time; I’d really appreciate it if you were willing to do it again.