Curs 1. INTRODUCTION TO PRAGMATICS the study of language use the study of meaning in interaction (Thomas, 1995)The linguistic phenomena to be studied from the point of view of their usage can be situated at any level of structure. The question pragmatics asks is: How are the language resources used? BRANCHES OF LINGUISTICS Phonetics and phonology unit of analysis? Morphology unit of analysis? Syntax unit of analysis? Semantics explores the meaning of linguistic units, typically at the level of words (lexical semantics) or at the level of sentences or more complex structures PRAGMATICS AND PHONETICSThe level of speech sounds: Most speakers of languages with a significant degree of dialectal variation, who have grown up with a local dialect but who were socialised into the use of a standard variety through formal education, will find that the language they use sounds quite different depending on whether they are in their professional context or speaking to their parents or siblings. PRAGMAATICS AND MORPHOLOGYAt the level of syntax: the same state of affairs can be described by means of very different syntactic structures: John broke the figurine The figurine was broken by John The figurine was broken The figurine got broken.

PRAGMATICS AND SEMANTICS

At the level of word meaning (lexical semantics), more than what would be regarded as dictionary meaning has to be taken into account as soon as a word gets used. Many words cannot be understood unless aspects of world knowledge are invoked. E.g. topless district it requires knowledge about city areas with high concentration of establishments for (predominantly male) entertainment where scantly dressed hostesses or performers are the main attraction. MEANING IN PRAGMATICS I promise to be back early means a promise on condition a future action is involved: Ill come back early (SEE the Speech act theory) MEANING IN PRAGMATICSMeaning is a triadic relation Speaker means Y by X. E.g: A: Shall we see that film tonight? B: I have a headache. The speaker means NO by saying I HAVE A HEADACHE. MEANING IN PRAGMATICSpragmatics = utterance meaning. Utterance meaning consists of the meaning of the sentence plus considerations of the intentions of the Speaker (the speaker may intend to refuse the invitation to go to the film), interpretation of the Hearer (the Hearer may interpret the utterance as a refusal, or not), determined by Context and background knowledge. MEANING IN PRAGMATICSpragmatics = meaning in context ! Meaning is not seen as a stable. Rather, it is dynamically generated in the process of using language. Also, pragmatics as the study of meaning in context does not imply that one can automatically arrive at a pragmatic understanding of the phenomena involved just by knowing all the extralinguistic information, because context is not a static element. EXAMPLE 1A:Shall we see that film tonight? B:I have a headache.

EXAMPLE 2What might be the functions/meaning of the following utterances?1. Its hot in here.2. Can you pass me the salt?3. Ill talk to you tomorrow.4. Its a beautiful day today.

EXAMPLE 3Jacob: Do you know the way back to the dining hall? We can go in my car. Mark: Oh, I thought you didnt know the way to the campus. Jacob: I thought you didnt know!

Curs 2. MICROPRAGMATICSA melamed (Hebrew teacher) discovering that he had left his comfortable slippers back in the house, sent a student after them with a note for his wife. The note read: Send me your slippers with this boy. When the student asked why he had writtenyour slippers, the melamed answered: Yold! (Fool) If I wrote my slippers, she would read my slippers and would send her slippers. What could I do with her slippers? So I wrote your slippers, shell read your slippers and send me mine. DEIXIS It is the anchoring of language use in a real world by pointing at variables along some of its dimensions (indexicals): Person deixis (social deixis) the speaker (I); the addressee (you); the others (he, she, it) Time deixis ( with now as the conventional deictic centre) Spatial deixis (with here as the conventional deictic centre) Discourse deixis (cohesion and coherence devices in a text) PERSON DEIXIS HONORIFICSPerson deixis operates on a basic three part division, the speaker (I), the addressee (you) and other(s) (he, she, it). in many languages these deictic expressions are elaborated with markers of social status Yule (1996) . Expressions which indicate higher status are described as honorifics (social deixis). For example, in French and Romanian there are two different forms that encode a social contrast within person deixis, tu (tu) and vous(dumneavoastra). This is known as T/V distinction. PERSON DEIXISUsing a third person form, where a second person would be possible, is one way of communicating distance. This can also be done for humorous or ironic purposes, as in: Would his highness like some coffee? The distance associated with third person forms is also used to make potential accusations less direct, as in: Somebody didnt clean up after himself. There is also a potential ambiguity in the use in English of the first person plural. There is an exclusive we (speaker plus others, excluding addressee) and inclusive we (speaker and addressee included), as in the following possible reply to the accusation:We clean up after ourselves around here. DEICTIC PROJECTIONDeictic projection= speakers being able to project themselves into other locations, time or shift person reference. Eg. via dramatic performances, when using direct speech to represent the person, location and feelings of someone else. E.g.: I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad look on its face. It was like, Oh, Im so unhappy here, will you set me free? (taken from Yule, 1996:13) All indexical expressions refer to certain world conditions, either subjective or objective in nature. The following story, borrowed from Levinson 1983:68) is meant to illustrate the importance of having the right point of view, and how one can anticipate the way people will construe the world in terms of their point of view.TEMPORAL DEIXISOne basic type of temporal deixis in English is in the choice of verb tense, which has only two basic forms, the present and the past (the proximal and the distal). The past tense is always used in English in those if-clauses that mark events presented by the speaker as not being close to present reality. E.g. If I had a yacht(source: Yule, 1996:15)The idea expressed in the example is not treated as having happened in the past. It is presented as deictically distant from the speakers current situation. So distant, that it actually communicates the negative (we infer that the speaker has no yacht).

SPATIAL DEIXISThe concept of distance is relevant to spatial deixis, where the relative location of people and things is being indicated. Contemporary English makes use of two adverbs, here and there, for the basic distinction. Some verbs of motion, such as come and go, retain deictic sense when they are used to mark movement toward the speaker (Come to bed) or away the speaker (Go to bed). TASK1. Identify indexicals in the following text1. Debby: Go anywhere today?2. Dan: Yes, we went down to Como. Up by bus, and back by hydrofoil.3. Debby: Anything to see there?4. Dan: Perhaps not the most interesting of Italian towns, but its worth the trip.5. Debby: I might do that next Saturday.6. Jane: What do you mean when you say perhaps not the most interesting of Italian towns?7. Jack: He means certainly not the most interesting8. Dan: Just trying to be polite. IMPLICIT MEANINGStudy the following sign, appearing at selected private parking sites throughout the Greater Chicago area (Mey, 1993:15). What does this sign tell you explicitly? And implicitly?_________________________________________ALL UNAUTHORIZED VECHICLES WILL BE TOWED BY LINCOLN TOWING SERVICE TO 4884 N.CLARK FEE $80.00 CASH, VISA & MASTER CHARGE ACCEPTED. PHONE 561-4433 IMPLICIT MEANING=what can be meant or communicated beyond what is explicitly or literally said, by means of presuppositions, implications and implicatures Conventional means for conveying implicit meaning: PRESUPPOSITIONS PRESUPPOSITIONS= implicit meaning that must be pre-supposed, understood, taken for granted for an utterance to make sense. a. Existential presuppositions : Presuppose the existence, at a given place and/or time, of entities in the real world (eg. possessives, definite NPsEg: The King of France is talking to Napoleon said at this time in history and using the present tense, is devoid of real meaning because the existential presuppositions carried by the referring expressions The King of France and Napoleon are not satisfied.b.Factive presuppositionsA number of verbs (know, realise, regret) or phrases invoving be aware, be gladEg: She didnt realise he was ill. (He was ill) We regret telling him (We told hem) I wasnt aware that she was married. (She was married) I am glad that its over (Its over).

c. Non-factive presuppositionsI dreamed that I was rich (I wasnt rich) Lexical presuppositions E.g. He stopped smoking (He used to smoke)They started complaining (They werent complaining before) Structural presuppositions E.g.: When did you leave (You left)Where did you buy the bike (You bought the bike).

d. Lexical presuppositionsThe use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another (non-asserted) meaning is understood.Eg. manage (presupposing tried) He stopped smoking (He used to smoke) They started complaining (They werent complaining before.) e. Structural presuppositionsSome sentence structures conventionally presuppose that part of the structure is already assumed to be true.Eg. wh-constructions When did you leave (You left) Where did you buy the bike (You bought the bike). TASKS2. Analyse the following utterances in terms of presuppositions: I regret the year of prosperity and peace has ended. The UN managed to bring about peace. A time of prosperity and peace will return. What the UN did was to bring about peace in Bosnia. 1996, which was a year of prosperity and peace, will be remembered forever.

Curs 3. SPEECH ACT THEORY J. Austin & J.SearleLANGUAGE AS ACTIONSpeech Act Theory was developed from the basic belief that language is used to perform actions. (meaning and action are related to language)Speech acts = actions performed via utterances (apology, complaint, compliment, etc.) They apply to the speakers communicative intention in producing an utterance. The speaker - expects that his/her communicative intention will be recognized by the hearer. Both speaker and hearer are usually helped in this process by the context = speech events. DECLARATIONS AND PERFORMATIVESA class of highly ritualistic utterances which carry no information about the world outside language at all because they refer to themselves. (SAYING=DOING)E.g.: a. I swear to . b. I sentence you to death. c. I hereby open the Theater House. d. I hereby name this ship Aurora. 1. explicit performative: I order you to clean your boots. 2. implicit performative: Clean your boots!The assumption is that underlying every utterance (U) there is a clause containing a performative verb (Vp) which makes the function explicit. I (hereby) Vp you (that)The subject must be first person sg., + the adverb hereby, indicating that the utterance counts as an action by being uttered + a performative verb in the present tense + indirect object.

FELICITY CONDITIONSFor an utterance to perform a certain act, some appropriate conditions have to be fulfilled. Technically, they are called felicity conditions. FELICITY COND. FOR THE ACT OF ORDERING1. the sender believes the action should be done2. the receiver has the ability to do the action3. the receiver has the obligation to do the action4. the sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the actionEGI think your boots need cleaning, Jones (Condition 1) Im bloody sure you can get your boots cleaner than that, Jones! (Condition 2) Youre supposed to come on to parade with clean boots, Jones! (Condition 3) Its my job to see youve got cleaner boots than this! (Condition 4) UNDERLYING FORCE1. locutionary act: the basic act of utterance, producing a meaningful linguistic expression. 2. illocutionary act/force: performed via the communicative force of an utterance, the function that we have in mind when we produce an utterance. We might utter Ive just made some coffee to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, etc. 3. perlocutionary act/effect: the effect you intend your utterance to have on the hearer, for example, to get the hearer drink the coffee. TAXONOMY OF SPEECH ACTS1. Declarations: speech acts that change the world via their utterance. 2. Representatives For example, statements of fact (The earth is round) assertions (Chomsky didnt write about peanuts) descriptions (It was a sunny day)In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the world (of belief). 3. Expressives: speech acts that state what the speaker feels (psychological states). For example, expressing pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow, etc. They can be caused by something the speaker does or the hearer does, but they are about the speakers experience:E.g. a. Im really sorry. b. Congratulations! c. Oh, yes, mummy, great, mmmm! In using expressives the speaker makes the words fit the world (of feeling). 1. Directives: speech acts that speakers use to get someone else do something. They express what the speaker wants. For example, commands, orders, requests, suggestions, etc. and can be positive or negative:E.g. a. Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black. b. Could you lend me a pen please. c. Dont touch that. In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the hearer). 2.Commissives: speech acts that the speakers use to commit themselves to some future action.).They express what the speaker intends. For example, promises, threats, refusals, pledges and can be performed by the speaker alone or as a member of a group:E.g. a. Ill be back. b. Im going to get it right next time. c. We will not do that. In using a commissive, the speaker undetakes to make the world fit the words (via the speaker). On the basis of structure, provided by the three basic sentence types in English which relate to the three general communicative functions (Yule, 1996:54):Direct/indirect relationship between sentence type & function________________________________________________Utterance Sentence typeComm. function________________________________________________You wear a seat belt. Declarative StatementDo you wear a seat belt? InterrogativeQuestionWear a seat belt! ImperativeCommand/Request

TASKS1. Look at the following utterances and try to determine what might have been their illocutionary force (Source: Cook, 1989): 1. Please, open the window. 2. Its very stuff in here, isnt it? 3. Im sorry for what Ive done. 4. I promise to repay you tomorrow. 5. Somebodys messed up my computer. 2. Look at the following transcripts of exchanges between a husband and a wife. How does A exploit ambiguity in the illocutionary force of what is said? (Source: Cook, 1989)Exchange 1. A: Are you planning to do it this afternoon? B: (angrily) Well WHEN this afternoon? A: (with injured innocence) Im just asking whether youll be able to do it this afternoon.Exchange 2. B: Oh no, we havent got the TV programme. A: Go and get one then. B: Go and get one! Ive just come in. A: Well if you dont go Ill go. B: Thats blackmail. A: Its not blackmail, its just a FACT. 3. What is the problem with the following speech acts. (Source: Mey, 1993:127) I promise (hereby) to set fire to your house. I hereby warn you that you will be awarded the Nobel prize in literature. WARNING: Your lawn will turn brown in November 4. Consider the following text, found on a package of American brewers yeast in the 1920s: (Source: Mey, 1993:127) Do not mix the contents of this package with 2 qts of lukewarm water Do not add 1 lb of sprouted barley Do not put in a warm spot (74 degrees) for 7-10 days Do not skim Do not put mixture in copper pot and heat Do not condense vapors Do not consume end product Do not get caught

Curs 4. COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE (P.H.GRICE 1975)CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLEGrices principle is formulated as follows: 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. According to this principle we interpret language on the assumption that its sender is obeying (observing) four maxims: 1. Maxim of quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. Maxim of quality: Do not say what you believe to be false; Do not say that for which you lack evidence. 3. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant 4. Maxim of Manner: Avoid obscurity of expression; Avoid ambiguity; Be brief; Be orderly. HEDGESBecause these principles are assumed in normal interaction, speakers rarely mention them. However, there are certain expressions used to mark that speakers may be in danger of not fully adhering to the principles. These expressions are called hedges. The following examples are taken from Yule (1996:38-39): E.g.: Quality: As far as I know, theyre married Quantity: As you probably know, I am afraid of dogs. Relation: Not to change the subject, but is this related to the budget? Manner: Im not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights. FLOUTING THE MAXIMSThe situations which chiefly interested Grice were those in which a speaker blatantly, deliberately, fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker wants to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning which is different from the expressed meaning. These are intended violations of the maxims; the sender intends the receiver to perceive them as such. If the sender does not intend violations to be perceived as such, or if the receiver does not realise that they are deliberate, then communication degenerates into lying, or simply breaks down. CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURESThe basic assumption in conversation is that, unless otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering to some shared rules of conversation, which he calls the Co-operative Principle : E.g.A:I hope you brought the bread and the cheese. B: Ah, I brought the bread.In order for A to understand Bs reply, A has to assume that B is co-operating, and has given B the right amount of information. But he didnt mention the cheese. If he had brought the cheese he would have said so. He must intend that A infer that what is not mentioned was not brought. In this case B has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature. FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUALITYE.g. (source, Thomas, 1995:55)Late on Christmas Eve 1993 an ambulance is sent to pick up a man who has collapsed in Newcastle city centre. The man is drunk and vomits all over the ambulanceman who goes to help him. The ambulanceman says:Great, thats really great! Thats made my Christmas!QUESTION: What implicature is generated? FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF QUANTITYEg. (Mey:69) A:Well all miss Bill and Agatha, wont we? B:Well, well all miss Bill.QUESTION: What implicature is generated? FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF RELATIONE.g. (taken from Thomas, 1995:70)Geoffrey is a vicar, trying hard to curry favour with his bishop. The speaker is Susan, his wife, who couldnt care less about the church or religion:We were discussing the ordination of women. The bishop asked me what I thought. Should women take the services? So long as it doesnt have to be me, I wanted to say, they can be taken by a trained gorilla. Oh yes, Geoffrey chips in Susans all in favour. Shes keener than I am, arent you, darling?. More sprouts anybody? I said.QUESTION: What implicature is generated? FLOUTING THE MAXIM OF MANNERE.g. (taken form Thomas, 1995:71)This interaction occurred during a radio interview with an un-named official from United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince Haiti:Interviewer: Did the United States Government play any part in Duvaliers departure? Did they, for example, actively encourage him to leave?Official: I would not try to steer you away from that conclusion. TASKS1. Which maxims are flouted in the following ex? a. I think Ill go for a W-A-L-K (spelling the word letter by letter in front of a dog) b. [At a dinner party]: Is there anywhere I can powder my nose? c. This meal is delicious (said by a guest who finds the food disgusting) d. Child: Im going to watch Match of the Day now. Parent: What was that Maths homework you said you had? (Source: Cook, 1989)

[A is working at a computer in one of the departments lab when she experiences a problem] A: Can you help me? B: Graemes office hour is in five minutes

[Jonathan, sensitive about his lack of progress in Italian, has just returned from an Italian evening class] Elena:What did you do? Jonathan: This and that.

[Victor has been buried up to his neck in the back garden by an irate builder. His wife, Margaret, comes out] M: What are you doing? V: Im wallpapering the spare bedroom, what the hell do you think Im doing? (One Foot in the Grave, BBC 12/11/96)

[This is part of the queens speech at the anniversary of her 40th year on the throne. It had been a bad year for the queen - marital difficulties of her children, the Windsor Palace had gone up in flames] Queen:1992 is not a year which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. 1. ( Thomas, 1995:65): The speaker is Rupert Allason (author, M.P. and expert on the British intelligence services). He is discussing the identity of the so-called Fifth Man: It was either Graham Mitchell or Roger Hollis and I dont think it was Roger Hollis. 2. (Thomas, 1995:68) B was on a long journey and wanted to read her book. A was a fellow passenger who wanted to talk to her: A:What do you do? B:Im a teacher. A:Where do you teach? B:Outer Mongolia A:Sorry I asked.

3. ( Thomas, 1995:70) I finished working on my face. I grabbed my bag and a coat. I told mother I was going outShe asked me where I was going. I repeated myself Out.

Curs 5. POLITENESS THEORYDEFINITIONS OF POLITENESS Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon is a strategy, or a series of strategies, employed by a speaker to achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relations (Thomas, 1995:157-158).Lakoff (1989:102) defines politeness as a means of minimising confrontation in discourse both the possibility of confrontation occurring at all, and the possibility that a confrontation will be perceived as threatening. The face-saving view (Brown and Levinson, 1987)Politeness, like formal diplomatic protocol (), presupposes that potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and makes possible communication between potentially aggressive parties. (Brown and Levinson 1987:1)THE NOTION OF FACE Central to their theory of politeness is the concept of face, in the sense of reputation or good name, or the public self-image of a person (self-esteem). 1. Positive face, i.e., the want to be approved of, to be treated as a member of the same group, to know that his/her wants are shared by the others.2. Negative face, i.e., the need to be independent, not to be imposed on by the others.FACE THREATENING ACTS Certain illocutionary acts are liable to threaten or damage another persons face, and such acts are known as face threatening acts. (FTA) Eg: FTA for the negative face, i.e. if a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individuals expectations regarding self-image (e.g.: requests, orders, threats/unwilling promises or offers). FTAs for the positive face: criticism, complaint, disagreement (H); apologies, confessions (S).FACE SAVING ACTS A face saving act is when the speaker says something to lessen the possible threat to anothers face. TASK 1. In the following conversation, who proposes a FTA and who proposes a FSA?A neighbour is playing his music very loud and an older couple are trying to sleep.Him:Im going to tell him to stop that awful music right now.Her:Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon because its getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep. POSITIVE POLITENESS Positive politeness is a FSA which is concerned with the persons positive face and which tends to show solidarity. The tendency to use positive politeness forms means that a person uses solidarity strategies: include personal information attend to H (e.g.: Hello) shared dialect (or register) E.g.: How about letting me use your pen? the use of inclusive terms e.g.: we, lets exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) e.g.: That was so awful, my heart bled for you avoid disagreement e.g.: Yes, its kind of nice indicate Speaker knows Hearers wants and is taking them into account. E.g.: I know how you feel

NEGATIVE POLITENESS Negative politeness is a face saving act which is oriented to the persons negative face and which will tend to show deference. E.g.: asking questions/apologising: Im sorry but could you lend me a pen? the use of impersonal expressions, e.g.: Customers may not smoke absence of personal claims, e.g.: Theres going to be a party. be pessimistic, e.g. I dont suppose there is any chance of a cup of tea state the FTA as a general rule, e.g.: I know this may be an imposition, but could you? TASKS 2. Classify the utterances below according to the solidarity or deference strategies used: I wonder if you can help me.Help me with this bag, will you mate.This food tastes sort of strange.Lets have something to drink.Youll have another drink, wont you.Could I see you for a second. (Source: Cook, 1989)

3. What negative politeness strategies can you identify in the following written note sent by an academic to professor Jenny Thomas who had forgotten a previously arranged appointment:Dear Jenny Thomas,Im sorry I missed you today. I wanted to discuss with you...I know it is a terrible imposition, but if you had any time, Sat. p.m. we could perhaps meet in Lancaster for a coffee? Id be very grateful. Best wishes 4. What FTAs are involved in the following conversation and how are they dealt with?Colonel: Excuse me, senorita, do you mind if we join you? Im feeling you are being neglected.Donna: Well, Im expecting somebody.Col.: Instantly?Don: No, but any minute now.Col: Some people live a life time in a minute. What are you doing right now?Don: Im waiting for him.Col: Well, do you mind if we waited for you? Just to keep the womanisers from bothering you.Don: No, I dont mind.Col: Thank you. (from the film: Scent of a woman)Curs 6. CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS

Conversation as a discourse type has been defined by Cook (1989) in the following way:It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task.Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended.The number of participants is small.Turns are quite short.Talk is primarily for the participants and not for an outside audience.

WHAT IS CONVERSATION ANALYSIS?

CA is the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. CA is only marginally interested in language as such, but first and foremost in language as a practical social accomplishment. Its object of study is the interactional organization of social activities. CA aims at discovering how participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a central focus on how sequences of actions are generated. Throughout the course of a conversation or talk-in-interaction, speakers display in the next turns an understanding of what the prior turn was about. That understanding may turn out to be what the prior speaker intended, or not. This is described as next-turn proof procedure and it is the most basic tool used in CA to ensure that analyses explicate the way in which the participants themselves orient to talk, not based on the assumptions of the analyst. TASK 1. Look at the following interaction and comment on how participants display their understanding of what is going on. 1.Mother: Do you know whos going to that meeting?2. Rus: Who?3. Mother: I dont know!4. R: Oh, probably Mr. Murphy and Dad said Mrs. Timpte an some of the teachers. Basic notions:1. Turn-taking mechanism The starting point is the observation that conversation involves turn-taking and that the end of one speakers turn and the beginning of the next latch on to each other with almost perfect precision. Overlap of turns (when two or more participants talk at the same time) occurs in about 5% of cases and this suggests that speakers know how, when and where to enter. They signal that one turn has come to an end and another should begin. COMPONENTS OF TURN-TAKING

Turns at talk can be seen as constructed out of units which broadly correspond to linguistic categories such as sentences, clauses, single words (e.g., Hey!, What ?) or phrases. Features of turn-construction units:1. projectability it is possible for participants to project, in the course of a turn-construction unit, what sort of unit it is and at what point it is likely to end. 2. transition relevance place at the end of each unit there is the possibility for legitimate transition between speakers. 2. Turn distribution e.g. who dominates the conversation in terms of number of turns taken, length of turnsThere is no strict limit to turn size, given the extendable nature of syntactic turn-constructional units;There is no exclusion of parties;The number of parties can change

TURN-TAKING RULES a) if C (current speaker) selects N (next speaker) in current turn, then C must stop speaking, and N must speak next.b) if C does not select N, then any other party self-selects, first speaker gaining rights to the next turnc) if C has not selected N, and no other party self-selects, then C may (but need not) continue.OVERLAPPING RULES Where, despite the rules, overlapping talk occurs, studies revealed the operation of a system: one speaker drops out rapidly as soon as one speaker thus gets into the clear, he typically recycles precisely the part of the turn obscured by the overlap. if one speaker does not immediately drop out, there is available a competitive allocation system, whereby the speaker who upgrades most, wins the floor. (uppgrading = increased amplitutde, slowing tempo, lengthened vowels, etc.) TASK 2. How do you explain the overlap in the following example?1. Rose:Why dont you come and see me sometimes2. Bea:I would like to3. Rose:I would like you to

BASIC TURN TYPES Adjacency pairs One of the most noticeable things about conversation is that certain classes of utterances conventionally come in pairs. Example: Question/answer Greeting/greeting Invitation/acceptance(declination) Offer/acceptance (refusal)

INSERTION SEQUENCES (Pre-sequences) These sequences are called adjacency pairs because, ideally, the two parts should be produced next to each other. The point is that some classes of utterances are conventionally paired such that, on the production of a first pair part, the second becomes relevant and remains so, even if it is not produced in the next turn. The next turn in an adjacency pair sequence is a relevant second pair part. But that need not be the next turn in the series of turns making up some particular conversation. Example: (Levinson1983) A:Can I have a bottle of Mich?Q1 B:Are you over twenty-one? Ins 1 A:No. Ins.2 B:No. A1

SIDE SEQUENCES = side sequences where the topic is different from that of the main sequence:E.g: Father (on the phone to university:So i think ill be in tomorrow, when P is a little better. And if you could tell the ethics committeeHEY STOP THAT RIGHT AWAYSecretary: You want me to stop WHAT?F: Sorry. I was talking to the cat. Hold onS (5)F: The damn cat was fixing to sit on the babys face.

NOTICEABLE ABSENCE The absence of a second pair part is most often treated participants as a noticeable absence, and the speaker ofthe first part may infer a reason for the absence.

Example in a question/answer sequence: Child: Have to cut these Mummy. (1.3) Child: Wont we Mummy. (1.5) Child: Wont we. Mother: Yes

PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION OF ADJACENCY PAIRS An inferential aspect of adjacency pairs stems from the fact that certain first pair parts make alternative actions relevant in second position. In some adjacency pairs there is a choice of two likely responses, of which one is termed preferred response (because it occurs more frequently), and the other dispreferred (because it is less common). PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 1. OfferA: Like a lift? -acceptance (preferred)B: You saved my life. -refusal (dispreferred)B: Thanks, but Im waiting for my friend2. Compliment A: Thats a nice shirt. -acceptance (preferred)B: Thanks -rejection (dispreferred)B: Well, I think it makes me look old -agreement (preferred)B: Its quite nice, isnt it? -shift B: Judy found it for me. -return B: Thanks, I like yours too.3. . Blame A: You broke the glass- denial (preferred) B: I didnt do it.- admission (dispref) B: Sorry, I didnt see it.

TASKS

3. Can you elucidate the misunderstanding involved in the following conversation between a Western tourist in a museum in Japan and a Japanese attendant? (Mey, 1993:266)

T:Is there a toilet around here?A:You want to use?T:Sure i doA:Go down the steps.

4. Discuss the following exchange:(Two secretaries meet in the hallway of their common office)A:Would you like a piece of apple cake?B:Have you got some?

REPAIRS Repair is a generic term used in CA to cover a wide range of phenomena, from --- seeming errors in turn-taking, such as overlapping talk, to any of the forms of what is commonly called corrections that is, substantive faults in the contents of what someone has said. THE ORGANIZATION OF REPAIRS Repair types The repair system embodies a distinction between 1) the initiation of repair (marking something as a source of trouble), and 2) the actual repair itself.

There is also a distinction between 1) repair initiated by self (the speaker who produced the trouble source), and 2) repair initiated by other. Consequently, there are four varieties of repair:

SELF-INITIATED SELF-REPAIR (Repair is both initiated and carried out by the speaker of the trouble source.)Example 1. I: Is it flu: youve got? 2. N: No I dont think- I refuse to have all these things OTHER-INITIATED-SELF-REPAIR (Repair is carried out by the speaker of the trouble source but initiated by the recipient.)Example: 1 Ken: Is Al here today?2 Dan: Yeah.3 (2.0) 4.Roger: he is? Hh eh heh 5 Dan: Well he is.

Rogers turn (4) is an example of what is called a next-turn repair initiator (NTRI). Other NTRIs may be words like What?, or even non-verbal gestures, such as a quizzical look.

SELF-INITIATED OTHER-REPAIR The speaker of a trouble source may try and get the recipient to repair the trouble for example if a name is proving troublesome to remember. Example: In the following example the first speakers reference to his trouble remembering someones name initiates the second speakers repair.1 B:He had this uh Mistuh W-m whatever, I cant think of his first name, Watts on, the one that wrote /that piece2 A:/ Dan Watts.

OTHER-INITIATED OTHER-REPAIR

The recipient of a trouble-source turn both initiates and carries out the repair. This is closest to what is conventionally understood by correction. Example: In the following example there is an explicit correction which is then acknowledged and accepted in the subsequent turn:1Milly: and then they said something about Kruschev has leukemia so I thought oh its all a big put on.2.Jean:Breshnev.

THE PREFERENCE FOR SELF REPAIRS There are several ways in which turns are designed to facilitate self-repair, or display the speakers sensitivity to the appropriateness of self-repair.Consider the following extract from a call to the British Airways flight information service and try to analyse it:1A:the time for you, /h2C: /yes3A:is oh one seven five night (.)5A:/seven five ni:ne,/ ((Smiley voice))6C:/seven five what. (.)/ yes A:one eight one eight,

TASKS5. Identify types of repairs N:She was givin me a:ll the people that were gone this year I mean this quarter y /knowY: / yeah ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L:an but all of the door n things were taped up= =I mean y know they put up yknow that kinda paper stuff, the brown paper. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A:Lissana pigeons(0.7) B:Quail I think---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A:Have you ever tried a clinic?B:What?A:Have you ever tried a clinic?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A:flight information can I help y/ou?C:/yes could you give me an ETA please on BA three six five from Bordecks?(0.4)A:three six five from bordoh? (.) yeah

Curs 7. TWO APPROACHES TO CONTEXT The term context apparently has a limitless range of potentially relevant objects, and context seems to be a vague notion. According to Mey (1993:182), this can be understood in two ways: - either as extending the individual utterances making up the text = co-text; - or, alternatively considering those utterances in their natural habitat. In this case we are dealing with the larger context in which people use language. ELEMENTS OF CONTEXT Setting or spatio-temporal location of U (utterance): that is, the particular moment and place at which Speaker utters U, and the particular time and place at which H (hearer) hears or reads U.The world spoken of in U: that is, the world evoked in the utterance.The textual environment (the utterance is the result of what has been said before). CONTEXT - Example (Two linguists, call them Jacob and Mark, are coming out of a lecture hall at a university which is neithers home territory, but where Jacob has been before; so he thinks he knows the campus, more or less) Jacob: Do you know the way back to the dining hall? We can go in my car.(Marks gets into the car; after the first turn, he starts giving directions, which greatly amazes Jacob, and irritates him a little he was under the impression that he needed to guide the other, not the other way round. After several more turns which Jacob is taking at greater and greater speeds, so the other doesnt get a chance to interfere Marks says:) Mark: Oh, I thought you didnt know the way to the campus.Jacob: I thought you didnt know! (whereupon they both start laughing) THE ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH The sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1964) puts forward a useful acronym, i.e SPEAKING, to cover the factors that must be taken into account when trying to describe what happens when people use language: SPEAKING GRID S=the Setting and Scene of the exchange; the setting refers to the concrete physical circumstance in which speech takes place, e.g. courtrooms, classrooms, telephone conversations, passing acquaintances in the street, etc. The scene refers to the psychological and cultural circumstances of the speech situation, e.g. consulting, pleading, conferring. The settings and scenes do not necessarily remain constant throughout a particular language exchange, although it appears to be easier to shift scenes than to shift settings, e.g. a speakers attempt to tell a joke to dispel a tense atmosphere. P=the Participants may be of various kinds and may be referred to as Speaker, Hearer and audience, or Addressor, Addressee.E=Ends, i.e. the conventionally recognised and expected outcomes of an exchange as well as the personal goals that each of the P seeks to accomplish. Some speech events have conventional outcomes, e.g. diagnosis, verdict.A=Act sequence, i.e the actual language forms that are used, how these are used. It refers to message for, i.e. topics of conversation and particular ways of speaking. In a given culture, certain linguistic forms are conventional for certain types of talk.K=Keys refers to the tone, manner in which a particular message is conveyed, e.g. light-hearted, serious, precise, etc. I=Instrumentalities, i.e, the choice of channel: oral/written, general/specialised language, formal/informalN=Norms of interpretation, i.e.interpretation which would normally be expected for the speech event in question; norms of interaction, interpretation in relation to the conventions of the conversation (e.g. who usually talks, for how long)G=the Genre that has to be recognised, e.g. novels, poems, lecture, advertisement, etc. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Dealing with rituals, ethnography seems very good in that it makes conscious the unconscious rules of our society. Problems: especially the question: from whose angle are we describing things? It cannot, however, explain the many variations in performance in less ritualistic situations. It does not enable us to explain why it is that one person performs very differently from another in the same linguistic situation (for example, why one person emerges form a job interview having succeeded in gaining the job, while another does not).

A PRAGMATIC APPROACH - ACTIVITY TYPES LEVINSON, 1992a fuzzy category whose focal members are goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, events with constraints on participants, setting, and scene, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions. Paradigm examples would be teaching, a job interview, a jural interrogation, a football game, a task in a workshop, a dinner party and so on. (1992:69)Because of the strict constraints on contributions to any particular activity, there are corresponding strong expectations about the functions that any utterance at a certain point in the proceedings can be fulfilling[] Activity types help to determine how one says will be taken that is, what kinds of inferences will be made from what is said. THOMAS, 1995The goals of the participants Notice that we are talking about the goals of the individuals rather than the goals of the whole speech event. The goals of one participant may be different from those of another. For example, the goal of a trial is to come up with a fair verdict, but the goals of the prosecution lawyer (to get a verdict guilty) are diametrically opposed to those of the defense lawyer and the defendant. An individuals goals may also change during the course of an interaction. Allowable contributions Some interactions are characterised by social or legal constraints on what the participants may say. For example, in courts of law the prosecution is not allowed to refer to a defendants previous convictions; in the British House of Commons members may not use certain abusive terms. What is pragmatically interesting is the way in which people will work round these restrictions. Coulthard (1989), for example, relates how one prosecution lawyer was able to indicate that the defendant had previous convictions by referring to the circumstances in which the defendant had injured his foot (it had been broken during a burglary); Churchill (prohibited from calling an opponent a liar), famously came up with the phrase guilty of a terminological inexactitude. The degree to which the Gricean maxims are adhered toThe expectation of the way in which the maxims will be observed varies considerably from culture to culture and from activity type to activity type (e.g. in Parliament, in media interviews with politicians, or in the law courts), there is a very low expectation that what is said (or implied) will be the whole truth; in other activity types (such as going to a Confession) the expectation that the speaker will tell the whole truth is extremely high. Some inferences can only be drawn in relation to the activity type. For example, the actor Nigel Hawthorne, talking about unsuccessful plays he had been in before he became famous, said: Friends would come backstage and talk about the weather. Turn taking and topic control To what degree can an indvidual exploit turn-taking norms in order to control an interaction, establish his or her own agenda (topic of conversation), etc. CONCLUSION Language is not simply a reflection of the physical or social context, but language is used in order to establish and then change the nature of the relationship between A and B and the nature of the activity type in which they are participating.. In other words, context cannot be seen only as given, as something imposed from outside. The participants, by their use of language, also contribute to making and changing their context.

Curs 8. TALK IN INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGSTHE COMPARATIVE APPROACH Institutional talk is centrally and actively involved in the accomplishment of the institutional nature of institutions themselves. CA has developed a distinctive means of locating participants displayed orientations to the institutional contexts. This is done by adopting a broadly comparative perspective in which the turn-taking system for mundane conversation is treated as the benchmark against which other forms of talk-in-interaction can be distinguished.TYPES OF INSTITUTIONAL TALK Two basic types of institutions have been defined. They are described as formal types represented by courts of law, many kinds of interview, especially the broadcast news interviews, but also some job interviews, some traditional or teacher-led styles of classroom teaching, and most forms of ceremonial occasions. non-formal types include more loosely structured, but still task-oriented, lay/professional encounters, such as: counselling sessions, various kinds of social work encounters, business meetings, service encounters in places such as shops, radio phone-in conversations. FORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND QUESTION-ANSWER SEQUENCES The distinctiveness of formal types of institutional settings is based on the close relationship between participants social roles and the forms of talk in which they engage. Studies of formal settings have focused on the ways in which participants orient to a strict turn-taking format called turn-type pre-allocation. It means that participants, on entering the setting, are normatively constrained in the types of turns they may take according to their particular institutional roles. Typically, the format involves chains of question-answer sequences.But the question-answer pre-allocation format is only a minimal characterisation of the speech exchange system. In other words, any range of actions may be done in a given turn, provided that they are done in the form of a question-answer. Example (Levinsons Activity type) 1A:You have had sexual intercourse on a previousoccasion, havent you.3B:Yes.4A:On many previous occasions?5B:Not many.6A:Several?7B:Yes.8A:With several men?9B:No.10A:Just one?11B:Two.12A:Two. And you are seventeen and a half?13B:Yes.

Question-answer sequences One of the most significant implication for the specifically institutional character of actions in formal settings, of the pre-allocated format is the fact that powerful constraints operate to restrict the distribution of rights to express a personal opinion on the matter being discussed. In courtrooms and broadcast news, questioners are required to avoid stating their opinions overtly; rather their task is to elicit the stance, opinion, account of the one being questioned. This is because in both settings talk is intended to be heard principally by an audience: the jury in the trial court and the public in broadcast news. STRATEGIES TO AVOID CONSTRAINTS Strategies which are currently used by questioners to undermine these constraints: constructing a negative social image of the witness (as in the example above) embedding critical or evaluative statements within questions (in broadcast news) citing facts so as to emphasize the questioners contrastive relationship with an interviewees statement selectively formulating the gist of the interviewees remarks NON-FORMAL INSTITUTIONS More common are institutional settings where the interaction is less formally structured and talk appears more conversational than courtroom or interview talk. Certainly, if we count the number of questions asked by professionals and by clients in such settings, we find that professionals ask by far the most, and often clients ask virtually no questions. But unlike in formal settings, there is no norm that says one person must ask questions and the other must answer. So, there are other aspects of talk to be located in order to see where the orientations to context emerge. ASPECTS OF ASYMMETRY In institutional discourse there is a direct relationship between status and role, on the one hand, and discursive rights and obligations, on the other. For instance, analysts of doctor-patient interactions have observed that doctors typically ask far more questions than their patients, and those questions tend to be more topic-directing than the few that the patients ask.. However, it seems that patients are often complicit in maintaining a situation in which the doctor is able not only to determine the topics that will be talked about, but also to define the upshots and outcomes of the discussions. ASYMMETRY IN DOCTOR-PATIENT INTERACTIONS Doctors tend to ask certain kinds of questions, usually information-seeking questions which require strictly factual responses. It means that they open up restricted options for patients to participate in the encounter. Patients themselves orient to and reproduce this asymmetry when they seek to offer additional information to the doctor. This information is offered almost exclusively in turns which are responses to doctors questions.Patients systematically withhold responses to doctors announcements of a diagnosis. Given that the diagnosis represents a piece of expert knowledge which the doctor passes on to the patient, then by withholding responses other than acknowledgment tokens such as yeh or um, patients display their orientation to the expert status of the doctor. ASYMMETRY AND POWER The power of summary - the pre-allocated question-answer format of courtroom interaction gives attorneys this discursive power which is not available to witnessesGoing first and the going second in an argument - Sacks proposed that those who go first are in a weaker position than those who get to go second, since the latter can argue with the formers position simply by taking it apart (merely by challenging the opponent to expand on, account for, his/her claims). Thus, while first position arguers are required to build a defence for their stance, those in second position do not need to do so. The interactional org. of political rhetoric During election campaigns and at party political conferences, politicians speak to a large-scale, co-present audience which usually responds by clapping and cheering at numerous points during the course of the speech. Intuitively, it seems reasonable to assume that applause which appears during speeches is a display of the audiences approval of the point or sentiment expressed by the speaker: that is, that applause is a response to the content of the speech. However, research carried out by Atkinson (1984) suggests that the way in which a point is presented may also influence the likelihood of applause. He studied video and tape recordings of political speeches, and the transcripts of those recordings, and used the letter x to convey the duration and intensity of audience applause: Three-part lists Simply some point made via the use of three specific components. Example: Thatcher:I am however, very fortunate in having amarvellous deputy, whos wonderfulin all placesin all times,and in all thingsWillie White/law Audience: /x-xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx-x(8 sec.)

CONTRAST DEVICES In contrast devices, one argument or approach is contrasted with another in such a way that the speakers favoured position is seen to be superior. In the following extract, the speaker is advising his own (opposition) party on the best way to contest Mrs. Thatchers government: Example: Osborn:the way to fightThatcher (0.4)is not through the silentconformity of the graveyard(0.5)but by putting partypolicies (0.2) powerfully and determinedlyfrom the front bench Audience:xxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx (8 sec)

TASK 1.(UK General Election 1979) Heath: In my view it is right that the government should consider these matters and take them into account(1)What is entirely unacceptable (0.8) is the view that parliament never can (0.6) and never should approve any legislation (0.8) nor should a government pursue any policy (0.8) unless first of all the trade unions themselves (.) approve of it.(0.5) THAT is entirely unacceptableAudience: Hear /hear /xx-xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxx-x(8 sec) Thatcher: Soviet Marxism is ideologically, politically and morally bankru/ptAudience: /xxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx-x(9 sec.) Thatcher:This week has demonstrated (0.4) that we are a party united in purpose (0.4) strategy (0.2) and resol/veAudience: /Hear/hear /xxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx-x (8 sec) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Caller: I have got three appeals letters here this week. (0.4) All askin for 2 donations. (0.2) . Two from those that I always contribute to anyway.3 Host: Yes?4 Caller: But I expect to get a lot more.5 Host: So?6 Caller: Now the point is there is a limit /to /Whats that got to do whats that got to do with telethons though.9 Caller: Because telethons (continues)

Curs 9. ISSUES OF CONTEXT TWO ANALYTICAL APPROACHES - ETHNOGRAPHIC (SOCIOLINGUISTIC) & PRAGMATIC CONTEXT AND CO-TEXT The term context apparently has a limitless range of potentially relevant objects. We can understand the concept looking at it in an extensional way, i.e. enlarging the scope of the units we are looking at. This can be understood in two ways: as extending the individual utterances making up the text = co-text; considering those utterances in their natural habitat. In this case we are dealing with the larger context in which people use language. THE ETHNOGRAPHIC (SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACH) The sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1964) puts forward a useful acronym, i.e SPEAKING, to cover the factors that must be taken into account when trying to describe what happens when people use language: SPEAKING GRID S=the Setting and Scene of the exchange; the setting refers to the concrete physical circumstance in which speech takes place, e.g. courtrooms, classrooms, telephone conversations, passing acquaintances in the street, etc. The scene refers to the psychological and cultural circumstances of the speech situation, e.g. consulting, pleading, conferring. The settings and scenes do not necessarily remain constant throughout a particular language exchange, although it appears to be easier to shift scenes than to shift settings, e.g. a speakers attempt to tell a joke to dispel a tense atmosphere. P=the Participants may be of various kinds and may be referred to as Speaker, Hearer and audience, or Addressor, Addressee.E=Ends, i.e. the conventionally recognised and expected outcomes of an exchange as well as the personal goals that each of the P seeks to accomplish. Some speech events have conventional outcomes, e.g. diagnosis, verdict. A=Act sequence, i.e the actual language forms that are used, how these are used. It refers to message for, i.e. topics of conversation and particular ways of speaking. In a given culture, certain linguistic forms are conventional for certain types of talk.K=Keys refers to the tone, manner in which a particular message is conveyed, e.g. light-hearted, serious, precise, etc.I=Instrumentalities, i.e, the choice of channel: oral/written, general/specialised language, formal/informal N=Norms of interpretation, i.e.interpretation which would normally be expected for the speech event in question; norms of interaction, interpretation in relation to the conventions of the conversation (e.g. who usually talks, for how long)G=the Genre that has to be recognised, e.g. novels, poems, lecture, advertisement, etc.

PRAGMATIC APPROACH - ACTIVITY TYPE a fuzzy category whose focal members are goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, events with constraints on participants, setting, and soon, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions. Paradigm examples would be teaching, a job interview, a jural interrogation, a football game, a task in a workshop, a dinner party and so on. Because of the strict constraints on contributions to any particular activity, there are corresponding strong expectations about the functions that any utterance at a certain point in the proceedings can be fulfilling[] Activity types help to determine how one says will be taken that is, what kinds of inferences will be made from what is said. (Levinson , 1992:69)

CHECKLIST FOR DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITY TYPE The goals of the participants: notice that we are talking about the goals of the individuals rather than the goals of the whole speech event. The goals of one participant may be different from those of another. For example, the goal of a trial is to come up with a fair verdict, but the goals of the prosecution lawyer (to get a verdict guilty) are diametrically opposed to those of the defense lawyer and the defendant. An individuals goals may also change during the course of an interaction. Allowable contributions: some interactions are characterised by social or legal constraints on what the participants may say. For example, in courts of law the prosecution is not allowed to refer to a defendants previous convictions; in the British House of Commons members may not use certain abusive terms. What is pragmatically interesting is the way in which people will work round these restrictions. Coulthard (1989), for example, relates how one prosecution lawyer was able to indicate that the defendant had previous convictions by referring to the circumstances in which the defendant had injured his foot (it had been broken during a burglary); Churchill (prohibited from calling an opponent a liar), famously came up with the phrase guilty of a terminological inexactitude. The degree to which Gricean maxims are adhered to or suspended: the expectation of the way in which the maxims will be observed varies considerably from culture to culture and from activity type to activity type (e.g. in Parliament, in media interviews with politicians, or in the law courts, there is a very low expectation that what is said (or implied) will be the whole truth); in other activity types (such as going to a Confession) the expectation that the speaker will tell the whole truth is extremely high. Some inferences can only be drawn in relation to the activity type. For example, the actor Nigel Hawthorne, talking about unsuccessful plays he had been in before he became famous, said: Friends would come backstage and talk about the weather. Turn-taking and topic control: to what degree can an indvidual exploit turn-taking norms in order to control an interaction, establish his or her own agenda (topic of conversation), etc.

28