Pragmática (2016)

Apunte Inglés
Universidad Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Grado Estudios Ingleses - 3º curso
Asignatura Pragmática
Año del apunte 2016
Páginas 26
Fecha de subida 17/03/2016
Descargas 7
Subido por

Descripción

Apuntes de la asignatura ' Pragmática' con la profesora María Ángeles Martínez Martínez

Vista previa del texto

PRAGMATICS 1 MARÍA MORENO PRAGMATICS UNIT 1: THE SCOPE OF PRAGMATICS.-CONTEXT OF SITUATION.-PARAMETERS OF THE CONTEXT OF SITUATION.-USEFUL TERMINOLOGY.
What is pragmatics? “Pragmatics is the study of meaning in relation to the context in which a person is speaking or writing. This includes, social, situational and textual context. It also includes background knowledge context, that is, what people know about each other and about the world. Pragmatics assumes that when people communicate with each other they normally follow some kind of cooperative principle: that is, they have a shared understanding od how they should cooperate in their communications. The ways in which people do this, however, varies across cultures. What may be a culturally appropriate way of saying or doing something in one culture may not be the same in another culture. The study of this use of language across cultures is called cross-cultural pragmatics.” (Paltridge 2012: 38) UNIT 2: THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE- GRICE’S MAXIMS. - FLOUTING AND VIOLATING THE MAXIMS. CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE.
THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE.
PRAGMATIC IMPLICATURE.
• “The action of implying a meaning beyond the literal sense of what is explicitly stated, for example saying the frame is nice and implying I don’t like the picture in it.” (Oxford online dictionary) • “[…] the notion of implicature […] provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean (in some general sense) more than what is actually ‘said’.” (Levinson 1987: 97) • e.g. A: “Has John arrived?” B. “There’s a red sports car parked outside.” • “[…] natural language expressions do tend to have simple, stable and unitary senses (in many cases anyway), but […] this stable semantic core often has an unstable, context-specific pragmatic overlay— namely a set of implicatures.” (Levinson 1987: 99) INFERENCE VS. IMPLICATURE.
• “[Inferences] reflect our ability to compute out of utterances in sequence the contextual assumptions they imply: the facts about the spatial, temporal and social relationships between participants, and their requisite beliefs and intentions in undertaking certain verbal exchanges.” (Levinson 1987: 49) • e.g., A: Will you come to my office with your son early tomorrow morning, before the meeting beings? B: OK.
• Implicature: Intended contextual meaning projected by Speaker.
• e.g., B: Can you spare a moment now to talk about my son’s application? PRAGMATICS 2 MARÍA MORENO A: Will you come to my office with your son early tomorrow morning, before the meeting begins? B: OK GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE.
• Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage in which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
• The Cooperative Principle is based on the assumption that language users try to cooperate in the construction of meaning for an utterance, and that all utterances, no matter how weird, have an intended meaning in a particular context of situation.
GRICE’S MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION.
• Basic rational considerations guiding a cooperative use of language to communicate meaning.
• Four maxims: Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner .
• The Maxim of Quality 1. Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically: -Do not say what you believe to be false -Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence • The Maxim of Quantity 1.
2.
• Make your contribution as informative as is required for the purposes of the exchange.
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required The Maxim of Relevance 1. Make your contributions relevant • The Maxim of Manner 1.
2.
3.
4.
Avoid obscurity Avoid ambiguity Be brief Be orderly CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE (1).
a) Standard implicatures: Those which arise from the assumption that the maxims are being observed, E.g.
(1) A: How did Harry fare at court the other day? B: Oh, he got a fine.
(2) Open the door PRAGMATICS 3 MARÍA MORENO (3) Walk up to the door, turn the door handles clockwise as far as it will go, and then pull gently towards you (4) A: I’ve run out of petrol B: There’s a garage round the corner CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE (2) b) Implicatures derived from not following the maxims: People do not always follow these guidelines, e.g., A: What if Brazil blockades the Caribbean? B: Oh, come on! The US rules the Caribbean seas.
• In these cases (which are very frequent), “we try to interpret B’s utterance a nevertheless cooperative at some deeper (not superficial) level.” (Levinson 1987: 102), so we wonder what connection there may be between A’s question and B’s answer.
NOT OBSERVING THE MAXIMS (1) • Flouting the maxims: Overtly exploiting them for some communicative purpose e.g. (1) Mister Brown produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to an aria from Rigoletto .
- Mister Brown sang an aria from Rigoletto.
(2) Boys will be boys • Violating the maxims: Non-overtly infringing them so as to misguide the listener: “pragmatic misleading” e.g., lies, half-truths, misguiding assertions in trials, interrogations or or police statements.
• Infringing the maxims: Failing to observe a maxim with no intention to deceive, eg., when a speaker does not have the linguistic capacity to answer a question.
NOT OBSERVING THE MAXIMS (2) • Opting out of a maxim: e.g. “where the speaker may, for ethical or legal reasons, refuse to say something that breaches a confidentiality agreement that they have with someone or is likely to incriminate them in some way.” (Paltridge 2012: 47) e.g. (Paltridge 2012: 46) A newly-arrived American student stops a Chinese student in the street and asks for directions to the train station. As they walk down the road together, they engage in this exchange: Ch: What do you do in America? Am: I work in a bank.
Ch: It’s a good job, isn’t it? Am Well, just so.
PRAGMATICS 4 MARÍA MORENO Ch: How much is your salary every month? Am: Oh no.
Ch: What’s wrong? Am: Why are you asking that? Ch: Just asking, nothing else… Am: The station isn’t far, isn’t it? The American student quickly hails a taxi and takes it to the station.
PROPERTIES OF IMPLICATURES (1) • Criteria proposed to distinguish conversational implicatures from other pragmatic/semantic phenomena, such as entailments and conventional implicatures.
• Entailment: A semantic relationship that applies between two sentences, where the truth of one “entails” the truth of the other because of the core lexical properties of the words involved .
1. John killed the waspThe wasp died .
2.
3.
a. John didn’t manage to go to the party b. John tried to go to the party a. John didn’t go to the party b. John tried to go to the party • Conventional implicatures: non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning which are always conventionally attached to specific linguistic forms, such as but, and, even, therefore, or yet.
• “These differences are part of the meanings of certain linguistic forms, and if these forms are used without the intention of carrying the meaning, then they are being misused.” (Cruse 2000: 350): E.g.
1. She picked her things and left the room (Chronological sequence).
2. She was a girl but intelligent (What is conventionally implied by but here is that girls are not intelligent) 3. They were poor but honest ( Poor people are not honest) PROPERTIES OF IMPLICATURES (2) CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE “An expression with a single meaning (i.e. expressing the same proposition) can give rise to different conversational implicatures in different contexts.” e.g. (1) A: Have you brushed your teeth and washed your hands? B: I’ve brushed my teeth (but not my hands).
(2) A: Would you like another biscuit? B: I’ve brushed my teeth. (I don’t want another biscuit).
PRAGMATICS 5 MARÍA MORENO DEFEASIBILITY/CANCELLABILITY Conversational implicatures can be cancelled by adding some additional premises to the original ones.
E.g. A: Have you brushed your teeth and washed your hands? B: I’ve brushed my teeth. Look at my hands. (I have brushed my teeth and I have washed my hands.) NON DETACHABILITY The implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to its linguistic form, and so “implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance.” e.g. (1) A: It’s a little cold in here, isn’t it? B: Shall I close the window? (2) A: Don’t you feel cold? B: Shall I close the window? CALCULABILITY  • This allows distinguishing conversational implicatures from individual agreements such as passwords.
The calculation is based on the Cooperative Principle and the observation or non-observation of the maxims.
MAXIM CLASHES.
• Sometimes observing a maxim may involve violating another, as in: A: How are you today? B: Just fine.
LIMITATIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE.
• Maxim overlap • Intercultural pragmatics 1. After a job interview: “We’ll call you in a couple of weeks.” (Flouting Quality in some cultures).
2. How are you? Fine (Flouting Quantity in some cultures).
3. Shall I pick you up at the airport? Well, it’s not really necessary. ( Floating Quality ) 4. At a job interview in Britain, Indian candidate: Interviewer: Have you any experience with computers? Candidate: Yes ( Floating Quantity) ENTAILMENT, PRESUPPOSITION, IMPLICATURE.
• Implicature: Speaker’s intended meaning.
PRAGMATICS 6 • MARÍA MORENO Inference: Hearer’s interpretation of meaning.
LOGICAL ENTAILMENT.
• “A sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one is also true, in all circumstances.” e.g. 1. a. I killed him.
b. He is dead.
2. a. I have a car.
b. I have a vehicle.
• Entailments cannot be denied without semantic inconsistency, that is, they are truth-conditional.
e.g. 3. I killed him and he is not dead.
PRAGMATIC INFERENCE.
1. Presupposition 2. Implicature: • Conversational  Generalized, particularized.
 Conventional PRESUPPOSITION.
• A presupposition is a condition that has to be fulfilled if a sentence is to make sense as a statement, order, etc.
e.g. 4. A. My brother likes dogs.
b. I have a brother.
5. A. It was Pete that broke the vase.
b. Someone broke a vase/The vase is broken.
• Presuppositions are not cancelled by negation.
e.g. 6 .My brother doesn’t like dogs. (Presupposition: I have a brother) 7. It was Pete who broke the vase. (Presupposition: Someone broke a broken).
vase/The vase is CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE.
• Conversational implicatures are contextual meanings attached to Speakers’ observance or nonobservance of Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Maxims, PRAGMATICS 7 MARÍA MORENO e.g. (8) a. Can you spare a moment? b. My train leaves at 10.00.
Conversational implicature is context-bound, i.e., if it is 9.00, the implicature is that a. can spare a moment, but if it is 9.55, then the implicature is probably that he can’t.
GENERALIZED vs PARTICULARIZED IMPLICATURES • A particularized conversational implicature is one which depends on particular features of the context, as in the first example above. The proposition “My train leaves at 10.00” in example (8) would ordinarily not convey anything about my being able to spare a minute, so the implicature in this case depends on the context.
• A generalized conversational implicature is one which does not depend on particular features of the context, but is instead typically associated with the proposition expressed.
e.g. (9) I saw a car. (i.e., an unidentified car, one I did not recognize) Here are some (relatively) clear examples of generalized conversational implicatures: - ‘‘Fred thinks there is a meeting tonight’’ - Fred doesn't know for sure that there is a meeting - "Mary has 3 children." - Mary has no more than three children.
CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES Conventional implicatures are inferences that are not based on logical semantics, but which “are simply attached by convention to some linguistic items or expressions” (Levinson 1983: 127 E.g. it’s a sunny day but cold. (Conventional implicature: Sunny days are not usually cold) • This is neither lexically derived from “but,” not conversationally tied to the specific context of utterance.
UNIT 3: SPEECH ACTS –LOCUTIONARY AND ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE-DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTSAUSTIN’S AND SEARLE’S APPROACHES.
 Which of these sets of terms would you say refer to a) grammatical categories? SET 1 b) situational functions? SET 2 SET 1 SET 2 declarative statement interrogative question imperative command PRAGMATICS 8 MARÍA MORENO FORM-FUNCTION PROTOTYPICAL RELATIONSHIP Declarative functions as statement (Birds make nests) Interrogative functions as a question (Is the water warn enough?) Imperative functions as a command (Put those books on the floor) SPEECH ACTS  Step 1: Two kinds of statement: a) constative and b) performative: A) Describe something as true or false B) Denote an action ( Order). Something that act upon people and change them.
CONSTANTIVE: The earth revolves round the sun / Lessons start at 9:30 PERFORMATIVE: I declare you husband and wife / I bet you 10$ the train won’t be on time.
Performatives cannot be said to be true or false. Uttering them is a part of the doing of an action, apart from just saying. Rather than true or false, performatives are felicitous or infelicitous.
Felicity conditions for a performative 1. Accepted conventional procedure 2. Appropriate persons and circumstances 3. Procedure executed properly by all 4. Procedure executed completely 5. Participants must mean what they are doing 6. Participants must subsequently conduct themselves accordingly In other words, authoritative, understood, clear and able to be executed.
Infelicitous performatives - MISFIRES: the action is not complete or something is missing (Breach of conditions 1 to 4) - ABUSES, the action is insincerely carried out (Breach of conditions 5 or 6) MISFIRE.
-Somebody who is not an authorized person conducting a marriage ceremony (priest) will violate condition.
-If a judge utters ‘I sentence you to life imprisonment’ not in court but in a restaurant.
-A promise is usually issued in relation to some future act.
ABUSE.
-Making a promise with no intention to fulfill it.
-Apologizing without regret, just to obtain a benefit or avoid punishment.
-Think of perlocutionary effects regarding these two cases of infelicitous performatives.
EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT PERFORMATIVES Explicit performatives contain a performative verb (I order you to stay here) PRAGMATICS 9 MARÍA MORENO Implicit performatives don’t (Stay here) The inserted performative verb makes the illocutionary force explicit. Otherwise, the utterance might function as a warning, an order, a request, or a piece of advice, depending on the context of situation, e.g. I advise you to stay here / I beg you to stay here LOCUTION, ILLOCUTION, PERLOCUTION - Locutionary force: ‘speaking in the usual sense’, the utterance of a sentence in which the grammatical formsituational function relation is prototypical (My class starts at five) - Illocutionary force: the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc. in uttering a sentence, by virtue of the ‘force’ associated to it .
e.g. A: Let’s go to the cinema this afternoon.
B: My class starts at five.
-Perlocutionary effect: the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence (Levinson 1987: 236), such effects being intended or unintended. If intended: UPTAKE. Internet: Consequent effect on the hearer which the speaker intends should follow from his utterance“.
SOME PERFORMATIVE VERBS IN ENGLISH.
abolish, accept, accuse, acknowledge, admit, advise, affirm, agree to, announce, answer, apologize, ask, assert, assume, authorize, baptize, beg, bet, christen, claim, command, compliment, congratulate, declare, demand, deny, describe, diagnose, disagree, excuse, forbid, grant, guess, hypothesize, implore, inform, instruct, name, notify, offer, order, permit, predict, prohibit, promise, question, recommend, refuse, reject, request, require, say, sentence, state, suggest, suppose, swear, tell, thank, urge, volunteer, warn.
-As performatives are seldom uttered using the above constructions, it does seem to be the case that most of the performatives in English are implicit.
SEARLE’S SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION Assertives These commit the Speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. They have a truth value and express Speaker’s belief.
Asserting, concluding, affirming, alleging, announcing, answering, attributing, claiming, classifying, concurring, confirming, conjecturing, denying, disagreeing, disclosing, disputing, identifying, informing, insisting, predicting, ranking, reporting, stating, stipulating.
Directives These speech acts are attempts the Speaker makes in order to get the addressee engage in a certain action.
They express Speaker’s wish that Hearer do A.
Requesting, questioning, advising, admonishing, asking, begging, dismissing, excusing, forbidding, instructing, ordering, permitting, requiring, suggesting, urging, warning Commisives These speech acts commit Speaker to some future course of action. Speaker expresses the intention to do A.
Promising, threatening, offering, agreeing, guaranteeing, inviting, swearing, volunteering.
Expressives PRAGMATICS 10 MARÍA MORENO Expressives express Speaker’s attitude to a certain state of affairs specified (if at all) in the propositional content; a variety of different psychological states; propositional content must be related to Speaker or Hearer.
Thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating, condoling, greeting, accepting.
Declarations These are Speech Acts which effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extralinguistic institutions.
Excommunicating, declaring war, christening, marrying, firing from employment.
EXAMPLE OF CONDITIONS IN SEARLE. PROMISING -Preparatory condition 1: • H would prefer S’s doing A to their not doing A.
• S believes H would prefer S’s doing A to not doing A.
– Preparatory condition 2: • It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events.
– Propositional condition: • In expressing that P, S predicates a future act A of S – Sincerity condition: • S intends to do A.
– Essential condition: • the utterance e counts as an undertaking to do A.
CRITICISM ON SEARLE’S MODEL .
Frequent overlaps Not all speech acts have propositional content, e.g., “Wow!” Difficult to account for hybrid or non-prototypical cases ENTAILMENT, PRESUPPOSITION, IMPLICATURE Implicature: Speaker’s intended meaning Inference: Hearer’s interpretation of meaning LOGICAL ENTAILMENT A sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one is also true, in all circumstances.
e.g. (1) a. I killed him.
b. He is dead.
Entailments cannot be denied without semantic inconsistency, that is, they are truth-conditional.
e.g., (3) I killed him and he is not dead.
UNIT 4: CONVERSATION ANALYSIS. – ADJACENCY PAIRS. –PREFERRED AND DISPREFERRED SECONDS. – REPAIR BASIC FEATURES OF CONVERSATIONAL SEQUENCES Turn –Taking PRAGMATICS 11 MARÍA MORENO One participant, A, talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and so we obtain an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talk across two participants.
Overlap: two speakers speaking simultaneously Turn-units: determined by linguistic features: - Syntax: sentences, clauses, phrases, etc.
- Prosody (stress, intonation) Transition-relevance place (TRP): a point at which speakers may change: - self-selection - turn allocation e.g ) A: Twelve pounds I think wasn’t it.= B: = //Can you believe it? L: Twelve pounds on the Weight Watchers’ scale Adjacency pairs Prototypically paired utterances such as: - question-answer - greeting-greeting - offer-acceptance - apology - minimization With a first part and a second part .
PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION Second parts in an adjacency pair can be preferred or dispreferred: -Preferred seconds: unmarked -Dispreferred seconds: marked E.G) Child: Could you .hh could you put on the light for my .hh room Father: Yep E.G) A: Um I wondered if there’s any chance of seeing you tomorrow sometime (0.5) morning or before the seminar B: Ah um (.) I doubt it A: Uhm huh B: The reason is I’m seeing Elizabeth MARKING DISPREFERRED SECONDS a) A significant delay b) Some preface marking their dispreferred status, often the particle well c) some account or reason why the preferred second cannot be performed REPAIR PRAGMATICS 12 MARÍA MORENO Self-initiated self-repair A: She was giving me all the people that were gone this year I mean this quarter you know B: Yeah Other initiated self-repair A: Have you ever tried a clinic? B: What? A: Have you ever tried a clinic? Self-initiated other repair A: Your name is Carm… (0.7) B: Carma.
Other-initiated other repair A: Lissena pigeons B: Quail, I think Pre-sequences PRE-REQUEST Ch: Mummy (SUMMONS) M: Yes dear (ANSWER) Ch: I want a cloth to clean the windows (REQUEST) PRE-INVITATION A: Whatcha doin’? (QUESTION) B: Nothin’ (ANSWER) A: Wanna drink? (INVITATION) UNIT 5: POLITENESS AND FACE – FACE THREATENING ACTS. –LINGUISTIC REDRESS. –INTERACTIONAL FACEWORK. –CONNECTEDNESS AND SEPARATENESS.
S= SPEAKER; H= ADRESEE; S and H are MPs All MPs have positive and negative faces, and all MPs are rational agents.
Given that face consists in a set of wants satisfiable only by the actions of others, it will in general be to the mutual interest of both MPs to maintain each other face. So S will want to maintain H’s face unless he can get H to maintain S’s without recompense, by coercion, trickery … Some acts intrinsically threaten face: this face threatening acts will be named as FTAs Unless S wants to do a FTA with maximum efficiency is greater than S’s want to preserve H’s face to any degree, then S will want to minimize the face threat of the FTA.
The more the act threatens S or H’s face, the more the H will want to choose a higher- numbered strategy; this by virtue of the fact that these strategies afford payoffs of increasingly minimized risk.
CIRCUNSTANCES DETERMINING CHOICE OF STRATEGY PRAGMATICS 13 MARÍA MORENO ESTIMATION OF RISK OF FACE LOSS GREATER: Don’t do FTA Without redressive action, baldly On record LESSER: Do FTA with redressive action off record positive politeness Negative politeness FACE: The public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in: a) Negative face: The basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction.
b) Positive face: The positive consistent self-image or personality claimed by interacts.
Face is something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
The content of face will differ in different cultures , we are assuming that the mutual knowledge of members ‘public self image or face , and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction , are universal .
Face can be, and routinely, is ignored, not just in cases of social breakdown but also in cases or urgent cooperation or in the interest s of efficiency.
Negative face: The want of every ‘competent adult member ‘that his actions be unimpeded by others.
Positive face: The want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.
RATIONALITY Application of a specific mode of reasoning – what Aristotle called practical reasoning- which guarantees inferences from ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends.
INTRINSIC FTAs Given these assumptions of the universality and rationality, it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face, namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/of the speaker. By ‘act’ we have in mind what is intended to be done by a verbal or non-verbal communication. . Just as one or more speech acts can be assigned to an utterance.
FIRST DISTINCTION : KINDS OF FACE THREATENED We may make a first distinction between acts that threaten negative face and those that threaten positive face.
Those acts that primarily threaten the addressee’s negative face (H) want, by indicating that the speaker (S) does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action, include: 1-Those acts that predicate some future act of H and in so doing put some pressure on H to do the act: -Orders and requests (S indicates that the wants H to do, or refrain from doing something) -Suggestions or advices (S indicates that that he thinks H ought to do some acts) -Reminding (S indicates that H should remember to some something) -Threats, warning, dares (S indicates that he – or someone or something-will instigate sanctions against H unless he does something) PRAGMATICS 14 MARÍA MORENO 2-Those acts that predicate some positive future acts of S towards H, and in so doing put some pressure on H to accept or reject them.
-Offers -Promises (S commits himself to a future act for H’s belief) 3-Those acts that predicate some desire of S toward H or H’s goods, giving H reasons to think that he may have to take actions to protect the objects of S’s desire, or give it to S: -Compliments, expressions of envy or admirations (S indicates that he likes or would like something of H’s) -Expression of strong (negative) emotions towards H- e.g.) Hatred, anger, lust (S indicates possible motivation for harming H or H’s goods).
Those acts that threaten the positive face want, by indicating that the speaker does not care about the addressee‘s feelings, wants, …- that in some important respect he doesn’t want H’s wants include: 1-Those that show that S has a negative evaluation of some aspect of H’s positive face.
-Expression of disapproval, criticism, contempt or ridicule, complaints and reprimands, accusations, insults.
-Contradictions or disagreement, challenges 2- Those that show that S doesn’t care about (or is indifferent to) H’s positive face.
-Expressions of violent (out of control) emotions (S gives H possible reasons to fear him or be embarrassed by him).
-Irreverence, mention of taboo topics, including those which are inappropriate in the context.(H doesn’t value H’s values and doesn’t fear H’s fears) -Bringing of bad news about H or good news about S. (S indicates that he is willing to cause distress to H and doesn’t care about H’s feelings) -Raising of dangerously or divisive topics. E.G: Politics, race, religion, women liberation … -Blatant non-cooperation in an activity – Disruptively interrupting H’s talk, showing no attention… -Use of address terms and other status-marked identifications in initial encounters (S may misidentify H in an offensive or embarrassing way, intentionally or accidentally).
Note that there is an overlap in this classification of FTAs, because some FTAs intrinsically threaten both negative and positive face.
SECOND DISTINCTION: THREATS TO H’S FACE vs THREATS TO S’s.
We may distinguish between acts that primarily threaten H’s face and those that threaten primarily S’s face. To the extent that S and H are cooperating to maintain face, the latter FTAs also potentially threaten H’s face. FTAs that are threatening to S include: 1-Those that offend S’s negative face: PRAGMATICS 15 MARÍA MORENO -Express thanks -Acceptance of H’s thanks or H’s apology -Excuses -Acceptance of offers -Unwilling promises and offers Those that directly damage S’s positive face: -Apologies (S indicates that he regrets doing a prior FTA, damaging his own face to some degree) -Acceptance of compliments (May feel constrained to compliments) -Breakdown of physical control over body. E.g. – Falling down -Self-humiliation, acting stupid, self contradicting… -Confessions, admission of guilt or responsibility -Non control of laughter and tears… STRATEGIES FOR DOING FTA In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seek to avoid these face-threatening acts, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat. In other words, he will take into consideration the relative weightings of at least three wants: a. The want to communicate the content of the FTA b. The want to be efficient or urgent c. The want to maintain H’s face to any degree Unless b is greater than c, S will want to minimize the threats of his FTA.
DEFINITIONS On record: In doing an act if it is clear to participants what communicative intention led the author to do something.
Off record: There is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent. For instance if I say to I have no money, I may be intending you to lend me some.
Baldly, without redress: Involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible. E.g: In a request, say Do X! Redressive actions: Action that gives face to the addressee, that is, that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired, and that S in general recognizes H’s face wants and himself wants them to be achieved.
Positive politeness: Oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself. It anoints the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S wants H’s wants.
Negative politeness: Oriented mainly toward partially satisfying H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination.
PRAGMATICS 16 MARÍA MORENO UNIT 6: INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS DISSONANCE: “Any circumstance in which speakers, deliberately or not, organize the linguistic action in such a way that hearers perceive it as grammatical but conflicting with the harmonious flow of the conversation.” UNINTENTIONAL , INTERCULTURAL DISSONANCE Causes: Speaker’s inadequate competence: -linguistic -pragmalinguistic -sociopragmatic -encyclopedic Effects: From annoyance to humor.
Pragmalinguistic dissonance: A question of highly conventionalized usage, which can be taught quite straightforwardly as ‘part of the grammar’.
E.g., when a speaker transfers speech acts or strategies from their native language that, although being syntactically and propositionally similar, have a different pragmatic force in the target language.
As in: A: Would you like a beer? B: No, thanks (Am. English = “No.”) (Korean = “I don’t want to disturb. Please insist.”) Socio-pragmatic dissonance: It involves the student’s system beliefs as much as his/her knowledge of the language,” concerning, e.g., the assessment of social distance, of what constitutes an imposition, evaluating relative power, rights, and obligations, etc.
As in: Japanese arigatoo (= Thank you) vs. Sumimasen (=Thanks/sorry + I owe you one) Both pragmalinguistic and socio-pragmatic dissonance usually stems from: a) Mis-assessing the illocutionary force – what is meant rather than what is said - of an utterance (both by as speakers and hearers) b) Mis-assessing and mis-reddressing a potential FTA (face-threatening act) c) Differences in cultural conceptualizations SPEECH ACTS, FACEWORK AND POLITENESS -Positive face: people’s need to be liked, approved of, and accepted as inmate -Negative face: people’s need to be respected, let alone, and allowed freedom of decision and action -FTA = face-threatening act -Weight of the imposition: Power + Distance + Rank PRAGMATICS 17 MARÍA MORENO -Politeness reddress: linguistic behavior that tries to mitigate speech acts that are perceived as threatening to Speaker’s and/or Hearer’s positive/negative face Some face-threatening speech acts across cultures: APOLOGIES -Face-saving for H + face-threatening for S (acknowledging an offense, expressing remorse, asking for forgiveness) Cultural variability: a) China: tendency to apologize for speech acts that threaten S’s positive face, like “I like your new car/dress.” b) Jordanian Arabic speakers’ tendency to use proverbs and sayings to ease S’s responsibility and to pacify the victim COMPLAINT (FTAs to negative face) Cultural variability: - Hebrew speakers use three moves - disapproval, complaint, and warning – depending on status: Lower status Ss Disapproval + complaint higher/equal status Ss complaint + warning - Fuck in complaints in team worker interaction in a New Zealand factory: to create solidarity to boost the FTA COMPLIMENTS Cultural variability: a) topics: - Western cultures: personal appearance, ability, performance, possessions - Egypt: personality - Poland: possession b) Structure (eg. Spanish males may upgrade compliments ironically) c) Lexical choice d) Functions and intent e) Response types, eg., Am. English rejections, downgrading, disagreement, particularly on ability (less on possessions or appearance) VS Chinese rejections of compliments on possessions and achievement (less on possessions), shifting credit to the complimenter .
CORRECTION Cultural variability: Americans tend to downplay status differences; Japanese don’t PROMISE Cultural variability: PRAGMATICS 18 MARÍA MORENO A) Western promise: associated to notions of sincerity and commitment B) African promise: related to politeness and cooperativeness REFUSAL Cultural variability: A) Germans concerned about pursuing own communicative goals effectively vs.
B) Koreans more mindful of showing respect for interlocutor’s social status and harmonious relationships C) Germans indifferent to children but communicating sympathy to intimates D) Japanese: very polite language to children but no expression of sympathy to intimates REQUEST Imposing on H’s course of action Cultural variability: A) Americans favour directness and clarity B) Koreans perceive directness and clarity as the least effective strategies C) Indian English: preparation + direct request D) Singaporean English: preparation + hint E) Chinese preference for on-record strategies, directness, and clarity F) Cubans: preference for positive politeness strategies CULTURAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS Language “viewed as deeply rooted in the ways in which different cultural groups conceptualize experiences of different kinds mainly through developing conceptual units such as ‘cultural schemas’, ‘cultural categories’, and ‘cultural metaphors.” SCHEMAS, CATEGORIES Schemas: Conceptual units that we use to store, organize, process, and predict information Categories: Conceptual networks used to organize the world around us, manifested in everyday metaphors like “Time is money” CULTURAL COGNITION= Group level, collective cognition: - “People from a particular cultural group ‘more or less’ share elements from a cultural schema…, ‘negotiated’ and ‘renegotiated’ across generations of people.” (Sharifian 2012: 314) eg. Aboriginal English in Australia: a) brother and other kinship terms b) “The land is me” vs. Australian English “The land is mine.” c) Sing, smoke = associated with spiritual experiences INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION PRAGMATICS 19 MARÍA MORENO “Intercultural communication occurs when a person from one culture sends a message to be processed by a person from a different culture.” UNDERSTANDING CULTURE CULTURE: - The totality of a “group’s thoughts, experiences, and patterns of behavior, and its concepts, values, and assumptions about life that guide behavior, and how those evolve with contact with other cultures.
-“Shared values, attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, norms, material objects, and symbolic resources” -“Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” CULTURAL GROUP  Nations  Organizations and institutions  Ethnic groups  Gender groups  Age groups  Occupational groups  Social classes CULTURE AND IDENTITY Our cultural identity is derived from our sense of “belonging” to a group with a shared set of cultural elements Belonging to a variety of groups Variety of identities Strong sense of group identity Ethnocentrism MEANINGS OF CULTURE -Culture as behaviour: “the ways people agree to behave, act, and respond” (clothing, food, architecture, tranportation, appearance, etc) -High culture: “the achievements of a society in terms of the most esteemed forms of literature, art, music” -Culture as ways of thinking: “modes of perception, beliefs, and values” -Culture as language: “the close link between culture and language” EDWARD HALL’S ICEBERG MODEL OF CULTURE PRAGMATICS 20 MARÍA MORENO OVERT CULTURE Easily changed (Culture as Easy to learn Behaviour) Covert culture often unobservable (Culture as way of Frequent unawareness thinking) ISHII’S MODEL OF CULTURE -Material layer: the most external, overt, and clothes, artifacts, etc.) visible -Behavioural layer: semi-overt layer composed verbal behaviours functioning as symbols and: of verbal and non- a) Controlling and operating the material (food, layer b) Reflecting the mental layer -Mental layer: the most internal and invisible, symbolically implied, but not explicit (cultural worldview answering “ultimate questions about humanity and the universe” (Mike 2012: 67), the supernatural and our relations to it) ATTITUDES TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION -Learning from cultures: attempts to “describe, interpret, and evaluate a different culture through the worldview that is derived from the culture -“We use the mental layer of the culture to understand its material and behavioural layers.” ELEMENTS OF CULTURE  SYMBOLS: verbal and non-verbal elements  RITUALS: socially essential collective activities within a culture  VALUES: widely shared feelings about what is good or bad, acceptable or non-acceptable  HEROES: real or imaginary people who serve as models of the culture’s values and behaviours  MYTHS: fictional stories representing cultural values and behaviours All these cultural elements are not genetic, but “learnt through interaction with others in the culture” UNDERSTANDING OTHER CULTURES “To begin to understand a culture, you need to understand all the experiences that guide its individual members through life” PRAGMATICS 21 - Language and gestures - Personal appearance - Social relationships - Religion, philosophy, and values - Courtship, marriage, and family customs - Food and recreation - Work, education, health, and transportation - Communication, government, and economic systems - Historical and literary heritage MARÍA MORENO “Our experience with and knowledge of other cultures are limited by the perceptual bias of our own culture” CULTURAL COMPONENTS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION PERCEPTION The process of selecting, organizing, and evaluating stimuli PATTERNS OF COGNITION - Northeast Asians: preference for holistic patterns - Westerners: preference for linear cause-effect patterns - eg., problem-solving - eg., business negotiations VERBAL BEHAVIOUR The need to use a shared language Tricky choice, because linguistic items may have different cultural meanings NON VERBAL BEHAVIOUR -gestures -facial expressions -eye-contact and gaze -posture and movement -touch - dress - silence - the use of space and time - objects and artifacts “What is appropriate and polite in one culture may be disrespectful or even insulting in another culture” CONTEXT OF SITUATION PRAGMATICS 22 MARÍA MORENO eg. Church services in Spanish Catholic churches and in African American congregations eg. Noise in Spanish or British public places like resaturants or cafés eg. Class interaction in the USA or in Japan DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE Edward T. Hall (1976): High/Low context cultures -High-context cultures: great amount of implicit information -Low-context cultures: nearly everything is explicit Geert H. Hofstede (1991): -High/Low power distance -Uncertainty avoidance -Individualism/Collectivism -Masculinity/Femininity -Long term/Short term orientation POWER DISTANCE The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and respect that power is distributed unequally.
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE “A society’s tolerance for ambiguity” (Hofstede 2012: 25) i.e. “to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations” (Hofstede 2012: 25) eg. Strict codes and laws versus tolerance of deviant behaviours and opinions INDIVIDUALISM vs COLLECTIVISM -The degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups.” (Hofstede 2012: 25) -High independence from families and within organizations -Strong mutual dependence and protection in families and organizations MASCULINITY vs FEMININITY Cultures that place high values on masculine traits stress assertiveness, competition, and material success. […] Cultures that place high value on feminine traits stress quality of life, interpersonal relationships, and concern for the weak.
LONG TERM/ SHORT TERM ORIENTATION Long term orientation “includes such values as thrift, persistence, having a sense of shame, and ordering relationships […] sense of commitment and organizational identity and loyalty.” CRITIQUE OF HOFSTEDE’S DIMENSIONS: SAINT JACQUES 2012 PRAGMATICS 23 MARÍA MORENO -“Different cultural values and practices may be internalized by people to different degrees”: high interpersonal variation -Variation in multiethnic societies -Respondents not representative of the culture (i.e. IBM workers or college students surveyed outside their country of origin) -Fixed sets of polar attributes, rather than a complex cline “Cultural comparisons should avoid stressing differences […] at the expense of those characteristic [a country] shares with other societies.” (Saint-Jaques 2012: 48) -Focus on commonalities, as cultures are dynamic and are constantly influencing each other -Nations are not culturally homogeneous, as different cultures co-exist at different levels (families, organizations, individuals, etc.
- Focus on the constant transformation of identities INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING The ability to understand the perceptions concerning one’s own culture and the perceptions of the people who belong to another culture, and the capacity to negotiate between the two.” (Saint-Jacques 2012: 52) Requirements: -Awareness of our perception of our own culture -Awareness of the culture of our interlocutors PRAGMATICS 24 MARÍA MORENO PRAGMATICS 25 MARÍA MORENO PRAGMATICS 26 MARÍA MORENO ...

Comprar Previsualizar