Pragmatics

• Pragmatics = meaning in context

• We’ll be looking at:

– Grice’s 4 conversational maxims

– Presupposition

Pragmatics vs. semantics

“Can you reach the salt?”

Pragmatics vs. semantics

“Can you reach the salt?”

Model of semantics

“Answer yes or no: are you physically able to reach the

salt?” (the literal, compositional meaning)

Pragmatics vs. semantics

“Can you reach the salt?”

Model of semantics

Actual thing being

communicated

“Give me the salt.”

“Answer yes or no: are you physically able to reach the

salt?” (the literal, compositional meaning)

Pragmatics vs. semantics

“Can you reach the salt?”

Model of semantics

Actual thing being

communicated

“Give me the salt.”

realm of pragmatics

“Answer yes or no: are you physically able to reach the

salt?” (the literal, compositional meaning)

Gricean conversational maxims

Maxim of Relevance Be relevant

Maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution true. (Don’t purposefully lie, or say things for which you do not have adequate evidence)

Maxim of Quantity Give the right amount of information (not too much, not too little)

Maxim of Manner Avoid ambiguity and obscurity. (Be as straightforward as possible)

As cooperative human beings, we have an unspoken social contractwith our conversational partner to follow Grice’s 4 conversational maxims.

Purposefully flouting a maxim

• What happens if you violate a maxim, and you hide that fact from your conversation partner?

A: Did you eat the last cookie?B: No. [when B did in fact eat the last cookie]

➢ Deception! Social contract broken

• BUT: What happens if you violate a maxim, and that fact is completely obvious? ➢ The assumption that you are being a cooperative conversation

partner overall still holds! ➢ This is a means of indirect communication and is called “flouting”

a maxim

Purposefully flouting a maxim

• What happens if you violate a maxim, and you hide that fact from your conversation partner?

A: Did you eat the last cookie?B: No. [when B did in fact eat the last cookie]

➢ Deception! Social contract broken

• BUT: What happens if you violate a maxim, and that fact is completely obvious? ➢ The assumption that you are being a cooperative conversation

partner overall still holds! ➢ This is a means of indirect communication and is called “flouting”

a maxim

Purposefully flouting a maxim

• What happens if you violate a maxim, and you hide that fact from your conversation partner?

A: Did you eat the last cookie?B: No. [when B did in fact eat the last cookie]

➢ Deception! Social contract broken

• BUT: What happens if you violate a maxim, and that fact is completely obvious? ➢ The assumption that you are being a cooperative conversation

partner overall still holds! ➢ This is a means of indirect communication and is called “flouting”

a maxim

Purposefully flouting a maxim

• What happens if you violate a maxim, and you hide that fact from your conversation partner?

A: Did you eat the last cookie?B: No. [when B did in fact eat the last cookie]

➢ Deception! Social contract broken

• BUT: What happens if you violate a maxim, and that fact is completely obvious? ➢ The assumption that you are being a cooperative conversation

partner overall still holds! ➢ This is a means of indirect communication and is called “flouting”

a maxim

“implicature”

Since our listener expects us to follow these maxims, we can communicate by purposefully flouting one or more of these maxims.

The thing that is indirectly communicated through maxim flouting is called an implicature (what is being suggested by an utterance)

Maxim of Relevance (“Be relevant”)

Piper: “Do you like Alex’s new car?”

– Maxim of Relevance obeyed:

• Lorna: “Yes, I love it!”

– Maxim of Relevance ignored:

• Lorna: “Pickles give me gas.”

– Maxim of Relevance flouted:

• Lorna: “The windshield is very clear.”

• Implicature: Lorna does not like the car, but does not want to say so

Maxim of Relevance (“Be relevant”)

Piper: “Do you like Alex’s new car?”

– Maxim of Relevance obeyed:

• Lorna: “Yes, I love it!”

– Maxim of Relevance ignored:

• Lorna: “Pickles give me gas.”

– Maxim of Relevance flouted:

• Lorna: “The windshield is very clear.”

• Implicature: Lorna does not like the car, but does not want to say so

Maxim of Quality(“Don’t lie”)

Taystee: “When does the library close?”

– Maxim of Quality obeyed:

• Gloria: “I don’t know.” (Gloria does not know when the library closes)

– Maxim of Quality ignored:

• Gloria : “At 10 pm.” (Gloria does not know when the library closes)

Maxim of Quality(“Don’t lie”)

Sam: “I’m going to buy a lottery ticket . I might win!”

– Maxim of Quality obeyed:

• Joe: “It’s very unlikely.”

– Maxim of Quality ignored:

• Joe: “Yes, you have a pretty big chance.”

– Maxim of Quality flouted:

• Joe: “Yes, and pigs might fly.”

Maxim of Quality(“Don’t lie”)

Sam: “I’m going to buy a lottery ticket . I might win!”

– Maxim of Quality obeyed:

• Joe: “It’s very unlikely.”

– Maxim of Quality ignored:

• Joe: “Yes, you have a pretty big chance.”

– Maxim of Quality flouted:

• Joe: “Yes, and pigs might fly.”

• Implicature: “Don’t buy the ticket, you won’t win.”

Maxim of Quality(“Don’t lie”)

Sam: “I’m going to buy a lottery ticket . I might win!”

– Maxim of Quality obeyed:

• Joe: “It’s very unlikely.”

– Maxim of Quality ignored:

• Joe: “Yes, you have a pretty big chance.”

– Maxim of Quality flouted:

• Joe: “Yes, and pigs might fly.”

• Sarcasm is often achieved by flouting this maxim

Maxim of Quantity(“Don’t give too much or too little information”)

Lorna: “Where are your parents from?”– Maxim of Quantity obeyed:

• Nicky: “They’re from India.”

– Maxim of Quantity ignored:• Nicky : “They’re from India. They lived on the fourth floor

of an apartment on Janta Market Road in New Delhi that was next to a restaurant.”

– Maxim of Quantity flouted:• Nicky : “Earth.”

• Implicature: Nicky perceives that Wanda is viewing her as a foreigner based on appearance alone, and wishes to communicate that she dislikes that he is doing so.

Maxim of Quantity(“Don’t give too much or too little information”)

Lorna: “Where are your parents from?”– Maxim of Quantity obeyed:

• Nicky: “They’re from India.”

– Maxim of Quantity ignored:• Nicky : “They’re from India. They lived on the fourth floor

of an apartment on Janta Market Road in New Delhi that was next to a restaurant.”

– Maxim of Quantity flouted:• Nicky : “Earth.”

• Implicature: Nicky perceives that Lorna is viewing her as a foreigner based on appearance alone, and wishes to communicate that she dislikes that she is doing so.

Maxim of Quantity(“Don’t give too much or too little information”)

Larry: “How many sisters do you have?”

– Maxim of Quantity obeyed:

• Daya: “Two.” (Daya has two sisters)

– Maxim of Quantity ignored:

• Daya : “Two.” (Daya has three sisters)

– Maxim of Quantity flouted:

• Daya : “Two. The third doesn’t count.”

• Implicature: Andrea has three sisters, but had a falling out with one of them

Maxim of Quantity(“Don’t give too much or too little information”)

Larry: “How many sisters do you have?”

– Maxim of Quantity obeyed:

• Daya: “Two.” (Daya has two sisters)

– Maxim of Quantity ignored:

• Daya : “Two.” (Daya has three sisters)

– Maxim of Quantity flouted:

• Daya : “Two. The third doesn’t count.”

• Implicature: Daya has three sisters, but had a falling out with one of them

Maxim of Manner(“Be clear and concise”)

Joe: “Who is that talking to Susan?”– Maxim of Manner obeyed:

• Angie: “That’s Joel, the father of Susan’s children.” (Joel is the father of Susan’s children, but they are not married)

– Maxim of Manner ignored:• Angie: “That’s Joel, the father of Susan’s children.” (Joel is

the father of Susan’s children, and they are married)

– Maxim of Manner flouted:• Angie: “That’s Joel, the father of Susan’s children.” (Joel is

the father of Susan’s children, and they are married)• Implicature: Angie might be trying to convey to Joe that

it’s inappropriate for him to think of Susan in a romantic way because she is married and has kids

Maxim of Manner(“Be clear and concise”)

Vince: “Let’s get something for the kids.”

– Maxim of Manner obeyed:• Lorna: “OK, let’s get them ice cream.”

– Maxim of Manner ignored:• Lorna: “O-K, L-E-T-S G-E-T T-H-E-M I-C-E C-R-E-A-M.”

– Maxim of Manner flouted:• Lorna: “OK, but not I-C-E C-R-E-A-M.”

• Implicature: Vince assumes Lorna is being purposefully obfuscating because she does not want the kids to complain

Maxim of Manner(“Be clear and concise”)

Vince: “Let’s get something for the kids.”

– Maxim of Manner obeyed:• Lorna: “OK, let’s get them ice cream.”

– Maxim of Manner ignored:• Lorna: “O-K, L-E-T-S G-E-T T-H-E-M I-C-E C-R-E-A-M.”

– Maxim of Manner flouted:• Lorna: “OK, but not I-C-E C-R-E-A-M.”

• Implicature: Vince assumes Lorna is being purposefully obfuscating because she does not want the kids to complain

Practice

A. Where is my Halloween candy?

B. The children were in your room this morning.

What maxim is being flouted? What is the implicature?

(Note that with Gricean maxims, there are often several answers. Just make sure you can back yours up.)

Advertising and maxims

“Everything in the store is up to 75% off!”➢Desired conclusion: “Everything/most things are

actually 75% off”

What maxim(s) would lead the consumer to draw these conclusions?

Breaking or flouting?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btm2HPiCpw0&feature=youtu.be&t=2m7s

Presupposition

• We’ve talked about entailment, contradiction, and paraphrase

• A special type of entailment is presupposition

• Sentence A presupposes sentence B if A entails B, and the negation of A also entails B

Presupposition: Sentence A presupposes sentence B if A entails B, and the negation of A also entails B

In these sentence pairs, does the first sentence presuppose the second?

(1) Jim knows that Ross likes basketball. (2) Ross likes basketball.

(3) Jim assumes that Ross likes basketball. (4) Ross likes basketball.

(5) Piatt ate the cookie. (6) There was a cookie.

(7) Piatt ate a cookie. (8) There was a cookie.

• Presuppositions can be used to introduce information into a conversation without actually asserting that information

A: Hi! How are you? I haven't seen you in a while.B: Things are great. I went to the game yesterday.

• Suppose person A hadn’t known that there was a game yesterday. A now has a choice: – Accept “there was a game yesterday” as part of the

common background knowledge– Challenge or question B’s presupposition, such as

by asking for more information

• Why are so-called “loaded questions” not allowed in court?

Lawyer: Have you stopped embezzling money?

Defendant: ???

• What does the defendant have to say here (if he/she is innocent)?