Maxims Of Cp example essay topic

Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate within its situational context. It concerns with situational meaning as opposed to linguistic meaning, i.e. language in use and linguistic communication. Speech act theory Speech act: an utterance conceived as an act by which the speaker does something. Austin suggests three basic senses in which by saying something one is doing something and three kinds of acts are performed simultaneously: Locutionary act: ~N^O"A'UDD^Ia is the actual uttering of a sentence with a particular meaning. Illocutionary act: ~N^O'I^aDD^Ia is the intent that the speaker has in uttering the sentence. Perlocutionary act: ~N^Oo " oDD^Ia is the result achieved in uttering the sentence.

One must keep in mind that perlocutionary act may be drastically different from the illocutionary act, that is the speaker-intended meaning. e.g. the uttering of! ^0 morning! +/- may convey the meaning that the speaker want to keep friendly relations with the hearer, however, the perlocutionary act, or the perceived meaning in different contexts might totally differ, i.e. if the hearer really interprets it as a friendly gesture, then the illocutionary and perlocutionary may coincide, on the contrary, if the hearer interpret it as a show of hypocrisy, then the illocutionary and perlocutionary may diverge. Among the three above-mentioned acts, it is the illocutionary acts that interest speech act theorists most. The reason is that it attempts to account for the ways by which speakers can mean more than what they say. Felicity conditions Conditions that a performative must meet if it is to be appropriate or successful. A: (1) There must be a relevant conventional procedure, and (2) the relevant participants and circumstances must be appropriate.

B: The procedure must be executed (1) correctly and (2) completely. C: Very often, (1) the relevant people must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, and (2) must follow it up with actions as specified. Types of illocutionary acts Assertive's: sentences that commit the speaker to the truth of something. e.g. I think the film has started. Directives: sentences by which the speaker tries to get the hearer to do something. e.g. I beg you to give me some advice. Com missives: sentences that commit the speaker to some future action. e.g. If you do that again I! ll beat you to death. Expressive's: sentences that express the speaker!'s psychological state about something. e.g. I do apologize for what I have said.

Declarations: sentences that bring about immediate change in the existing state of affairs. e.g. You are fired! Cooperative principle CP refers to the set of assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation, i.e. the set of maxims of cooperation between the speaker and hearer. In all four maxims of CP are devised: (1) The maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true, specially: (a) do not say what you believe to be false (b) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. (2) The maxim of Quantity (a) make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange (b) do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (3) The maxim of Relation make your contribution relevant (4) The maxim of Manner (a) avoid obscurity (b) avoid ambiguity (c) be brief (d) be orderly Conversational implicture When any of the maxims of CP is blatantly violated that the hearer knows that it is being violated, then conversational implicatures arise.

Violations of the maxims (1) Violation of Maxim of Quantity Example a A sees that B is reading a book in their dorm, and asks B A: What are you reading? B: A book. In answering A, B apparently violates the first item of the Quantity maxim, the intended meaning is that B does not want to tell A what specific book he is reading. Example b A: Do you know where Dr. Badluck lives?

B: Somewhere in the southern suburbs of the city. (Said when it is known to both A and B that B has Dr. Badluck!'s address) Another example, supposes a young man introducing himself to a girl at a party says I! m Robert Smith from Leeds, 28, unmarried, the girl would immediately suspect that he has some motive behind his statement. (2) Violation of Maxim of Quality Example a A: Would you like to come to our party tonight? B: I! m afraid I! m not feeling so well today. (Said when it is known to both A and B that B is feeling perfectly well) Example b Student: Beirut is in Peru, isn! t it, teacher?

Teacher: And Rome is in Romania, I suppose. (The teacher!'s utterance is apparently untrue, it raises an implicture that the student!'s statement is false.) (3) Violation of Maxim of Relation Example a A: The hostess is an awful bore. Don! t you think so? B: The roses in the garden are beautiful, aren! t they? (Said when it is known to both A and B that it is entirely possible for B to make a comment on the hostess.) Example b A: What do you think of the lecture? B: He is a good cook.

(B!'s utterance raises an implicture that the lecture is awful.) (4) Violation of Maxim of Manner Example a Mr. and Mrs. Jones are out for a Sunday drive with their two preschool children. Mr. Jones: Let!'s stop and get something to eat. Mrs. Jones: Okay, but not M-c-D-o-n-a-l-d-s. (Said when Mrs. Jones do not want to have fast-food and do not want the children know that she does not want them to have fast-food either.) The politeness principle The politeness principle is devised by the British linguist G. Leech as supplement of CP.

Six maxims of PP (1) Tact Maxim (a) Minimize cost to others; (b) Maximize benefit to others. According to this maxim, in proposing an action potentially costly to the hearer, the more indirect the utterance is, the more polite the utterance. e.g. compare the following three sentences: Shut the door! I wonder if you! d mind shutting the door. There is quite a draught in here. (2) Generosity Maxim (a) Minimize benefit to self; (b) Maximize cost to self. According to this maxim people should be generous.

For example, when you heard from somebody John has just borrowed your bike, you should say well, I like that instead of being unhappy. (3) Approbation Maxim (a) Minimize dispraise of others; (b) Maximize praise of other. For example, when you comment on sb!'s composition, it is better for you to say Your composition was not so good as it might have been, but not Your composition is awful. (4) Modesty Maxim (a) Minimize praise of self; (b) Maximize dispraise of self. This maxim accounts for the benign nature of utterances like How stupid of me! and the offensive nature of How clever of me! (5) Agreement Maxim (a) Minimize disagreement between self and others; (b) Maximize agreement between self and others.

Regulated by this maxim, people tend to exaggerate their common ground first, even when much difference is to follow. e.g. A: The book is very well written. B: Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather boring patches, don! t you think? (6) Sympathy Maxim (a) Minimize antipathy between self and others; (b) Maximize sympathy between self and others. This maxim regulates that one should be sympathetic with others. e.g. A: I! m delighted to hear about your dog. (perhaps the dog has just won a prize in the dog-show) B: I! m terribly sorry to hear about your dog. (most probably the dog just died) Characteristics of implicature (1) calcul ability The fact that speakers try to convey conversational implicatures and hearers are able to understand them suggests that implicatures are calculable. (2) cancel lability The implicature will change if the conventional meaning of words used, the CP, the linguistic and situational contexts on which it relies change.

(3) non-detachability By non-detachability we mean that a conversational implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form. Therefore it is possible to use a synonym and keep the implicature intact. (5) non-conventionality Conversational implicature is by definition different from the conventional meaning of words, i.e. implicature is indeterminate, which means that it varies with the context. Relevance theory This theory is proposed by Sperber and Wilson, which reduces all the maxims in CP into a single principle of relevance: Every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance. Two key notions in relevance theory Ostensive communication: communication, from the speaker!'s side, should be seen as an act of making clear one!'s intention to express something. Presumption of optimal relevance: (a) The set of assumptions {I} which the communicator intends to make manifest to the addressee is relevant enough to make it worth the addressee!'s while to process the ostensive stimulus. (b) The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one the communicator could have used to communicate {I} Three definitions of relevance (a) An assumption is relevant in a context if and only if it has some contextual effect in that context.

Extent condition 1: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that its contextual effects in this context are large. Extent condition 2: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that the effort required to process it in this context is small. (b) An assumption is relevant to an individual at a given time if and only if it is relevant in one or more of the contexts available to that individual at that time. (c) A phenomenon is relevant to an individual if and only if one or more of the assumptions it makes manifest is relevant to him. See example on P 266. The Q- and R-principles Proposed by Horn on the basis two competing forces, the force of unification, or speaker!'s economy, and the force of diversification, or hearer!'s economy. The Q-principle (hearer-based) Make your contribution sufficient (cf. quantity 1) Say as much as you can (given R) The R-principle (speaker-based) Make your contribution necessary (cf. relation, quantity 2, manner) Say no more than you must (given Q) e.g. a. Some of my friends are linguists. b.

Not all of my friends are linguists. Q-based principle can be cancelled by metalinguistic negation. e.g. a. He didn! t eat three carrots. b. He ate less than three carrots. Sentence (a) usually means sentence (b).

If we stress! ^0 three! +/- in sentence (c), which is known as metalinguistic negation, then (b) is cancelled, and we can follow it with (d) c. He didn! t eat THREE carrots. d. He ate Four of them. Linguistics: A Course Book: Hu Zhuang lin, Peking University Print.