2.2 Theories of Pragmatics

Pragmatics，as a subfield of linguistics，was developed in the late 1970s. Yule（1996）argued that pragmatics is the study of meaning communicated by a speaker（or writer）and interpreted by a listener（or reader）. According to Levinson（2001），pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context，grammaticalized，or encoded in the structure of a certain language. Pragmatics is the systematic study of meaning dependent on，or by virtue of，the language use（Huang，2007）.

Generally speaking，pragmatics concerns how language users comprehend and produce a communicative act（speech act）in a conversation. It differentiates two meanings or intents in utterances or verbal communicative act of communication. One is regarded as the informative intent or the sentence meaning，and the other is understood as the communicative intent or speaker meaning（Leech，1983；Sperber & Wilson，1986）. The studies on pragmatics are rapidly growing in contemporary linguistics. Pragmatics has become not only a center of linguistics but also the philosophy of language（Huang，2007）. Many universally accepted principles in pragmatics are guiding people’s verbal communication and leading to the appropriateness in utterances and comprehension in languages.

2.2.1 Politeness and Face

Politeness is one of the major social constraints on interaction among people. It regulates human’s communicative behaviors by constantly reminding them of the feelings of others（He，2003）. It is important to take into consideration the feelings of others for achieving levels of mutual comfort and promote rapport in social relation. Politeness could bring acceleration and facilitation in human communication. The term “face” in the sense of a person’s social reputation was introduced into English in 1876（Seiwald，2011）. According to Goffman（1967），face is the positive feeling a person claims for himself/herself when others assume he/she has taken after a particular contact. Face is an image of self，built up through approved social attributes，which others may share when a person show himself/herself with his profession or religion.

Building on Goffman’s theory of identity and facework，Brown and Levinson（1978）further developed politeness theory and the concept face. The pragmatists’ major concern is why people do not tend to use simple and direct language，but rather complex and sometimes indirect phrases instead in a conversation，especially if a hearer has to be encouraged to conduct a particular act. The following sections are the detailed descriptions of politeness and face.

2.2.1.1 Politeness Principle

He（2003）argued that the politeness principle（PP）may be formulated with the concern of two aspects：to minimize the expressions of impolite beliefs and to maximize the expressions of polite beliefs. The two terms，“self” and “other”，are used in the maxims for the PP. Politeness concerns the relationship between two sides of a conversation. In a conversation，self is typically identified as the speaker and other is normally identified as the hearer，but other may also refer to a third party，present or absent. Leech（1983，p.132）formulated the PP and its maxims as follows.

1.Tact Maxim（in impositives and commissives）

a. Minimize cost to other；

b. Maximize benefit to other.

2.Generosity Maxim（in impositves and commissives）

a. Minimize benefit to self；

b. Maximize cost to self.

3.Approbation Maxim（in expressives and assertives）

a. Minimize dispraise of other；

b. Maximize praise of other.

4.Modesty Maxim（in expressives and assertives）

a. Minimize praise of self；

b. Maximize dispraise of self.

5.Agreement Maxim（in assertives）

a. Minimize disagreement between self and other；

b. Maximize agreement between self and other.

6.Sympathy Maxim（in assertives）

a. Minimize antipathy between self and other；

b. Maximize sympathy between self and other.

The PP explains why some utterances are more polite and others are less，or even violate the maxims. The following are some examples for each maxim，arranged from the most polite to the least，and the ones with “*” show the utterances which violate the maxims. However，the most polite utterance does not necessarily mean the most appropriate. Neither impolite utterances nor too polite utterances are acceptable（He，2000）.

1.Tact Maxim

（1）Would it be possible for you to lend me your car？

（2）Could you lend me your car？

（3）Will you lend me your car？

（4）Lend me your car？

（5）*You must lend me your car.

2.Generosity Maxim

（1）*Would you mind having another sandwich？

（2）*Would it be possible for you to have another sandwich？

（3）Would you like to have another sandwich？

（4）Please have another sandwich.

（5）Have another sandwich.

（6）*You must have another sandwich.

3.Approbation Maxim

（1）You are the best cook in the world.

（2）What a marvelous cook you are！

（3）You are really a good cook.

（4）You certainly know something about cooking.

（5）*Well，there must be someone thinks you are a good cook.

4.Modesty Maxim

A：What a bright boy you are！You always get full marks.

B1：Thank you. I have very good teachers.

B2：Thank you. The exam questions are not that hard.

B3：Thank you. I am not the only one in the class that gets full marks.

B4：*Yes，I am，aren’t I？

5.Agreement Maxim

A：That dress she is wearing is beautiful，don’t you think so？

B1：Yes，absolutely.

B2：Yes，I couldn’t agree with you more.

B3：Yes，I think so too.

B4：Well，I like the color.

B5：*I don’t think it’s beautiful at all.

6.Sympathy Maxim

A：I lost my kitten last week and I still can’t get over it.

B1：It’s most unfortunate that you lost your pet.

B2：I know what it is like. You have all my sympathy.

B3：I am sorry to hear that.

B4：Never mind. You can find another one.

B5：*So we won’t be annoyed by that nasty little animal any more.

PP helps to explain how people interpret each other’s utterances. The obedience to the PP helps speakers tend to give options，avoid intrusion，and make their hearer feel good（Leech，1983）. The violation of the PP signals urgency，intimacy，aggression or unfriendliness（Wolfson，1988）. Although the PP is universal，its realization is different from culture to culture（Brown & Levinson，1987）.

2.2.1.2 Face Theory

Face is the public self-image which people wish to maintain. Face is first introduced by Goffman（1959）who stated that face is sacred for every person，it is an essential factor that communicators have to take into consideration，and face wants are reciprocal.

Politeness strategies are developed for the purpose of saving the hearer’s face. Two opposite feelings are involved with face and both are treated as perpetual wants（Brown & Levinson，1987）. The first is the negative face，which is the desire of the individual not to be imposed upon，while the other is positive face，which is the desire of the individual to be approved of or to liked（Brown & Levinson，1978）. Face threatening acts（FTAs）are acts imposed on the hearer’s need to maintain his/her self-esteem，and his need to be respected. According to Brown & Levinson（1978），the degree of threat infringed by FTAs is calculated by speakers of a culture with three independent variables：the social distance between the speaker and the hearer（D），the relative power（P），and the absolute ranking（R）of impositions in that culture. Like the PP，face theory is also universal，but its realization is various with different cultures. Brown and Levinson（1978）believed that the face theory has offered a framework for analyzing cross-cultural differences in politeness，based on the differing weights on the P and D，and the kinds of impositions acknowledged in R，in individual societies.

2.2.2 Cooperative Principle

Grice（1975）proposed a set of maxims and sub-maxims guiding and constraining people’s conversations. That is the widely-known “Cooperative Principle”（CP）. According to Grice（1975），CP is making the conversational contribution as expected at the stage that it occurs by the required direction in talk exchange. Four maxims were further divided by Grice（1975）in CP. The details of each maxim are as follows（Cole & Morgan，1975）.

Quantity Maxim

1.Make your contribution as informative as is required（for the current purposes of the exchange）.

2.Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Quality Maxim

Try to make your contribution one that is true：

1.Do not say what you believe to be false.

2.Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Relation Maxim

Be relevant.

Manner Maxim

Be perspicuous：

1.Avoid obscurity of expression；

2.Avoid ambiguity；

3.Be brief（avoid unnecessary prolixity）；

4.Be orderly.

The violation of the quantity maxim is the most frequently happening for language speakers. An example provided by Grice can show such variation. In this example，a student is applying for a job，which requires the candidates to hold a degree in philosophy. He asks his university professor to write a letter for him to prove this. The professor writes：

Dear Sir，

X’s command of English is excellent and his attendance at tutorials has been regular，yours，etc.（Grice，1989）.

Unfortunately，his professor does not mention about philosophy which is expected by the receiver. In this case，the quantity maxim is violated and the interviewer may interpret the implicature that the student is not good at philosophy.

The following examples present the violation of quality maxim：

1.He is made of iron.

2.Every nice girl loves a sailor.

The two expressions are false statements with the literal meaning. In example 1，everyone knows no human being is made of iron，so this example cannot be understood literally. Instead it should be interpreted as a metaphor which means that this person is with a character as iron. In the case of example 2，the implicature is all girls love sailors，which is too generalized.

As for the maxim of relation，Grice thought that examples to violate this exam-ple are rare，but the following can be a good one. A says “Mrs. X is an old bag” in a genteel tea party，a moment of appalled silence later，and B says “The weather has been quite delightful this summer，hasn’t it？” Apparently，B fails to make his/her words relevant to A’s topic. The implicature is that B thinks A’s talk should be stopped. More specifically，A has broken a social taboo（Grice，1989，p.54）.

The violation of manner maxim does not frequently happen. In such situations，people refuse to speak in a concise and normal way，but speak with indirectness. The following examples（He，2000）can show that.

1.A：Let’s get the kids something.

B：Okay，but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M.

2.Miss X produced a series of sounds that corresponded closely with the scores of “Home，Sweet Home”.

In the first example，B refuses to say “ice-cream” directly，but pronounces the letters one by one，the purpose is to avoid the children to understand it and ask for it. However，A can understand it without any problem.

In the second example，the speaker refuses to use a simple word “sing” directly，but says “produced a series of sounds that corresponded closely with the scores of” to show the same meaning. It is a violation of manner maxim for the speaker wants to express that Miss X did not sing well indirectly.

In essence，the CP is a kind of tacit agreement that leads people to work together to create a coherent and effective communication. The participants in the conversation should conduct sincere，relevant and clear speech while providing sufficient information to obey this tacit principle. It is not followed compulsorily but reasonably（Grice，1975）. Grice（1975）also assumed that the CP is usually observed and that any violations of the maxims in CP will result in conversational implicature，i.e. messages intended to deliver by the speaker should be inferred by the hearer on the hypothesis that the speaker would cooperate in a specific manner. When CP is applied to speaking，speakers decide which maxims to emphasize and which to ignore. Grice（1975）proposed four possibilities that CP can be violated，they are：

1.The speaker may violate the CP deliberately but without making the hearer realize it.

2.The speaker may avoid cooperation in an explicit way by telling the hearer that he is unwilling to cooperate.

3.The speaker may face a dilemma.

4.The speaker may deliberately violate one of the maxims or fail to fulfill it.

CP is an important principle for comprehending and producing utterances，especially when the conversational implicature lies in the literal meaning of utterances. The maxims in CP can be observed by all participants in any speech communities in communicative events，but the ways to observe them can be different with various speech communities（Grice，1975）.

2.2.3 Relevance Theory

Relevance theory is an attempt to work out one of Grice’s central claims. It holds that one essential feature of most human communication is the recognition and expression of intentions（Grice，1989）. The central claim of relevance theory is that the human cognitive system works in such a way as to attempt to maximize relevance with communication. Hence，the principles in relevance theory are responsible for the realization of both the explicit and implicit content of utterances. Sperber & Wilson（2002）pointed out that it is assumed that pragmatics，incorporating the relevance theoretic comprehension procedure，is as a sub-module of the “theory of mind”，i.e. a variety of mind-reading.

From the linguistic philosophical，cognitive psychological point of view，relevance theory explains language communication. It is a combination of cognition and pragmatics，and puts focuses on discourse understanding. In the relevance theory，it is expected that the relevance raised by an utterance is precise and predicable enough for the hearer to be guided to the speaker’s communicative intention. It aims to explain the extent to which the expectations of relevance amount to，and how these expectations contribute to an empirically plausible account of communicative comprehension. The examples of relevance theory can be seen below：

1.A：Either Mary is early or Bob is late.

B：Bob is never late（Sperber & Wilson，1986，p.13）.

2.Father：What time is it？

Daughter：Mum said she would come to me（He，2000）.

From the short conversation in the first example，it is easy for the hearers to infer that the fact is “Mary is early”. In the second example，the daughter does not tell the father the time directly，but it seems that there is a certain time related to the mother’s coming. When the daughter answers “Mum said she would come to me”，the father can understand it is not the time yet.

To sum up，all these pragmatic principles are important for the interpretation and production of utterances. A language learner should keep in mind the existence of these principles and how these principles are abided by in the target language country. Learning these pragmatic principles is an indispensable task for the language learners to achieve comparatively high pragmatic competence and make effective communication.