Part I: Basic Notions

Chapter One: Defining Pragmatics

Chapter one is addressed to define and delimit

pragmatics. That is, to better understand what pragmatics
is and what pragmatics does. This chapter shows how
pragmatics is emerged as a shift from the paradigm of
theoretical grammar to the paradigm of language user in
the late sixties and early seventies, pragmatics is
interested in the process of producing language and in its
producers, not just in the end-product, language. All the
contents in the book are guided by the following definition:
"Pragmatics studies the use of language in human
communication as determined by the conditions of
society".

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the dominance of

syntax-based linguistics began to wane as it became
apparent that many phenomena could be adequately
explained only by examining the role of the user of
language. Having established the need for such an
examination, pragmatics becomes a growing field in
contemporary linguistics, which in recent years has
attracted the attention of linguistics, philosophers of
language, anthropologists, psychologists and all those who
are interested in the study language use and users.
 The term "pragmatics" is derived etymologically from the
Greek root "pragma" meaning action or activity and it was coined in 1938
by Charles Morris (1938:6) who defines pragmatics as "the study of the
relation of signs to interpreters". Levinson(1983:9) defines pragmatics as
the study of those relations between language and context that are
grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language". Levinson's
definition accepts only those used of language as pragmatically relevant
and have a distinct grammatical expression. Those uses operate with
phonological, morphological and syntactic elements under the direction
of grammatical rules. This is what Levinson means by grammaticalized.
Levinson(1983:2)states that pragmatics rests on the assumption that
language users who are members of a society depend on the rules and the
norms which are valid at any time and in any place in the community the
belong to.

A truly pragmatic consideration has to deal with the users in their

social context. Thus, pragmatics cannot limit itself to the grammatically
encoded aspects of contexts. Communication in society happens chiefly
by means of language. However, the users of language as social beings
communicate and use language in the conditions of society. Society
controls the users' access to the linguistic and communicative means.
Pragmatics bases itself on a study of those conditions of society an
determines how they affect and human language use since pragmatics is
the study of the way human use their language in communication.
 Mey (2001:6) rejects Levinsons grammaticalization
requirement that pragmatics is concerned only with those
uses of language that can be coded for by the grammar
of the language on account of its failure to say anything
about how we might connect users with grammar. Hence,
Mey (2001:6) defines pragmatics as the study of the use of language in
human communications as determined by the conditions of society.

Unfortunately defining pragmatics is problematic because to define

it means to impose an end or a boundary and boundary makers will have
to be moved all the time in dealing with the use of language in human
communication. Leech(1983:6) advocates complementarity as his
solution to the dilemma of defining pragmatics. Leech(ibid.) mentions
that there is a relation between pragmatics and its nearest linguistic
neighbor which is semantics . Leech asserts that semantics and
pragmatics are distinct, though complementary and they are interrelated
field of study.

Leech(1983) distinguishes between three possible ways of

structuring this relationship: semanticism (pragmatics inside semantics),
pragmaticism (semantics inside pragmatics) and complementarism
(semantics and pragmatics complement each other but they are
independent areas of research).
 stman (1988:28) nicely summarizes as the
distinction between semantics and pragmatics saying that
if the unit of analysis in semantics is meaning which
includes the meanings of words, phrases, larger
constructions, and so on, then by the unit of analysis for
pragmatics could be the functioning of language.

Yule(1996:3-4) defines pragmatics as "the study of

contextual meaning communicated by a speaker or writer,
and interpreted by a listener or reader". It is the study of
the relations between linguistic forms and the users of
those forms. Only pragmatics allows humans into the
analysis of their assumptions, purposes, goals, and actions
they perform while speaking.
Why do we need pragmatics?

Mey(2001:12) states that pragmatics is needed if we

want a fuller, deeper and generally more reasonable
account of human language behavior. Outside of
pragmatics, there will be no understanding. Thus,
sometimes a pragmatic account is the only one that
makes sense as in the following example which is
borrowed from David Lodge(1992:65):

A: I just met the old Irishman and his son, coming out of
the toilet.

B: I wouldn't have thought there was room for the two of

them.

A: No silly, I mean I was coming out of the toilet. They

were waiting.

Linguists usually say that the first sentence is

ambiguous but for pragmaticians there is no such thing
as ambiguity in real life and among real language users.
pragmaticians think that speakers do not utter
ambiguous sentences unless they want to do so as in
telling jokes where the ambiguity is intended. We must
invoke the context to determine what an ambiguous
sentence means. According to Mey(2001:13), context
refers to all the factors that play a role in producing and
understanding utterances. Thereby a pragmatician always
says "give me all the information, and I'll predict what is
going to happen, and what this or that utterance is
supposed to mean".

Thus, One of the tasks of pragmatics is to explain

how the same content is expressed differently in different
cultural, religious, professional, etc. context. Such contexts
will be different from one language community to another
language community.

Chapter Two: Some Issues in Pragmatics

Generally speaking, Chapter two introduces some

current issues in pragmatics which comes up again in Part
II. In a field with so many subtopics, the author has chosen
to include: the delimitation between pragmatics and other
disciplines, such as linguistics, and philosophy; the
importance of social aspects in the use of language; the
nature (semantic or pragmatic) of presuppositions.
 In chapter two, Mey(2001) mainly tells us that how
pragmatics developed from the waste-basket of
semantics into an independent and important domain of
the linguistic research. Of course, the notion of "waste-
basket" has a negative connotations because a waste-
basket is usually used for things that we don't want any
longer. Despite of its negative connotations, the notion of
"waste-basket acquired a certain status in the early years
of pragmatics. The reason for this name is the fact that
there are more and more unresolved questions by linguists
were dropped away and thereby Something must be done
to solve them.

Mey (2001:19) generally explains why pragmatics was

called the waste-basket of semantics. At the beginning,
the semantics was called the waste-basket of syntax. In
the late fifties and early sixties, linguists tried to make
linguistics a science. Thus they applied many
mathematical methods to the linguistic study. Linguistics
was ideally considered as an algebra of language. In the
mid-fifties, Chomsky developed his famous theory of
generative-transformational grammar. Chomsky
concentrated his attention on grammar and pay no
attention to the study of meaning. In this way, semantics
came to be called the waste-basket of syntax.

In the early seventies, some linguists began to try to

turn the study of meaning into the foundation of the
linguistic study instead of syntax. Semantics mainly
concerns about the conditions under which a sentence
could be true or false. In the semantic research, linguists
found that many language phenomena could be explained
by semantic theory. Thereby the unsolved questions were
thrown into a new basket which is the pragmatic basket.
Later these unsolved questions became the main items of
the pragmatic study. In this sense, pragmatics became the
waste basket of semantics.

Accordingly, Mey (2001:25) introduces in detail the

traditional methods and theories of linguistics. In the
Chomskyan linguistic tradition, well-formedness plays the
role of the decision-maker in questions of linguistic
belonging. That is a language consists of a set of well-
formed sentences, and it is these sentences that belong
to the language and no others do. Chomsky considers the
criterion of well0formedness as the ultimate standard to
judge a linguistic production. In (1968), Lakoff published
an article, entitled Presupposition and relative well-
formedness. Lakoff (1968) publicly rejects the syntactic
well-formedness because what we perceive as correct in
the real communication often collides with the correctness
as prescribed by some grammarians. For example,
according to English grammar we should us who when we
are dealing with a noun that is human (and naturally
animate), whereas we use which for a non-human noun
(and non-animate) referent. But sometimes we dont obey
the rule in the ordinary language. For example, we usually
use who to refer to our motherland or our pet. If not, it
would be unacceptable.
 Semantics was once regarded as the waster-basket of
syntax, while pragmatics was once called the waster-
basket of semantics. From syntax to pragmatics, the
domain of the linguistic research is enlarged step by step
and the study becomes more and more practical. In fact,
syntax is the foundation of semantics, and pragmatics is
based on the research of syntax and semantics. And
linguistics gradually develops into a many-sided
subject covering almost every aspect of knowledge
concerning language.

Mey (2001) argues that there is not real border

between the different linguistic branches. In fact, all the
branches are to some extent accessible to each other and
it could be easier to solve the problems in language if they
work jointly. Mey (ibid.) emphasizes again the importance
of context in the process of interpreting the language in
actual use. From his discussion, we may conclude that
context which is define by Mey (2001:) as "the linguistic
version of the human condition", is the most important
factor while interpreting the language use. Thus, the
context includes all extralinguistic factors and context. If
this is the case, pragmatics is a comprehensive linguistic
study of language.
 Part II, Micropragmatics

After the two introductory chapters in part I , the

chapters in Part II, Micropragmatics, take account of the
main approaches to the study of language in use and
users language.

Chapter Three: Context, Implicature and

Reference

Generally speaking, chapter three deals with the

notions of context, implicature and reference. The notion
of context is extremely important along the book. It is
seen as a dynamic concept. It is the universe of everyday
language use, the sum of what people do with each other
in conversations. With respect to implicature, Mey(2001)
distinguishes conventional implicature, which do not
depend on a particular context of language use, from
conversational implicatures which depends on a particular
context of language use. The chapter concludes with the
problems of reference and anaphora in language use,
which are not just a matter of grammar.

In Chapter three, Mey (2001) emphasizes on the

dynamic nature of the concept of context. Context is
defined by Mey (2001:39) as "the continually changing
surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the
participants in the communication process to interact, and
in which the linguistic expressions of their interaction
become intelligible". Mey (2001) argues that the
significance of context to the study of pragmatics is that
context determines the means by which we express our
intentions. Thus, the importance of context lies in figuring
out ambiguities in spoken or written language. It is a
dynamic, not a static concept.
Concerning the context, Mey (2001:43) states that
since language is developed in a social context, its use is
governed by society rather than by the individual
speakers. Language users do not decide, on the spur of
the moment, which medium to choose in order to get their
ideas or feelings across; they use the artificial signs that
natural language provides them with, given the
affordances of their actual, historical context. The context
determines both what one can say and what one cannot
say; only the pragmatics of the situation can give meaning
to ones words. Levinson(1983:48-49) offers an example
which shows the importance of context in understanding
utterances in a conversation:
 (A and B are on the telephone, talking over
arrangements for the next couple of days)
A: So can you please come over here again right now.
B: Well, I have to go to Edinburgh today sir.
A: Hmm. How about this Thursday?
Pragmatically speaking, context allow us to use
linguistic resources without having to spell out all the
details every time we use particular construction.

Concerning implicature, Mey(2001:45) mentions

that the word "implicature" is derived from the verb "to
imply" means "to fold something into something else".
There are two types of implicature which are
conversational and conventional.

Conversational implicature is something which is

implied in the conversation and it means that something is
left implicit in actual language use. Bilmes (1986:27)
states that in everyday talk, we often convey propositions
that are not explicit in our utterances but merely implied
by them. Sometimes we are able to draw such inferences
only by referring what has been explicitly said to some
conversational principle. In this case, we are dealing with
conversational implicature.
 According to Mey (2001:46), conversational
implicature concerns the way we understand an utterance
in conversation in accordance with what we expect to
hear. For example:
A: What time is it?
B: The bus just went by.
This context should include the fact that there is
only one bus a day that it passes by B's house at 7:45
a.m. each morning and that the interlocutor is aware of
this and takes the answer as a relevant answer.

Conventional implicature do not depend on a

particular context of language use. Such implicature is
standardized by convention and it cannot be changed
even if we invoke another context and hence it is called
conventional(Mey,2001"49-50). In this sense, there are
certain expressions in language implicate by themselves
regardless of their use. Such implications cannot be
attributed to our use of language in conversation. For
instance, the word "last" always denotes, by conventional
implicature, the ultimate item of a sequence as in "the last
page of a book or manuscript" and it may imply "that
which came before the time of speaking" as in saying "the
last winter".
 Reference is an act in which a speaker, or writer, uses
linguistic forms to enable a listener, or reader, to identify
something. These linguistic forms are called referring
expressions. They can be proper nouns, noun phrases, or
pronouns.

Indexical expressions are a particular kind of referential

expressions, where the reference is not just semantic, but includes a
reference to the particular context in which the semantics is put to work.
Indexical expressions are basically pragmatically determined. That is.
They depend on the person who use them.

The following example is due to Levinson (1983: 58):

I am six feet tall.

The meaning of six feet tall is given by what the individual

words mean, and any competent user of English will understand them as
indicating a certain height of the person uttering the words. The problem
is in the I am: how do we understand that the asserted height is indeed
that of this particular speaker? That can only be decided by looking at the
context in which the words are uttered. The context is responsible for
fixing the coordinates of the utterance; only after establishing them can
we decide whether or not the utterance makes sense.

Deixis is reference to a wider context of discourse

or language. This term is used to indicate or point out the
personal pronoun, tense, specific time, and place adverb.
Thus, it is a reference within a sentence that relies on the
context being known to interpret correctly.
 Chapter Four: Pragmatic Principles

This chapter examines the nature of rules and

principles of pragmatics. Mey(2001) restricts the use of
rules primarily to syntax but in pragmatics, it is preferred
to work with principles. Thus, he discusses the principles
of pragmatics which are proposed by Grice, Horn and
Sperber and Wilson. These principles are simply conditions
for a sound description of a language.

Some principles discussed by Mey (2001)

1.The Communicative Principle

Mey (2001:68) mentions that communicative
principle means that people engage in
communicative activity whenever they use language.
People talk with the intention to communicate
something to somebody . Thus, Mey(ibid.:71) states
that by communicative principle, people have
something to tell each other while communicating.
So, it is responsible for communication action in a
concrete context. Communicative principle is the
need for people to communicate and in fact
communication is said to be unavoidable.
2.Cooperative Principle
Communication requires people to operate because
real conversations come alive only in a mutually
accepted and pragmatically determined context.
Cooperation becomes an independent principle in
the works of the British American philosopher
Grice(1975, 1989). His cooperative principle
(abbreviated as CP) consists of four pragmatic sub-
principles or maxims:
1. The maxim of quantity
- Make your contribution as informative as
required.
- Do not make your contribution more informative
than required.

2. The maxim of quality

- Do not say what you believe to be false.
- Do not say that for which you lack adequate
evidence.

3. The maxim of relation

- Make your contribution relevant.

4. The maxim of manner

- Be perspicuous and specifically:
Avoid obscurity
Avoid ambiguity
 Be brief
Be orderly

3.Politeness Principle
Politeness principle is advocated by Leech(1983).
According to Leech(ibid.:83), some illocutions (such
as orders) are inherently impolite, and others (such
as offers) are inherently polite. Generally speaking,
the principle of politeness tells au to minimize the
effect of impolite statements or expressions and to
maximize the politeness of polite illocutions.
Leech(ibid:80)provides the following example:
Parent: Someone has eaten the icing off the cake.
Child: It was not me (with rising-falling intonation on
the emphasized me)
In this case, a parent relying on conversational
implicature is considered more polite than a parent
uttering a direct accusation such as:
You have eaten the icing off the cake.

One of the functions of politeness is to create a

distance between the interlocutors as in the case of
social-hierarchical placements that have to be
maintained through language use.

Horn's Two Principles

Horn(1984) introduces two principle which are the
Q- Principle and the R- Principle. The Q- Principle (Q
for quantity) tells us to say as much as we can and
the R- Principle (R for relation) says that we should
say no more than we must. An example by
Horn(1984:15) is the following:
I cut a finger yesterday.
This utterance invoke the R- principle to establish
the fact that the finger is mine and I need not to say
more. Normally, when somebody tells me about this
mishap, my reaction will be "That's too bad" and not
much more can be said on the subject . A friend who
were to retort "Whose finger" would at least deserve
an inquisitive look.

According to Sperber and Willson(1986), pragmatic

needs only one principle which is principle of
relevance. According to the relevance theory, in any
given context, what people say is relevant.
Mey(2001:85) considers the principle of Relevance as
a variant of the Communicative principle since what
is communicated supposedly is of importance to both
the speaker and the hearer and communicating
something meaningful may be supposed to be
relevant to the partners in communication.
According to Sperber and Wilson's(1986:168)
principle of relevance, we are ready for something
that will make sense(relevant) and we will build our
understanding around that assumption. The
utterance we are hearing or reading is accessible as
part of our mutually recognized and common
cognitive environment or context. By contrast, we are
equally not read for something that would not be
 accessible because it does not belong in such a
common cognitive environment or context.

Conclusion

To conclude with the general scope of the two parts

of Mey'(2001) book "Pragmatics: An Introduction",
Pragmatics is treated is as a part of human language
behavior. It is the study of human communicatively
using language in the context of society. Thus, what is
important in pragmatics is to critically examine, and try
to understand, the social functioning of language and
its various manifestations of use.