PRAGMATICS

1. 10_REZI FEBRIAYU_20227470034
52_SINTAWATI DHEWI_20227470166 04_YUNIAR EFELINA_20227470012
05._Sherly Oktora _20227470016
50_ASRI TRIPANCA_20227470164
Pragmatics

2. Topic Discussion
Definition of Pragmatics
Speech art
References and deixis
Conversatuonal Implicatures
*Grice's theory
*Politeness: principle and maxims
*Relevance theory

3. Definitions of pragmatics
Pragmatics is a branch of general linguistics
like other branches that include:
Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax
and Semantics.

4. What is pragmatics in linguistics?
Pragmatics looks at the difference between the literal meaning of words
and their intended meaning in social contexts. It takes into account
things such as irony, metaphor and intention.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (1995) defines pragmatics as:
The study of language which focuses attention on the users and the
context of language use rather than on reference, truth, or grammar"

5. What is pragmatics in linguistics?
Pragmatics is concerned with the interpretation of linguistic
meaning in context.
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as
communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a
listener (or reader)
Pragmatics is a study of what the speakers mean or "speaker"
meaning.

6. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that
considers words as tools for understanding the
world and rejects the idea that the function of
thought is to mirror reality directly.
Pragmatists suggest that all philosophical
thought, including language, is best understood in
terms of its practical uses.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY
OF PRAGMATICS?

7. When someone expresses something, he/she does not only
produce utterances containing grammatical structure
or words, but he/she also performs and action through
the utterances.
action performed by an utterance is called Speech Acts.
Ex. (1) You’re fired.
This utterance can be used as an action to fire someone
from his current job.

8. SPEECH ACT
Speech act theory is a subfield
of pragmatics that studies how
words are used not only to
present information but also to
carry out actions.
-Richard Nordquist (2020)

9. Locutionary
Speech Acts
Illocutionary
Speech Act
Perlocutionary
Speech Act
Kinds of Speech Acts
An utterance that
produces literal
meaning
An utterance
which has social
function in mind
An utterance that
gives an effect to
do something

10. Example:
Locutionary act : the speaker feels hot in his place
illocutionary act : the utterance has two possible meanings:
Perlocutionary act : the hearer will open/close the window.
1. An inderect speech request for someone to open the window.
2. An indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold.
"I feel hot"

11. competitive convival
collaborative
Illocutionary
Functions
conflictive
Leech (in Prof. Dr. Henry Guntur
Tarigan, 1990 p.44)
illocutionary act have a diverse
functions in daily life, the
illocutionarry functions can be
classified into four :

12. Associated with the explanation above Searle (1983 cited in Dr. R. Kunjana Rahardi, M. Hum.) classifies
Illocutionary speech acts into five types:
Assertives Directive
Declaration
Commissive
Expressive
Assertives speech act, the purpose of which is to convey information about
some state of affairs of the world from one agent, the speaker, to another, the
hearer.
Directive speech act, also known as speech act impositif.
Expressive act also called evaluative speech acts
Commissive speech act is a speech act that binds the speaker to carry out
all the things mentioned in the utterance
Declaration successful when its performance will lead to a good
correspondence between the content propoposional

13. Locution Acts
Illocutionary
Act
Speech
Acts
shouting
whispering
murmuring
promising
reporting
asking
Perlocutionary
Act
intimidating
persuading
deceiving

14. - Reference is part of semantics which seeks to explain how words
express meaning.
- A word suggests an idea to the hearer and therefore the idea is
connected to a real world object.
- It is how speaker denote meaning as a property of linguistic
expression.
The Component of cognitive semantics
Reference and Deixis

15. Definite: it is the act of identifying entitles through linguistic
expressions through their properties.
1.
Example:
The florist delivered flowers to her.
Distinguishing elements:
Definite determiners: The, our
Pronoun: I, She
Names: Michael, Toronto
Locative Adverb: here, there
Adverbs temporal: now yesterday
Types of Reference

16. 2. Indefinite: the success the act of reference does not depend on
the individual features, only the class.
Example:
The florist delivered flowers to her.
Distinguishing elements:
Indefinite determiners: a, many
Indefinite Pronoun: anyone
Locative Adverb: anywhere
Adverbs temporal: sometime
Types of Reference

17. ·All of above statements explain that a reliable means of
transportation is by the way of airplane.
3. Generic: they are nouns which do not pick out the particular entity
but a general class.
Examples:
The airplane is a safe mode of transportation.
An airplane is a safe mode of transportation.
Airplanes are safe mode of transportation.
Types of Reference
Statements about
the general class

18. -Deixis is the pointing or specifying
function of some words (as definite
articles and demonstratives pronouns)
whose denotation changes from one
discourse to another. (William Webster,
2015)
-The elements of Deixis include four
labels/categories: time, place, person,
and discourse.
What is Deixis?

19. Person Deixis: Personal pronoun encoding the roles of
participants, when the speaker refers to:
1.
· themselves: I, we, and me, us
· the addressee: you (singular and plural)
· other people or entities: he/him, she/her, it, they/them
Examples:
-Would you like to have an ice crem cone?
-He tried to hurt me but they came to the rescue.
Types of Deixis

20. Identify entities: demonstrative pronouns (this/these ;
that/those)
Inform about location of an entity: adverbs (here/there),
propositions (above/below)
Acknowledge location of an entity: (come/go)
2. Place Deixis: Spacial location of people and objects relative to the
participants in the speech event.
The speaker’s Purposes:
Examples:
-He was sitting over there.
-We love living here.
Types of Deixis

21. All participants share the same deictic time origin: having the
same “now“
Time is relative to the act of speaking.
Diectic elements that can be identified:
3.Time Deixis: locating time or points or intervals on the time axis
using the moment of utterance, as a reference point.
Time Adverbials: before, yesterday, last year (before utterance)
today, now (moment of utterance), soon, tomorrow (after
utterance)
Types of Deixis

22. Tenses:
Rachael baked a cake.
Rachael is baking a cake.
Rachael had baked a cake when the door bell rang.
Examples:
-Did you call me at 9 last night? I was out then.
-You should have been here yesterday!
(1st Moment of Event>>2nd Moment of Utterance)t
Past Tense
(1st The Moment of Utterance or at the
same time as the Moment of the Event)
Present Continous
Past prefect
(The Moment of the Event precedes the
Time Reference which precedes the
Moment of Utterance)
The Time Reference

23. 4. Discourse Deixis: the use of deictic expressions to reference a
portion of a discourage relative to the speaker’s current “location” in
the discourse.
Examples of these deictic expressions:
On the last page, in the final paragraph.
At this point we are going to return to the previous chapter.
I bet you haven’t seen this movie.
That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.
Types of Deixis

24. GRICE'S THEORY
Grice's theory of pragmatics, proposed by the philosopher H.P. Grice, in
the 1970s as a response to the limitations of formal linguistic analysis in
explaining the richness and complexity of human communication, is a
framework that explains how people use implicatures to communicate
effectively in everyday conversations. Grice's theory focuses on the
cooperative nature of communication and the implicit assumptions that
speakers and listeners make in order to interpret each other's intended
meaning.

25. The Maxim in Grice's Theory
MAXIM OF QUANTITY
This kind of maxim tells that
speakers should provide as
much information as is
necessary for the conversation,
but not more or less.
A: What time is it?
B: It's 2.30 (A Maximal
Informative Response)
B: It's around 2 O'Clock (A
Less Informative Response)
MAXIM OF QUALITY
This kind of maxim tells that
speakers should strive to be
truthful and provide accurate
information.
A: Did you enjoy the movie?
B: Yes, I did or No, I didn't (A
Truthful Response)
B: *Telling fake answer*

26. The Maxim in Grice's Theory
MAXIM OF RELATIONS
This kind of maxim tells that
speakers should contribute
information that is relevant to
the ongoing conversation.
A: Look! There is butterfly on
that flower.
B: Yes, it's a beautiful butterfly
B: Wow, this fried rice is tasty.
MAXIM OF MANNER
This kind of maxim tells that speakers
should express their ideas in a clear,
orderly, and unambiguous manner.
A: How much is the price for all of
your dresses collection?
B: It's $100
B: Oh, some of these were given by
friends, some are from giveaway
prizes, and then I also bought some at
discounted prices

27. Conversational implicatures are derived from the context of the
conversation and the assumptions made by the participants. These
implicatures are context-dependent and require the listener to draw
inferences and make assumptions about the speaker's intended
meaning.
For instance, consider the following exchange:
Person A: "I am out of gas."
Person B: "There's a gas station around the corner."
By understanding implicatures, we can grasp the implicit meanings
and nuances that exist in everyday conversations, enhancing our
ability to comprehend and participate in successful communication.

28. In conclusion, Paul Grice's theory of implicature has been influential in
understanding how speakers use indirect language and context to
convey meaning in everyday conversations. It has contributed
significantly to the field of pragmatics by highlighting the importance
of implicatures in understanding the richness of human
communication.

29. POLITENESS
In pragmatics, the study of language in its context of
use, politeness is a fundamental concept that
examines how people use language to achieve their
communicative goals while respecting social norms
and maintaining harmonious relationships.
Politeness principles and maxims provide a
framework for understanding the pragmatic aspects
of politeness.

30. 1. Politeness Principle
The Politeness Principle, proposed
by sociolinguists Penelope Brown
and Stephen Levinson, is a
pragmatic principle that guides
speakers' choices in
communication to minimize
threats to face and maintain
positive social interactions.
2. Positive and Negative Face:
a. Positive face: Positive face
represents an individual's desire to
be appreciated, respected, and
included within a social group.
b. Negative face: Negative face
refers to an individual's desire for
autonomy, independence, and
freedom from imposition.
3. Politeness Maxims:
Politeness maxims are strategies
that speakers use to achieve
politeness in communication.
a. Tact Maxim
b. Generosity Maxim
c. Approbation Maxim
d. Modesty Maxim
e. Agreement Maxim
f. Sympathy Maxim
The Significance of Politeness
in Pragmatics

31. These maxims are not rigid rules but rather
pragmatic strategies that speakers adapt to
specific contexts, relationships, and cultural
norms. Different cultures may prioritize
certain maxims over others, leading to
variations in politeness strategies across
societies. By understanding politeness
principles and maxims in pragmatics helps us
interpret the underlying intentions and social
dynamics in communication

32. Relevance Theory
Relevance theory is a framework for understanding the
interpretation of utterances. It was first proposed by Dan
Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, and is used within cognitive
linguistics and pragmatics
To describe the claims of relevance theory on a more rigorous
level, we need to define a number of technical terms as
introduced by Sperber and Wilson.

33. Manifestness
Cognitive environment
Cognitive effect
Positive Cognitive effect

34. Next weekend the weather will be really
awful.
The weather is really awful right now.
Relevance of an utterance
Here are some examples to illustrate the
concept of relevance. If Alice and Bob are
planning to go on a trip next weekend and
Alice tells Bob :
1.
2.
Relevance Theory

35. The two principles of relevance
First Principle of Relevance :
Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance.
Or, to put it simply
We understand messages by interpreting them in contexts that provide the best or
most likely set of useful ideas.
Second principle of Relevance
Every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own
optimal relevance.
OR, TO PUT IT MORE SIMPLY
When we receive an intentional message, we assume that there are good spin-off
ideas that we can access for an acceptable amount of thinking.

36. THE SUMMARY
The field of pragmatics deals with the principles of
language use that explain how extra meaning is conveyed
without being encoded in language. Therefore, we need to
investigate the speaker meaning, i.e. how meaning is
communicated by the speaker (or writer) and interpreted
by a listener (or reader). Thus, pragmatics concentrates
more on the analysis of what people mean by their
utterances than what the words or phrases in those
utterances might mean by themselves (which is analysed
in semantics).

37. REFERENCES
Cummings, L. (2007). Pragmatik, Sebuah Perspektif Multidisiplinere. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Sparina, C. (2012, April). Tindak Tutur Menurut Austin dan Searle . Retrieved from citraindonesiaku: http://citraindonesiaku.blogspot.sg/2012/04/tindak-
tutur-menurut-austin-dan-searle.htm
Ibrahim, A. S. (1995). Sosiolinguistik, kajian, tujuan, pendekatan dan probem. Surabaya: Usaha Offset.
Grootendorst, F. H. (1983). Speech act in Argumentative Discussions: Pragmatic and Discourse Analysis. Canada: Foris Pubications.
Parera, J. (2004). Teori Semantik. Jakarta: Erlangga
Haverkate, H (1969). Speech Act, Speakers and Hearers. Publishing Company.
Dr. R. Kunjana Rahardi, M. H. (1983 ). Pragmatik, Kesatuan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia.
Tarigan, P.D (1990). Pengajaran Pragmatik. Bandung : Angkasa Bandung
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2012). Psikolinguisrik Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia
Carston, Robyn (1988). "Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics". In Kempson, Ruth(ed.). Mental Representations: The Interface
between Language and Reality. Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0631214885.
Davis, Wayne (2019). Implicature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Levinson, Stephen (1989). "A review of Relevance". Journal of Linguistics. 25 (2): 455–472. doi:10.1017/S0022226700014183.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). "The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language". In Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought.
Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, Dan; Wilson, Deirdre (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0631198789.
Wilson, Deirdre; Sperber, Dan (2002). "Relevance Theory" (PDF). UCL Psychology and Language Sciences. Retrieved 22 January 2019. This is a useful
overview of relevance theory.
Acheoah, Emike, J., Adeoye, Adeyinka, Olaleye, and Joel Iyiola. 2015. A Critique of H. P. Grice’s Pragmatic Theory. American Research Journal of
English and Literature Original, Volume 1, Issue 5.

38. Thank
You!