1) Pragmatics is essential for discourse analysis as it is impossible to analyze discourse without understanding pragmatic phenomena and how they interact. 2) Discourse analysis incorporates several sub-disciplines including pragmatics, conversation analysis, speech act theory, and ethnography of speaking. 3) Pragmatics assumes people follow a cooperative principle in communication with shared understanding of cooperation.

1. Discourse & Pragmatics
•Group 2:
• Anggi Febi
• Dinda Ladya
• Eliza Budi
• Erwinda
• Islahati Ainun
• Ujang Husni

2.  Pragmatics is an indispensable source for discourse analysis.
It is impossible to analyse any discourse without having a
solid basic knowledge of pragmatic phenomena and the
ways in which they work and interact (Alba-Juez, 2009:2).
 Discourse analysis, in turn, is composed of a wide range of
sub-disciplines, such as pragmatics, conversational analysis,
speech act theory and ethnography of speaking.

3.  Pragmatics assumes that when
people communicate with
each other they normally
follow some kind of co-
operative principle; that is,
they have a shared
understanding of how they
should co-operate in their
communication.

4. Action Performed By A Speaker
With An Utterance.
We use the term speech acts to describe actions such as:
Asking questions, Making requests, Giving orders
Making promises, Giving advice, Making threats
SPEECH ACT

5. Locutionary act
• Refers to the literal meaning of the actual words
Illocutionary act
• Refers to speaker’s intention in uttering words
Perlocutionary act
• Refers to the effect of the utterance has on the
thoughts or actions of the other person.

6. Whenever there is a direct relationship between a
structure and a function, we have a direct speech act.
Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a
structure and a function, we have an indirect speech
act.
DIRECT & INDIRECT
SPEECH ACTS

7. • I am telling
you that it is
cold outside.
Statement
(Direct Speech)
• I am asking
you to close
the door.
Request
(Indirect Speech)

8. General conditions for ALL speech acts:
1. The hearer must hear and understand the
language.
2. The speaker must not be pretending or play-acting.
(Seriousness)
FELICITY CONDITION

9.  Conditions specific to declarations and
directives:
1. The speaker must believe that it is
possible to carry out the action.
2. The speaker is performing the act in
the hearer’s best interests
3. The speaker is sincere about wanting to
do it.
4. The words count as the acts.

10. • refers to the common ground that is
assumed to exist between language
users such as assumed knowledge of
a situation and/or of the world.
PRESUPPOSITION

11. Conventional Pragmatics

12. COVENTIONAL
Conventional Presuppositions are less
context- dependent than Pragmatics
Presuppositions.
They are typically linked to particular
linguistic forms.
E.g. Would you like some coffee? ‘suggests
the coffee is already prepared’ whereas :
Would you like anything to drink? ‘does
not suggest a drink has already been
prepared’.

13.  Pragmatics Presuppositions are
context- dependent & arise
from the use of an utterance in
a particular context.
PRAGMATICS

14. A principle proposed by the philosopher paul grice
whereby those involved in communication assume that
both parties will normally seek to cooperate with each
other to establish agreed meaning.
It is composed of four maxims:
quality, quantity, relation, and manner.
THE CO-OPERATIVE
PRINCIPLE

15. Husband: Where are the car keys?
Wife:They’re on the table in the hall.
 The wife has answered clearly (Manner) and
truthfully (Quality), has given just the right
amount of information (Quantity) and has
directly addressed her husband’s goal in asking
the question (Relation). She has said precisely
what she meant, no more and no less.

16. It is speakers who communicate meaning via implicatures
& it is listeners who recognize those communicated
meanings via inference.
The inferences selected are those which will preserve the
assumption of cooperation.
But in fact, the speakers often flout the cooperative
principles and are still thought to be cooperative. What
they convey is the conversational implicatures.
FLOUTING
THE CO-OPERATIVE

17.  The flouting of the maxim of quality:
When we moved here, the room was 5x4,
now it is 3x4.
 The flouting of maxim of quantity:
A: Where does Mark live?
B: Somewhere in the South of France.

18. The flouting of the maxim of relation:
A: I’m out of petrol.
B: There is a garage round the corner.
The flouting of the maxim of manner:
A: Shall we get something for the kids?
B: But I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M.

19. A task for japanese university students
In english: you are writing your graduation
thesis (in english). You want to ask your
(english) professor to read one of your
chapters for you. What would you say in an
email to your professor?
CROSS CULTURAL
PRAGMATICS

20.  Dear Jim
 Hello, I am currently working on my graduation
thesis, and would like to know if it is good or not.
Would you mind reading one of the chapters for
me? I would really appreciate it.
 Thanks
 Tetsuya Fujimoto

21.  In Japanese: You are writing your graduation
thesis (in Japanese). You want to ask your
(Japanese) professor to read one of your chapters
for you. What would you say in an email to your
professor?

22. Greetings, Professor Nakamura
Early spring, in this sizzling day, how are you spending
your day?This time, I would like you to do me a favor,
and this I why I take up my pen (In Japanese this
means ‘to write’ in a formal way).
I am now writing my graduation thesis, and even though
I am afraid to ask, would you mind seeing my work …
of course, as long as it does not bother you. If it is not
inconvenient for you, could you please consider it?
I beg you again
Sincerely
Tetsuya Fujimoto

23. • The basic assumption in conversation is that,
otherwise indicated, the participants are adhering
to the cooperative principle and the maxims.
• The following examples show a speaker
conveying more than he said via
conversational implicature
CONVERSATIONAL
IMPLICATURE

24. • In contrast to the previous implicatures, these
ones are NOT based on the cooperative
principle’s maxims.
• They do NOT have to occur in conversation
and don’t depend on special contexts for
interpretation.
• They are associated with SPECIFIC WORDS and
result in additional conveyed meanings.

25.  a: “I hope you brought the bread and cheese.”
 b: “Ah, I brought the bread.”
• Speaker B assumes that A infers
 that what is not mentioned was not brought.
 a: “Do you like ice-cream?”
b: “Is the Pope catholic?”

26. Are derived from a particular context,
rather than from the use of the words
alone.
A:You’re out of coffee
B: Don’t worry there’s a shop on the
corner

27. • “Polite social behaviour” within a culture. We assume
that participants in an interaction are generally aware
of such cultural norms and principles of politeness.
Face: the public self-image of a person. It refers to that
emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and
expects the other sto recognize.
Politeness in an interaction can be defined as the means
employed to show awareness of another person’s face.
POLITENESS

28. Face Wants: A person’s expectations
that their public self-image will be
respected.
• If a speaker says sth. that represents a threat to
another individual’s expectations, regarding self-
image, it’s described as a face- threatening act.
• When someone says an utterance that avoids a
potential threat t a person’s face, it’s called face-
saving act.

29.  A: “I’m going to tell him to stop that awful
noise right
 now!!” (Face-threatening act)
 B: “Perhaps you could just ask him if he’s going
to stop because it’s getting late and we need
to sleep…” (Face- saving act)