Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTENTS PAGE
___________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................4
UNIT ONE: DEFINITIONS OF PRAGMATICS5
1.1. Introduction5
1.2. Competences5
1.3. Defining pragmatics5
1.3.1. Pragmatics as the study of language in use6
1.3.2. Pragmatics as meaning in interaction (Thomas, 1995)8
1.4. Pragmatics contrasted with semantics9
1.5. Formative traditions11
1.6. Summary13
1.7. End of unit test13
Introduction
The course entitled Introduction to pragmatics covers some of the topics in the field of
language in use and the construction of meaningful communication. Though pragmatics
seems to be a slippery field in linguistics as compared to phonetics, morphology or syntax,
you will hopefully further develop your analytical skills of investigating language, and will be
able to use it appropriately, depending on the context.
By the end of this course students will be able to:
become familiar with new theoretical and methodological perspectives in the
field of pragmatics;
apply the concepts to the analysis of the processes involved in communication;
communicate (orally and in writing) in English according to pragmatic
principles in a variety of contexts
manage the process of learning
Preliminary knowledge
Students will need to be familiar with phonetics, morphology and syntax.
Resources
Students will need the course notes as a resource for learning.
End-of-course assessment
At the end of the semester each student will get a mark in the following way: 75%
for the analysis of a text at students choice, which will be defended orally during
the exam, and 25% for the end-of-unit tests.
_______________________________________________________________________
1.1. Introduction
In this unit a number of definitions of pragmatics are presented, in relation to other
fields of linguistics, such as phonetcis and phonology, morphology, syntax and
semantics. Since both semantics and pragmatics deal with the concept of
meaning, a the two branches of linguistics are compared and contrasted. Finally,
the traditional fields that contributed to formation of pragmatics are discussed.
1.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT ONE students will be able to:
get familiar with basic pragmatic definitions
identify units of pagmatic analyis
describe and explain differences between meaning in pragmatics and
semantics
as you have already learnt, phonetics and phonology deal with speech sounds. Phonetics
identifies constituent parts of a continuous stream of sound and focuses either on the physical
properties of the sounds, or on their manner of production, while the basic unit of analysis for
phonology is the phoneme. Morphology investigates morphemes, the minimal linguistic
signs, in the sense that they are the minimal units carrying a conventional meaning or
contributing to the meaning of larger units, and the ways in which they combine to form
words. Syntax studies sentence formation processes in accordance with language-specific
rules, starting from words or lexical items. Semantics explores the meaning of linguistic
units, typically at the level of words (lexical semantics) or at the level of sentences or more
complex structures. (cf. Verschueren, Understanding Pragmatics, 1999)
The question that we ask ourselves is What do all these branches have in common?
According to Verschueren (1999), they share a focus on language resources (the ingredients
that make up a language as a tool that people use for expressive and communicative
purposes). Units of analysis are identified, thus leading to a manageable division of labour.
Pragmatics is a relatively new field of linguistics, and has been defined in most textbooks on
linguistics as meaning in use or meaning in context. As implied in the above definitions,
pragmatics cannot be identified with a specific unit of analysis. Then what is pragmatics?
1.3.1 Pragmatics as the study of language in use (Verschueren, 1999; Mey, 1996)
At the most elementary level, pragmatics can be defined as the study of language use, or the
study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties and processes
(Verschueren, 1999). The linguistic phenomena to be studied from the point of view of their
usage can be situated at any level of structure. The question pragmatics asks is: How are the
language resources used? Thus, in Verschuerens view, pragmatics is not an additional
component of a theory of language, but it offers a different perspective.
There are no linguistic phenomena, at any level of structure that a pragmatic perspective can
afford to ignore.
Pragmatics is the science of language seen in relation to its users (Mey, 1996:5), and it
starts out from an active conception of language. For example, by saying Clean your boots,
the speaker is performing the act of ordering the hearer to do something. This concept of
action will be dealt with when dealing with the speech act theory.
More recent textbooks on linguistics tend to equate pragmatics with speaker meaning, on
the one hand, and utterance interpretation on the other hand. The former puts the focus of
attention on the producer of the message, including here the social context in which the
utterance is produced, and the latter focuses on the receiver of the message, which in practice
means largely ignoring the social constraints on the production of the utterance.
As you can notice, you have found a number of semantic meanings of the words meaning
and to mean. Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in
semantic theory. In order to better understand the two approaches to meaning (semantic and
pragmatic) we will see some of the basic differences between the two fields.
1. Semantics deals with those conditions that make a sentence true. For example, the
semantic meaning of the sentence Sam is a man includes the following truth conditions:
a. Sam is a person.
b. Sam is an adult.
c. Sam is a male.
d. Sam is an adult male person.
Pragmatics, on the other hand, deals with felicity conditions of an utterance.
Example
The utterance I promise to be back early means a promise on condition a future
action is involved: Ill come back early. (See the unit Speech Act Theory).
Example
A: Shall we see that film tonight?
B: I have a headache
The speaker B means NO by saying I HAVE A HEADACHE
3. In semantics we speak about sentence meaning. Sentence meaning is predictable from the
meaning of the lexicon items and grammatical features of the sentence. In pragmatics, we
deal with utterance meaning. Utterance meaning consists of the meaning of the sentence
plus considerations of the intentions of the Speaker (the speaker may intend to refuse the
invitation to go to the film), interpretation of the Hearer (the Hearer may interpret the
utterance as a refusal, or not), determined by Context and background knowledge.
(Two linguists, call them Jacob and Mark, are coming out of a lecture hall at a
university which is neithers home territory, but where Jacob has been before; so
he thinks he knows the campus, more or less)
Jacob: Do you know the way back to the dining hall? We can go in my car.
10
(Marks gets into the car; after the first turn, he starts giving directions, which
greatly amazes Jacob, and irritates him a little he was under the impression
that he needed to guide the other, not the other way round. After several more
turns which Jacob is taking at greater and greater speeds, so the other doesnt
get a chance to interfere Marks says:)
Mark: Oh, I thought you didnt know the way to the campus.
Jacob: I thought you didnt know!
(whereupon they both start laughing)
Clearly, in this case Mark takes Jacobs original utterance not as a real question, but as a
pre-request (preparing the ground for the request to be given instructions on how to get to
the dining hall). Jacob. On the other hand, who really wanted to know if Mark was familiar
with the campus, because otherwise he wanted to give him directions, or a ride, doesnt
understand the others reaction. The moment the situation is resolved, we can look back and
understand what has happened.
11
role. This is part of the doctrine of language games, which produced two of the main
theories underlying present-day pragmatics: Speech act theory (Austin and Searle)
and Logic of conversation (Grice).
To see the force of Wittgensteings preoccupations with the matrix activity within
which language usage takes place, consider the following case:
The language game theory will be also dealt with in the unit on Context.
2.
Pragmatics, thus serves, within the realm of the language-related sciences, as a point of
convergence for the interdisciplinary fields of investigation and as a latch between these and
the components of language resources
12
1.6. Summary
Pragmatics is:
13
I wake with my alarm. I say to myself, but not out loud, a word or two that
should perhaps not be printed here. I stagger to the bathroom, shave and
generally prepare myself for the first phase of the day. []
Having prepared myself for the day, I go down to the kitchen and there, in
the process of preparing my breakfast, encounter yet more written messages as
they silently scream at me from food manufacturers packets, bottles and
cartoons. I turn on the portable television set, strategically placed on a worktop
so as not to miss any vital bit of breakfast television whilst standing guard over
slowly simmering porridge. I now encounter not my language, but the language
of other people specifically produced by them as a means of communicating
something to me along with several million others.
The language these people produce is mostly spoken language and whilst
sometimes it is directed at me as if I were a partner in a conversation they are
holding, at other times the language is directed at actual conversational
partners, either present in the studio or linked by microphones, TV monitors and
other electronic wizardry. But the odd thing is that whilst the talk is produced,
for example, as part of a conversation involving just those who are indeed in the
studio, I nevertheless get the impression that the conversation is being produced
specifically for me, and millions like me, as a potential overhearing audience.
Furthermore, the participants in such talk somehow make it clear through the
way that they talk, that this is precisely the sort of impression they want me to be
having.
2. Describe a similar linguistic day in your life.
3. Provide different contexts for the following utterances to have
different functions:
Its hot in here.
Can you pass me the salt?
Theres a pencil on the table.
Ill talk to you tomorrow.
Its a beautiful day today.
14
2.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT TWO students will be able to:
get familiar with the notions of deixis and implicit meaning;
apply the concepts to language analysis
communicate meaningfully by using the appropriate ways of pointing to
the world via language
15
2.3. Deixis
For the beginning, lets suppose (with Mey, 1993:89) that you are in a foreign country, sitting
in your hotel room at night. There is a knock at the door. You dont open the door, but ask:
Whos there?. The visitor answers: Its me. What do you do then?
There are two possibilities. Either you recognise the visitors voice, and then decide whether
or not to open the door. If you dont, then what do you do with a voice that refers to a me,
when you dont know who that me is. Since the me always refers to I, and every I is a
speaking me, the utterance Its me is always and necessarily true, but totally uninformative
to establish a speakers identity.
In more technical terms, there is no known referent for me by virtue of the linguistic
expression alone. We are dealing here with a problem that is basically philosophical, but
which has serious consequences both for theoretical linguistics and for our use of language.
We use language to refer to persons or things, directly or indirectly. In the first case (direct
reference), we have names available that lead us to persons or things. In the second case
(indirect reference), we need to have recourse to other, linguistic as well as non-linguistic,
strategies in order to establish the correct reference. For example, Me who or Whos
talking?
Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things we do with
language. It means pointing via language, and any linguistic form used to accomplish this
pointing is called deictic expression or indexicals. They are among the first forms to be
spoken by young children and can be used to indicate
16
Person deixis operates on a basic three part division, the speaker (I), the addressee (you) and
other(s) (he, she, it). As Yule (1996) observes, in many languages these deictic expressions
are elaborated with markers of social status. Expressions which indicate higher status are
described as honorifics (social deixis).
For example, in French and Romanian there are two different forms that encode a
social contrast within person deixis, tu (tu) and vous(dumneavoastra). This is
known as T/V distinction.
In deictic terms, third person is not a direct participant in basic interaction, and being an
outsider, is more distant. Using a third person form, where a second person would be possible,
is one way of communicating distance. This can also be done for humorous or ironic
purposes, as in the following examples:
Yule (1996:11):
Would his highness like some coffee?
The distance associated with third person forms is also used to make potential
accusations less direct, as in:
Somebody didnt clean up after himself.
17
There is also a potential ambiguity in the use in English of the first person plural.
There is an exclusive we (speaker plus others, excluding addressee) and inclusive
we (speaker and addressee included), as in the following possible reply to the
accusation:
We clean up after ourselves around here.
The ambiguity present here provides a subtle opportunity for a hearer to decide what was
communicated. Either the hearer decides that he/she is a member of the group to whom the
rule applies, or an outsider.
One basic type of temporal deixis in English is in the choice of verb tense, which has only two
basic forms, the present and the past (the proximal and the distal). The past tense is always
used in English in those if-clauses that mark events presented by the speaker as not being
close to present reality.
The idea expressed in the example is not treated as having happened in the past. It is
presented as deictically distant from the speakers current situation. So distant, that it actually
communicates the negative (we infer that the speaker has no yacht).
18
It is important to remember that location from the speakers perspective can be fixed mentally
as well as physically. Speakers temporarily away from their home location will often continue
to use here to mean the (physically distant) home location. According to Yule, speakers also
seem to be able to project themselves (deictic projection) into other locations prior to actually
being in those locations. Such a deictic projection is accomplished via dramatic performance
when using direct speech to represent the person, location, and feelings of someone else.
Yule, 1996:13
E.g.: I was looking at this little puppy in a cage with such a sad look on its face.
It was like, Oh, Im so unhappy here, will you set me free?
All indexical expressions refer to certain world conditions, either subjective or objective in
nature. The following story, borrowed from Levinson 1983:68) is meant to illustrate the
importance of having the right point of view, and how one can anticipate the way people will
construe the world in terms of their point of view.
19
Lets remember
Remember from Speech Act Theory that pragmatics looks at language as
a form of action when we say something we also perform an action (we
make requests, ask for information, apologise, order, etc). It is anchored
in a real-world context, and it pays attention to types of meaning that go
beyond what is given by the language form itself, or what is literally
said. Thus, implicit meaning becomes a topic of investigation.
There are three things involved here: the impossibility of complete explicitness, conventional
linguistic means to cope with this impossibility, and strategies to exploit it. We will next look
at the impossibility of complete explicitness and at presuppositions as a carrier of implicit
meaning.
20
The world of unexpressed information which an utterance carries along is called background
information (common knowledge or common ground). Because of the impossibility of full
explicitness, and the need to explicate aspects of general background information to achieve
full understanding of any instance of language use, the term explicature has been introduced.
For example, the Center is closed in January, requires as explicatures a further specification
or which Center it is that one is talking about, of whether January is meant to be January of
a specific year or of every year, and of whether closed means closed for every living
creature or only for those people who come to use the center for the usual purposes.
Explicatures are simply representations of implicit forms of meaning.
21
Language provides numerous conventionalised carriers of implicit meaning, which are tools
for linking explicit content to relevant aspects of background information.
Presuppositions
A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an
utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. Thus, we can identify some of the
potentially assumed information that would be associated with the following utterance
(Verschueren, 1999):
Marys brother bought three horses.
In producing the utterance, the speaker will normally be expected to have the presuppositions
that a person called Mary exists and that she has a brother. The speaker may also hold the
more specific presupposition that Mary has only one brother and that she has a lot of money.
All of these presuppositions are the speakers and all of them can be wrong.
22
The following example: The King of France is talking to Napoleon said at this time in history
and using the present tense, is devoid of real meaning because the existential presuppositions
carried by the referring expressions The King of France and Napoleon are not satisfied.
Yule, 1996:28-29:
E.g.:
She didnt realise he was ill. (He was ill)
We regret telling him (We told hem)
I wasnt aware that she was married. (She was married)
I am glad that its over (Its over).
23
We have seen that what people say carries a whole world of unexpressed information, and
that it would be impossible to communicate with complete explicitness. Presuppositions are
one form of conveying aspects of implicit meaning, and we say that speakers hold a number
of presuppositions when producing utterances.
2.6. Summary
Deixis means pointing via language, and any linguistic form used to
accomplish this pointing is called deictic expression or indexical. Indexicals are
among the first forms to be spoken by young children and can be used to
indicate:
24
Existential presuppositions
Factive presuppositions
Non-factive presuppositions
Lexical presuppositions
Structural presuppositions
CASH,
25
3.1. Introduction
This unit tries to answer a number of questions raised by pragmaticians . If people
can mean different things with the same words, how do human beings interpret
what is meant from what is said? Why is there a divergence of function and form,
or why do not people speak directly and say what they mean? For an answer we
have to look at the work of Paul Grice, who attempted to explain how, by means of
shared rules of conversations, competent language-users manage to understand one
another.
3.2. Competences
On completion of THREE ONE students will be able to:
get familiar with the Cooperative Principle
understand how competent users of language communicate sucessfully
be able to use their linguistic resources to convey meaning indirectly
26
Lets remember
Remember from last unit that language is anchored in a real-world
context, and it pays attention to types of meaning that go beyond what is
given by the language form itself, or what is literally said. Thus, implicit
meaning can be conveyed conventionally (via presuppositions). This unit
deals with another way of conveying implicit meaning: conversational
implicatures.
(Levinson, 1983)
E.g.
A:
B:
In order for A to understand Bs reply, A has to assume that B is co-operating, and has given
B the right amount of information. But he didnt mention the cheese. If he had brought the
cheese he would have said so. He must intend that A infer that what is not mentioned was not
brought. In this case B has conveyed more than he said via a conversational implicature.
27
Before going into Grices theory of conversational implicature, we shall try to clarify two
terms, implicature and inference, and the corresponding verbs to imply and to infer. The verb
to imply is used when the speaker generates some meaning beyond the semantic meaning of
the words. Implicature (term devised by Grice) refers to the implied meaning generated
intentionally by the speaker.
Infer, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which the hearer deduces meaning from
available evidence. Inference is the inferred meaning deduced by the hearer, which may or
may not be the same as the speakers intended implicature.
Here is an example which illustrates the distinction between implicature and inference:
(source: Thomas, 1995:58-59)
The following example is taken from a childrens book, set in Holland under
William the Silent, during the war with Spain. Maurice was a boy caught up in
the events; Theo was a manservant:
Tears filled his eyes; he cried easily in these days, not having full control of
himself, and Theos fate caused him great grief. The Duchess had told him that
she had been able to discover nothing, and therefore it was assumed that he had
been released as entirely innocent. Maurice was convinced that nothing of the
kind had happened, and assumed that the Duchess had found out that Theo was
dead and had invented the agreeable solution in order not to distress him. He
could not do anything about it and had accepted the statement in silence, but he
fretted a great deal over Theos death.
Here, the Duchess implied that Theo was all right. Maurice understood what she had implied,
but nevertheless inferred the opposite (that Theo was dead).
3.4. Cooperative Principle
Lets consider the following scenario (from Cook, 1989). There is a woman sitting on a park
bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of the bench. A man comes along and sits
down on the bench.
28
29
30
The speaker is Rupert Allason (author, M.P. and expert on the British
intelligence services). He is discussing the identity of the so-called Fifth Man:
It was either Graham Mitchell or Roger Hollis and I dont think it was Roger
Hollis.
( Thomas, 1995:65)
31
V:
doing?
(One Foot in the Grave, BBC 12/11/96)
32
wanted to say, they can be taken by a trained gorilla. Oh yes, Geoffrey chips in
Susans all in favour. Shes keener than I am, arent you, darling?. More
sprouts anybody? I said.
In this example, the bishop is likely to come to the conclusion that Susan is not interested in
the subject of womens ordination and wishes to change the topic.
Which is/are the maxim(s) flouted and he implicatures generated in the following
example?
[A is working at a computer in one of the departments lab when she experiences
a problem. Graeme is the computer assistant]
A:
B:
Official:
The official could simply have replied Yes. The actual response is extremely long-winded.
33
Which is/are the maxim(s) flouted and he implicatures generated in the following
example?
[This is part of the queens speech at the anniversary of her 40th year on the
throne. It had been a bad year for the queen - marital difficulties of her children,
the Windsor Palace had gone up in flames]
Queen: 1992 is not a year which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure.
Flouting the co-operative principle in order to make a point more forcefully also explains:
metaphors (Queen Victoria was made of iron)
hyperbole (Ive got millions of beers in my cellar)
irony and sarcasm (I love it when you sing out of key all the time)
humour (e.g. puns)
Imagine short dialogues in which the maxims are flouted and implicatures are
created.
Infringing:
A speaker who with no intention of generating an implicature and with no intention of
deceiving, fails to observe a maxim is said to infringe the maxim. For example, a speaker
34
may fail to observe a maxim because of imperfect linguistic performance (foreigners, young
child speaking, nervous speakers, etc.)
3.6. Summary
Maxim of quality: Do not say what you believe to be false; Do not say
that for which you lack evidence.
35
house on two separate occasions during the past ten days without
receiving an answer.
Ch.:
C:
Ch:
C:
Ch:
C:
the 12th
[There is a pause]
Ch:
Havent a clue.
C:
Ch:
Who, me?
C:
Ch:
Oh yeah, I just come here for the company and the pleasant surroundings.
C:
Ch:
C:
C:
Ch:
36
4.1. Introduction
The way in which we speak (or write) shows our assumptions about what the
receiver already knows and about what he wants to find out. In this unit we will
look more closely at the role of knowledge, and how it interacts with language to
create discourse. You will also learn about Relevance theory, which seeks to
answer the question of what is relevant for the hearer in the process of
communication.
4.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT FOUR students will be able to:
get familiar with the concepts of knowledge structures, expectations,
schema, and relevance;
understand the role of knowledgte in communication
apply the concepts to the analysis of naturally occurring data
37
Lets remember
Remember that we have already seen how existing knowledge in the
receiver of a message and the correct assessment of the extent of that
knowledge by the sender are essential for successful communication. In
other words, the way in which we speak (or write) shows our assumptions
about what the receiver already knows and about what he wants to find
out.
the use of articles, as in the example below where the use of indefinite article to
introduce new information may be interpreted as the speaker sharing with the hearer
the assumption that pineapples are edible, while tables, for instance, are not:
the structuring of information, as in the following example, where the focus on John
has a bearing on the syntactic structure of the sentence:
At the level of discourse and the function of utterances, as in the example below,
where the sergeant assumes that Jones has knowledge of the authority of sergeants, the
obligations of soldiers an the importance attached to clean boots on parades grounds:
38
39
A schema consists of a particular configuration of variables or slots that may accept a range of
concepts. The concepts that fill slots are called values. Our knowledge of typical values/slots
constrains what may go into a slot. However, slots can be left unfilled or have an assumed or
default value. Here is an example of a restaurant schema that one may have in mind, which
includes physical surroundings, a certain sequence of the events, and certain people with
certain social relations. What you cannot see, when entering a restaurant, you assume. So you
fill in the missing slots by inferencing what else is there.
tables
room
chairs
ordering
payment
exiting
waiters
customers
manager
For some evidence of the existence of schemas, lets look at a real life example. Here is what
a witness in a court case tells the court about her movements in the morning, when she is
asked to tell everything she did, the whole truth:
I woke up at seven forty. I made toast and a cup of tea. I listened to the news. And
I left for work at about 8.30.
Source: Cook, 1989
Try to fill in variables that you infer or assume to exist from your Getting up in
the
40
When a sender judges her receivers schema to correspond to a significant degree to her own,
she need only mention features which are not contained in it. Other features will be assumed
to be present by default, unless we are told otherwise. For example (Cook, 1989), compare:
I went to work in my pyjamas.
I went to work in my clothes.
The second utterance seems odd because we usually do not say that we go to work in our
clothes. This information is present by default, that is, we assume that all people go to work
dressed in their clothes. In the first example, however, the information about how I was
dressed becomes relevant, because it is something unusual, or new, presumably, for the
listener.
Schemas are stereotyped patterns which we retrieve from memory and employ in our
understanding of discourse. What you cannot see, you assume, you fill in slots by
inferencing/assuming. The mind, stimulated by key words or phrases in the text, activates a
knowledge schema (our expectations about objects, people and events).
Suggest a continuation for each of the following:
1. Shes one of those dumb, pretty Marilyn Monroe type blondes. She spends
hours looking after her nails. She polishes them every day and keeps them...
2. The king put his seal on the letter. It...
Now look at these continuations:
1...all neatly arranged in little jam jars in the cellar, graded according to length, on the shelf
above the hammers and the electric drills.
2....waggled it flippers, and caught a fish in its mouth.
The schema activated by the opening leads to one interpretation of nails and seal (This is
called expectation driven understanding in Artificial Intelligence). There is a conflict here
between the ease with which we process the information and our interest. Generally speaking,
activating a certain schema and then overturning it, as in the examples above, is a device often
used in jokes, puzzles, and literature.
41
Information is relevant to you if it interacts in a certain way with your existing assumptions
about the world. There are 3 types of interaction leading to contextual effects:
1) it produces new information
2) it strengthens our existing assumptions.
3) it contradicts and eliminates our existing assumptions.
A step forward in understanding how people can communicate successfully is to understand
that people approach the world not as nave receptacles, but rather as experienced veterans of
perception who have stored their prior experiences as organised mass, and who see events
and objects in the world in relation to each other and in relation to their prior experiences.
43
This prior experience takes the form of expectations about the world, and in the vast majority
of cases, the world confirms these expectations.
However, miscommunication may occur in a number of situations, such as
When there are misjudgments and mismatches of schema between the sender and the
receiver. These are particularly likely when people try to communicate across cultures
Communication suffers when people make false assumptions about shared schemas
When one steps outside the predictable patterns (discourse deviation
4.5. Summary
the way in which we speak (or write) shows our assumptions about what
the receiver already knows and about what he wants to find out.
44
relevance.
b) Other things being equal, the smaller the processing effort, the greater the
relevance. (1986:29)
Miscommunication may occur in a number of situations, such as
When there are misjudgments and mismatches of schema between the sender
and the receiver. These are particularly likely when people try to communicate
across cultures
Communication suffers when people make false assumptions about shared
schemas
45
[Singing to loud disco music]. There I was looking for you luv,
Voice B:
What did you say? How dare you speak to me like that! Honestly
46
5.1. Introduction
According to Mey (1993:181), a truly pragmatic view on language cannot, and
should not, restrict itself to such micropragmatic issues of context as deixis, speech
acts and implicit meaning. Pragmaticians have turned, instead, to the study of
chunks of linguistic interactions, usually conversations of various types and to a
macropragmatic view of context. This unit deals with two view on context: Del
Hymes sociolinguistic approach and Levinsons pragmatic approach to context.
5.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT FOUR students will be able to:
get familiar with different definitions of context
identify socilinguistic and pragmatic features of context
apply the concepts to the analysis of naturally occurring data
use language appropriately, depending on the context
47
either as extending the individual utterances making up the text, and this is what he calls
the co-text;
or, alternatively, considering those utterances in their natural habitat. In this case we are
dealing with the larger context in which people use language.
According to Mey (1993:184-188), there are different understandings of the notion of context,
from a more limited one, to macro issues of context.
What kinds of rules are there for either yielding or holding on to the floor;
48
Though Conversation Analysis have got a wealth of insights into these matters and have
elaborated an impressive arsenal of techniques for the description and explanation of the
mechanisms of conversation, it leaves out the larger context in the sense given above. In
particular, the social aspects of the extended context have no place in such a framework (e.g.
they are not interested in issues of social status, gender, age, etc. of the participants).
one, that we have to look at what people really say when they are together
that any understanding that linguists can hope to obtain of what goes on between people
using language is based on a correct understanding of the whole context in which the
linguistic interaction takes place.
The following example and analysis have been taken from Mey, (1993:186). On the face of it
the following conversation is pretty strange:
A:
B:
A:
B:
oh Im sorry
It makes no sense at all unless we know what the larger (societal) context is: A is trying to
lease a flat, and mentions the fact that he has a child. The landlord doesnt mind children, but
when he hears about the dog, he indicates that As prospects as a future lease-holder are rather
dim. Now, the question can be asked, what exactly the landlord is sorry about. It is clearly not
the fact that A has a dog. Rather it has something to do with the fact that regulations for the
block of flats do not allow tenants to have pets. So, the landlord is either sorry for A if A has
to give up the dog, or for himself (if A looks like a good future tenant) in case A renouncing
getting a lease.
49
The term discourse is used in this section to indicate not only the social occasion in which
the linguistic interaction takes place (e.g. job interview, medical consultation, conversation,
etc.), but also how people use the language in their respective social contexts.
Discourse is different from text, in that it embodies more than just the text understood as a
collection of sentences. It is also different from conversation. Conversation is one particular
type of text, governed by special rules. Thus, while it is natural to use the term discourse
specifically in connection with conversation, discourse and conversation are not the same.
Lets look at the following case to show the difference between a discourse-oriented approach
and one that is exclusively based on speech acts (example and analysis taken from Mey,
1993:187)
In this conversation some speech act linguists will claim that A has performed a speech act of
betting, just by uttering the words I bet. Yet, in another, equally valid, pragmatic and
discourse-oriented sense, he has not: B has not risen to the bet, by uttering for example
youre on. Instead, B utters a non-committal Oh. Consequently, there has been no
uptake, because one of the felicity conditions has not been fulfilled, and so there has been no
bet.
50
S=
the Setting and Scene of the exchange; the setting refers to the concrete physical
circumstance in which speech takes place, e.g. courtrooms, classrooms, telephone
conversations, passing acquaintances in the street, etc. The scene refers to the
psychological and cultural circumstances of the speech situation, e.g. consulting,
pleading, conferring. The settings and scenes do not necessarily remain constant
throughout a particular language exchange, although it appears to be easier to shift
scenes than to shift settings, e.g. a speakers attempt to tell a joke to dispel a tense
atmosphere.
P=
the Participants may be of various kinds and may be referred to as Speaker, Hearer
and audience, or Addressor, Addressee.
E=
A=
Act sequence, i.e the actual language forms that are used, how these are used. It refers
to message for, i.e. topics of conversation and particular ways of speaking. In a given
culture, certain linguistic forms are conventional for certain types of talk.
K=
Keys refers to the tone, manner in which a particular message is conveyed, e.g. lighthearted, serious, precise, etc.
I=
51
N=
G=
the Genre that has to be recognised, e.g. novels, poems, lecture, advertisement, etc.
Because of the strict constraints on contributions to any particular activity, there are
corresponding strong expectations about the functions that any utterance at a certain
point in the proceedings can be fulfilling[] Activity types help to determine how
one says will be taken that is, what kinds of inferences will be made from what is
said. (Levinson, 1992:69).
52
The difference between a speech event approach and an activity type approach is that the
former has an outside view on context, whereas the latter looks at how language shapes the
event.
Thomas (1995:187-194, slightly adapted) provides a very useful checklist, which will help us
describe an activity type:
The goals of the participants: notice that we are talking about the goals of the individuals
rather than the goals of the whole speech event. The goals of one participant may be different
from those of another. For example, the goal of a trial is to come up with a fair verdict, but the
goals of the prosecution lawyer (to get a verdict guilty) are diametrically opposed to those of
the defense lawyer and the defendant. An individuals goals may also change during the
course of an interaction.
The degree to which Gricean maxims are adhered to or suspended: the expectation of the
way in which the maxims will be observed varies considerably from culture to culture and
from activity type to activity type (e.g. in Parliament, in media interviews with politicians, or
in the law courts), there is a very low expectation that what is said (or implied) will be the
whole truth; in other activity types (such as going to a Confession) the expectation that the
speaker will tell the whole truth is extremely high. Some inferences can only be drawn in
relation to the activity type. For example, the actor Nigel Hawthorne, talking about
unsuccessful plays he had been in before he became famous, said:
53
Turn-taking and topic control: to what degree can an indvidual exploit turn-taking norms in
order to control an interaction, establish his or her own agenda (topic of conversation), etc.
Language is not simply a reflection of the physical or social context, but language is used in
order to establish and then change the nature of the relationship between A and B and the
nature of the activity type in which they are participating.. In other words, context cannot be
seen only as given, as something imposed from outside. The participants, by their use of
language, also contribute to making and changing their context.
5.5. Summary
Context may be seen:
P=
the Participants;
E=
Ends;
A=
Act sequence;
K=
Keys;
I=
Instrumentalities;
54
N=
Norms of interpretation;
G=
the Genre
Allowable contributions;
Thats right. But then, theres a difference between that and what your um
ultimate sort of social if you like purpose or objective is in the encounter.
Okay? Now, would there bewould there be a further subdivisionI
mean thats a question, would there be a further subdivision between, as it
were tactical goal-sharing and long-term goal-sharing and would the
tactical goal-sharing be equivalent to what were calling observance of
the conventions of the language game or not? Because it did seem to me
55
when I was reading this that I could see the difference you were drawing
between linguistic cooperation and goal-sharing but I wondered whether
there wasnt a further sub-division within goal-sharing between the
tactical and the strategic?
B:
Okay well/
A:
B:
Extract 2
A:
B:
Mm and I snapped off his flyou know how I fidget when Im nervous
and there was this orrible looking thing and I thought it was a spider on
the end of a cobweb and I snapped it off and apparently hed been
nurturing it in his breast for about two years.
A:
B:
A:
B:
Really?
A:
In the last week yeah weve had all our plants knocked off.
B:
A:
Here.
B:
Really?
A:
Mustve been stolen from here and the Institute and the Literature
56
Department.
B:
A:
B:
Yes. You wouldntve if it had happened to you. And and I thought all
that remains is for me drawers to fall down and my happiness is complete.
Well the lecture went very well indeed and er there was him there was a
man called somebody or other Charles or Charles somebody.
A:
B:
And he said hes got a good friend in Finland and apparently she heard
this lecture I gave over there. Shes doing her bloody PhD on it.
A:
Is she?
B:
A:
57
6.1. Introduction
In this teaching unit we shall look at gatekeeping encounters, more specifically
selection interviews as activity types. The focus will be practical, starting with
the identification of some features of selection interviews as an activity type, with
the aim of exemplifying troubles in the interaction between participants coming
from different cultural backgrounds. It is based on research that has been done and
is being done on institutional interaction.
6.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT FIVE students will be able to:
get familiar with the concept of gatekeeping encounters
get familiar with empirical research on intercultural gatekeeping encounters
know the features of job/selection interviews
practise job/selection interviews
58
6. 3. Gatekeeping encounters
Gatekeeping encounter is a term that has been first used by Erickson and Shultz (1982) in
their research on counseling interviews in academic advising. Gatekeepers have been
identified as individuals who have been given the authority to make decisions on the behalf of
institutions that will affect the mobility of others. Examples of gatekeeping encounters are:
Job interviews
Legal trials
Counselling sessions
Selection interviews (interviews involving the selection of applicants for training courses)
Because gatekeeping encounters have been seen as critical for the institution in controlling
access and mobility and critical for the individual in determining major aspects of life
experience, many institutional and legal constraints have been placed on their operation.
These encounters are designed to be as objective as possible.
However, most of the studies of intercultural gatekeeping encounters have shown that
differences in expectations about the event (the structure of the activity type) may result in
negative outcome for the applicant.
A selection interview can be analysed as an activity type with specific norms and rolerelationships which are different from those of, say, casual conversation. Here are some
typical characteristic features of selection interviews, according to Verschueren (1999:153)
The interlocutors are typically one interviewee and one or more interviewers. The goal of
selection interviews is to assess the candidates potential for the training course on the
basis of educational qualifications and previous work experience. The interviewers
questions therefore focus on two specific things: background information about the
applicants education and work experience, and his/her motivation for applying for the
course
59
The interviewee comes to the interview with the intention to present him/herself in such a
way as to maximise chances of being selected. The interviewers goal is to elicit the
information needed to take the decision
One of the central features is their scheduled nature: interviews, unlike casual
conversation, are arranged at certain times and places and the interviewers come to the
interview with a pre-set agenda
The social context is asymmetrical, with an amount of power on the part of the
interviewer, i.e. the interviewer legitimately establishing a right-to-know persona,
whereas the interviewee displays his or her abilities for judgement. In interethnic contexts,
aspects of cultural background may enter the picture as well.
Different types of temporal references are involved depending on the topical segment of
the interview. There is usually some talk about past events in the candidates educational
background, and an exploration of skills and attitudes.
Given that one of the goals of such interviews is to assess the suitability of the candidates for
the course applied for, it follows that the interviewers questions and the interviewees
answers should appear acceptable both in terms of content and the manner in which they are
presented.
In intercultural selection interview context interviewees are likely to face two major obstacles:
first, a lack of knowledge of the rules and procedures of the activity type; secondly a lack of
adequate linguistic knowledge (which will not be discussed here). We shall next look at the
case of dispreferred answers in selection interviews.
For example, the expected, or preferred answer to the typical question like Why do you want
to join this course?, would be for the interviewee to talk enthusiastically about the course
applied for, but with a certain amount of modesty. If the expectations of the interviewer about
the acceptable answer do not match the interviewees expectations we can talk about activitytype mismatches
In the following example, the Asian interviewee gives a dispreferred response (I stands for
the interviewer and J for Jalal, the Asian interviewee):
The answer provides no particular commitment on the candidates part (I dont know any job
about in England) and no reference to past experience as a strength (because I went
sometime in Pakistan). However, both statements appear to be true and correct.
The question is how do we, as analysts, detect the occurrence of dispreferred responses in
these interview situations? If we adopt a perspective of how the activity type of interview is
structured, we can assume that the simple factual questions give way to a series of other
questions designed to discover the underlying ability of the applicant for the course (job).
A possible guide is the interviewers reaction. For example, the interviewer changes or
abandons the topic to signal the dispreferred answer.
61
I: can you remember anything you did in physics is there anything that you
can remember electrical wires did you wire bulbs [unclear]
J: no [laughs] ten years ago I forgot everything
I: youve forgotten, I see, not likely to remember anything about it, yeah,
fair enough, let me see I wont question any longer with that erm do you
read anything eh like do you
J: yes yes
I: what sort of magazines you read
J: sometimes the telegraph
I: do you buy books on electric on electrical work?
J: no I dont.
(Sarangi, 1994)
If Jalal were to be admitted into an engineering course, he would need not only to have some
background in physics but also to display some knowledge of physics. Jalals response can be
seen as dispreferred, although honest and true. The interviewer drops the topic but
immediately afterwards introduces a topic about Jalals current reading habits, which is also
geared at finding out the interviewees commitment to gaining knowledge in the field of
physics. Once again Jalal misinterprets this question and provides information about his
general reading habits.
Another clue for detecting dispreferred answers on the part of the interviewee is that
interviewers may reformulate the initial question to force the interviewee to expand or
clarify the previous response until it passes as satisfactory. I stands for the interviewer and R
for the candidate.
62
I:
R:
yes I I like it
I:
R:
I:
why?
R:
I:
R:
I:
(Sarangi, 1994)
The above examples show how interviewers questions can be indirect and inexplicit with a
hidden agenda, thus offering no clue, initially as to what would count as preferred response.
A candidate who routinely participates in the interview game may be able to distinguish
between what is asked and what is intended and thus focus on the interviewers intended
question.
63
64
I:
R:
I:
R:
I:
R:
(Sarangi, 1994)
The question about wages recurs as a fairly common theme in these interviews. The
preferred answer in this respect would be the candidates awareness of the exact amount
he/she will be paid if successful. R. seems to have no idea, but he chooses to provide a lighthearted response. The interviewer does not share his laughter, but, instead, shows irritation at
Rs reply. As a result, the interview at this point appears to be conversational.
For example, in the following example SN, an Asian, is being interviewed for a librarian
position by a panel of three British interviewers. At this point in the interview NS is asked a
typical question about duties in his present job:
65
I:
you say youre very busy in your present job, what exactly do you do, I
mean what are your duties day by day?
SN:
well, weve to receive the visitors, show them around and then we have to
go out er to the factories you know, sometimes to attend the classes, how
to do er cataloguing classification
(Gumperz, 1984)
The interviewers question has a two-fold function, but SN chooses to focus on one aspect
what exactly do you do-, although he moves to answer the second question (what are your
duties day by day) rather marginally. This raises the question whether SNs reply is relevant
or satisfactory from the interviewers point of view. (Note that the interviewers question is
a conflation of two different questions).
According to Gumperz, SNs answer moves from general, irrelevant information, to more
specific, relevant information. This is a clear indication of Asians speakers different ways of
structuring an argument. Gumperz argues that, at a rhetorical level, it is a characteristic for
Asian speakers to begin a response in a general way since a more direct answer is considered
by them to be rather impolite. In other words, here is a case of Asian speakers different ways
of structuring information, and an example of the clash between two conflicting norms: the
British interviewer preferring a direct and relevant answer and the Asian interviewee opting
for an indirect and polite response.
From the above data it emerges that the activity-type allows us to be quite precise in
identifying sources of mismatch in intercultural selection interviews. However, Levinsons
framework puts the responsibility for the mismatch with the speaker who deviates and thus
encourages analysts to cast mismatches in terms of ignorance of the rules of the game.
Gumperzs alternative framework seems to be more culturally sensitive.
66
Analyse the following transcripts from selection interviews taken by two Native
speakers of English (NS1 and NS2) two Romanian interviewers (RI1, RI2), to
Romanian candidates (RC) for a post graduate course on social work. (source:
Coposescu, PhD thesis). You may want to look specifically for dispreferred
answers and sources of activity-type mismatches:
I.
NS1: had you expected, if you got a place on this course that you go abroad, for
practice? on placement? are you familiar?
RC3:
if I like to go?
NS3:
mhm
RC3:
NS1:
RC3:
RC3:
NS1:
RC3:
RI2:
RC3:
improve my English?
I think my English will be improved through the discussions,
Ill be more motivated er to to learn at home. I have some books.
NS1:
if if it wasnt possible to offer you a place this year, on this particular course,
what would you do?
RC3:
NS1:
RC3:
NS1:
RI1:
no
RI2:
no if
NS1:
if if if if
67
RC3:
yes, I understand
RI2:
RC3:
NS1:
yes, yes
RC3:
RI2:
II.
you work only er eight hours? start with eight until four?
RC3:
I dont understand
RI2:
RC3:
yes.
RI2:
not more?
RC3:
RI1:
III
NS2: if you were the mayor of Brasov,
RC5: if I were ?
NS2: the mayor of Brasov,
RC5:
ah, yes.
IV.
NS1:
68
office
RC3:
69
6.6. Summary
Gatekeeping encounters have been identified as individuals who have been given
the authority to make decisions on the behalf of institutions that will affect the
mobility of others.
Typical features of selection interviews as activity types:
The goal of selection interviews is to assess the candidates potential for the
training course on the basis of educational qualifications and previous work
experience.
70
___________________________________________________________________________
7.1. Introduction
Institutional talk is centrally and actively involved in the accomplishment of the
institutional nature of institutions themselves. Conversation Analysis has
developed a distinctive means of locating participants displayed orientations to
the institutional contexts. This is done by adopting a broadly comparative
perspective in which the turn-taking system for mundane conversation is treated as
the benchmark against which other forms of talk-in-interaction can be
distinguished.
7.2. Competences
On completion of UNIT SIX students will be able to:
understand the concept of institutional talk
identify elements that constitute institutional talk
apply the concept to the analysis of talk-in-interaction
use the language appropriately to different institutional contexts
71
Lets remember
In its most basic sense, CA is the study of talk. More particularly, it is the
systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday situations of human
interaction: talk-in-interaction (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998).
Conversation as a discourse type has been defined by Cook (1989) in the
following way:
1. It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task.
2. Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended.
3. The number of participants is small.
4. Turns are quite short.
5. Talk is primarily for the participants and not for an outside audience.
Although the field has adopted the name conversation analysis, practitioners do
not engage solely in the analysis of everyday conversations. The range of forms
of talk-in-interaction that have been the subject to study within CA is far larger
than the term conversation alone would imply.
Two basic types of institutions have been defined (cf. Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998). They are
described as:
1) formal types represented by courts of law, many kinds of interview, especially the
broadcast news interviews, but also some job interviews, some traditional or teacher-led
styles of classroom teaching, and most forms of ceremonial occasions.
72
But the question-answer pre-allocation format is only a minimal characterisation of the speech
exchange system. In other words, any range of actions may be done in a given turn, provided
that they are done in the form of a question-answer. Lets take as example the transcript of a
rape trial taken from Levinson (1992):
A:
B:
Yes.
A:
B:
Not many.
A:
Several?
B:
Yes.
A:
B:
No.
A:
Just one?
B:
Two.
73
A:
B:
As we see the defense attorney (A) and the alleged rape victim (B) restrict themselves to
producing questions and answers, and by this restriction of turn-taking beahviour, we gain a
powerful sense of context simply through the details of their talk.
However, the questions asked by A are of a particular type. They are not real questions
(according to Searle), which are designed to inform the questioner about something which
he/she does not know; neither exam questions (Searle) which are designed to test the
answerers knowledge about something which the questioner already knows. Rather they are
designed to get B to admit to something: namely, to having had sexual intercourse with
several men at the age of seventeen and a half. By these means the questions are designed to
construct a certain social image of B: as a woman with loose morals'.
One of the most significant implications for the specifically institutional character of actions
in formal settings, of the pre-allocated format is the fact that powerful constraints operate to
restrict the distribution of rights to express a personal opinion on the matter being discussed.
In courtrooms and broadcast news, questioners are required to avoid stating their opinions
overtly; rather their task is to elicit the stance, opinion, account of the one being questioned.
This is because in both settings talk is intended to be heard principally by an audience: the
jury in the trial court and the public in broadcast news.
Here are some strategies that have been found to be currently used by questioners to
undermine these constraints:
constructing a negative social image of the witness (as in the example above)
The studies on formal institutional talk have illustrated that formal institutional interactions
involve specific and significant narrowing of the range of options that are operative in
conversational interactions.
According to Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998), more common are institutional settings where the
interaction is less formally structured and talk appears more conversational than courtroom
or interview talk. Certainly, if we count the number of questions asked by professionals and
by clients in such settings, we find that professionals ask by far the most, and often clients ask
virtually no questions. But unlike in formal settings, there is no norm that says one person
must ask questions and the other must answer. So, there are other aspects of talk to be
located in order to see where the orientations to context emerge.
For example, Frankel (1984) observes that while there is no institutionalized constraint
against patients asking questions and initiating new topics, overwhelmingly these two
activities are undertaken by doctors and not by patients. His analysis reveals that this
asymmetry emerges from two tacitly negotiated features of the talk:
75
Patients themselves orient to and reproduce this asymmetry when they seek to offer
additional information to the doctor. This information is offered almost exclusively in
turns which are responses to doctors questions.
Here is an example (taken from Fairclough, 1992:145-146) where this withholding is even
done when the patient has an opportunity to respond through the doctor leaving a gap
following the announcement of diagnosis:
(Physical examination)
1
Dr:
2
3
Yeah.
(0.3)
Dr:
Thats shingles.
(1.2)
Dr:
(0.6)
Pt:
Shingles.
Dr:
Yes.
76
Notice that the diagnosis is produced over a series of turns alternating with pauses, in which
there is no response from the patient other than a single-word repetition of the doctors
conclusion.
Another example is the going first and the going second in an argument. Thus, a basic
structural feature of talk radio calls (in which callers introduce topics or issues on which
they propose opinions) is linked to the differences in power between hosts and callers. The
principal activity in these interactions is that of argument. Callers offer opinions on issues
and hosts then debate those opinions, frequently taking up opposing stances in the process.
77
Find one example of an argument talk-in-interaction and notice if the going first
and the going second power asymmetry applies to your data.
On talk radio this asymmetry is built into the overall structure of calls. Callers are expected,
and may be constrained, to go first with their line, while the host systematically gets to go
second. The fact that hosts systematically have the first opportunity for opposition within calls
thus opens to them argumentative resources which are not available in the same way to
callers. These resources are powerful, in the sense that they enable the host to constrain callers
to do a particular kind of activity to produce defensive talk.
Examples of resources for power are the class of utterances including So? or Whats that got
to do with it? , as in the following case of a caller complaining about the number of mailed
requests for charitable donations she receives:
Caller: I have got three appeals letters here this week. (0.4) All askin for
donations. (0.2) . Two from those that I always contribute to anyway.
Host: Yes?
Caller: But I expect to get a lot more.
Host: So?
Caller: Now the point is there is a limit /to
/Whats that
78
As an argumentative move, the So achieves two things. First it challenges the relevance of
the callers complaint within the terms of her own agenda (that charities represent a form of
psychological blackmail). Second, because it stands alone as a complete turn, it requires the
caller to take the floor again and account for the relevance of her remark.
The discursive power of the host emerges here (cf. Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998) not out of a
pre-allocated question-answer format (because the turn-taking is much more conversational
than in courtroom, for instance), but as a result of the way calls are structured overall. (the
callers must begin by taking up a position means that argumentative resources are distributed
asymmetrically between host and caller).
The important thing to bear in mind is that one should not seek to treat power as a monolithic,
one-way process. The exercise of powerful discursive resources can always be resisted by a
recipient. For example, Drew discusses how witnesses utilize resources that are available for
evading or challenging the strategic implications to be detected in attorneys questioning.
Hutchby (1998) shows how callers may resist the second position challenges of hosts in
numerous ways.
Look at the following two extracts from two different medical interviews and see
in what ways they are different.
I
Doctor:
Patient:
79
D:
P:
yeah
It I think it like If you take a needle
and stick / ya right theres a pain right here /
D:
/ hm
/ hm hm
P:
and and then it goes from here on this side to this side.
D:
P:
D:
Yeah
P:
D:
How How
Soon after you eat?
P:
D:
/ About an hour?
P:
D:
P:
Ho ho uh Yes
Especially the carbonation and the alcohol.
D:
P:
D:
P:
D:
80
P:
At night.
D:
P:
D:
P:
II
P:
but she really has been very unfair to me. Got /no
D:
/ hm
P:
D:
P:
D:
respect for me /at all and I think. Thats one of the reasons
/hm
why I drank so /much you /know and
/ hm
/ hm are you
You back are you back on it have you started drinking /again
P:
/ no
D:
P:
D:
P:
/ yes
hm
may do coz..she doesnt like the way Ive been she has
Turned me o/ before and em she said that
D:
P:
/ hm
I could she thought that it might be possible for m
me to go to a council / flat
D:
P:
81
/hm
mothers got to sign a whole /lot of things and
D:
P:
D:
P:
/ hm
she said its difficult / and em theres no rush over
/ hm
it. I I dont know whether. I mean one thing they say in
AA is that you shouldnt change anything for a year.
D:
82
7.6. Summary
Institutional talk is defined in opposition to mundane conversation which is the
benchmark against which any other type of talk is defined;
There are two types of institutions: formal and non-formal.
the going first and the going second in an argument: those who go first are
in a weaker position than those who get to go second, since the latter can
argue with the formers position simply by taking it apart.
constructing a negative social image of the witness (as in the example above)
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coposescu, Liliana, 2002, The Construction of Meaning in the Interaction between Native
Speakers of English and Romanians(cap. 5) Editura Universitatii Transilvania din
Brasov, ISBN 973-635-103-3;
______________Issues of Pragmatics, 2004 Edit. Universitii Transilvania din Braov,
ISBN 973-635-276-5;
Drew,Paul and Heritage, eds.1992 Talk at Work:Interaction in Institutional Settings, CUP
van Dijk,T.A., 1985, Handbook of Discourse analysis, London: Academic Press
Eggins,S.,&Slade,D.,Analysing Casual Conversation, Cassell
Gumperz, J., J., 1982, Discourse strategies, Cambridge University Press
Hutchby, I & Wooffitt, R, 1998, Conversation Analysis, Polity Press
Langford, Dvid, 1994, Analysing Talk, Macmillan
Levinson, Stephen, 1983, Pragmatics, CUP
Tannen,D., 1993, Framing in Discourse,OUP
Thomas,J., 1995, Meaning in Interaction,Longman
Verschueren, Jef, 1999, Understanding Pragmatics, Arnold, London
Yule, George, 1996, Pragmatics, OUP
84