📋 Contents of This Page
- Unit Introduction — Pragmatics vs Semantics
- J. L. Austin — Speech Act Theory
- Locutionary, Illocutionary & Perlocutionary Acts
- Felicity Conditions
- J. R. Searle — Typology of Speech Acts
- Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
- Grice's Cooperative Principle & Maxims
- Conversational Implicature
- Entailment and Presupposition
- Deixis
- Cohesion and Coherence
- Turn Taking and Adjacency Pairs
- The Concept of Discourse & Discourse Analysis
- Exam Orientation
- Common Student Mistakes
- Quick Revision
- Practice MCQs (20 Questions)
📖 Unit Introduction
Beyond Meaning — Language in Action
Semantics asked: What does this sentence mean? Pragmatics asks: What does the speaker MEAN by saying this sentence in THIS situation? These are very different questions.
💡 The Central Insight of Pragmatics
Consider this: A student arrives late to class. The teacher says, "Nice of you to join us." The literal (semantic) meaning is a compliment. But the pragmatic meaning — what the teacher actually communicates — is sarcastic criticism. The gap between what words literally mean and what speakers actually communicate is the domain of Pragmatics.
Definition of Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning — how speakers use language to perform actions, how listeners infer intended meaning beyond the literal content of words, and how the same utterance can mean different things in different situations.
🆚 Semantics vs. Pragmatics
- Semantics: "Can you pass the salt?" = question about your ability
- Pragmatics: "Can you pass the salt?" = polite request for salt
- Semantics = meaning of the sentence
- Pragmatics = meaning of the utterance in context
- Pragmatics covers: speech acts, implicature, presupposition, deixis
🎯 Exam Relevance (Sem II Q3)
- Q3 in QP — all four sub-questions from this unit
- Speech Act Theory (Austin + Searle) — most tested
- Implicature, Presupposition, Entailment — frequently asked
- Deixis, Cohesion, Coherence — important short answers
- Discourse Analysis — broader essay question
🎭 Core Concept 1
J. L. Austin — Speech Act Theory
👨🏫 Who Was Austin?
J. L. Austin (1911–1960) was a British philosopher of language at Oxford. In his lectures (published as How to Do Things with Words, 1962), he made a revolutionary observation: language is not just used to describe the world — it is used to DO things in the world.
Austin's Founding Insight
Saying something IS doing something. When a judge says "I sentence you to ten years," they are not describing a sentencing — they ARE sentencing. When a couple says "I do" at a wedding, they are not reporting that they agree — they ARE agreeing. These utterances PERFORM actions.
🔀 Constative vs. Performative Utterances
Austin initially distinguished two types of utterances:
| Type | Definition | Can be true/false? | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constative Utterances | Statements that describe or report a state of affairs — they can be evaluated as true or false | YES — true or false | "It is raining." / "The cat is on the mat." / "Mumbai is in Maharashtra." |
| Performative Utterances | Utterances that DO not describe but actually PERFORM an action when said in the right context | NO — they are FELICITOUS or INFELICITOUS (appropriate or not) | "I promise to return." / "I hereby declare you husband and wife." / "I apologise." |
🌟 Indian Examples of Performative Utterances
"मी वचन देतो" (I promise) — saying it IS promising.
A priest saying "तुम्ही आता पती-पत्नी आहात" (You are now husband and wife) — saying it makes it true.
A professor saying "तुम्ही परीक्षेत अनुत्तीर्ण आहात" (You are failed) — declaring makes it so.
"मी माफी मागतो" (I apologise) — saying it IS apologising.
A priest saying "तुम्ही आता पती-पत्नी आहात" (You are now husband and wife) — saying it makes it true.
A professor saying "तुम्ही परीक्षेत अनुत्तीर्ण आहात" (You are failed) — declaring makes it so.
"मी माफी मागतो" (I apologise) — saying it IS apologising.
Austin later refined this distinction, realising ALL utterances perform actions — leading to his theory of the three acts.
3️⃣ Core Concept 2
Locutionary, Illocutionary & Perlocutionary Acts
Austin concluded that EVERY utterance simultaneously performs three kinds of act. This is his mature, refined theory.
Act 1
LOCUTIONARY ACT
The act of saying something — producing a meaningful utterance. The actual words, their pronunciation, and their literal (semantic) meaning.
Saying the words: "It's cold in here."
Phonetic + semantic content
Phonetic + semantic content
Act 2 — Most Important
ILLOCUTIONARY ACT
The action PERFORMED by saying the words — the speaker's INTENTION. What the speaker is doing with the words (requesting, warning, promising, apologising...).
The INTENTION behind "It's cold in here" = a REQUEST to close the window
Act 3
PERLOCUTIONARY ACT
The EFFECT on the listener — what actually happens as a result of the utterance. The listener's response or action.
Listener closes the window (or ignores the speaker)
📊 Examples of All Three Acts Together
| Utterance | Locutionary Act | Illocutionary Act | Perlocutionary Act |
|---|---|---|---|
| "The exam is tomorrow." | Stating that the exam occurs tomorrow | Warning / reminding the student | Student starts studying immediately |
| "Can you pass the salt?" | Asking about the listener's ability | Requesting the listener to pass the salt | Listener passes the salt |
| "I hereby sentence you to 5 years." | Producing a grammatical sentence | Sentencing (a legal act) | Accused is taken to prison |
| "Your presentation was… interesting." | Saying the word "interesting" | Perhaps criticising (via damning with faint praise) | Speaker feels embarrassed or deflated |
| "Watch out!" | Uttering a warning phrase | Warning the listener of danger | Listener steps back from danger |
📝 Exam Tip — Which Act Is Most Important?
The ILLOCUTIONARY ACT is the heart of Speech Act Theory. Austin's key insight was that we perform illocutionary acts when we speak — we don't just say things, we warn, promise, apologise, request, declare, etc. The illocutionary force of an utterance is what makes it a particular kind of speech act.
✅ Core Concept 3
Felicity Conditions
Definition
Felicity conditions are the conditions that must be satisfied for a performative utterance to be valid (felicitous/successful) rather than invalid (infelicitous/void). If these conditions are not met, the speech act MISFIRES or is ABUSED.
✅ Austin's Felicity Conditions (for a Promise)
| Condition Type | Requirement | Example (Promise) | If Violated → ? |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.1 — Conventional procedure | There must be an accepted conventional procedure with a conventional effect | Promise must be a recognised social act | Misfire — act has no effect |
| A.2 — Correct persons & circumstances | Correct persons must participate in correct circumstances | Speaker must be capable of promising; context must be appropriate | Misfire — "I promise to give you the moon" — impossible |
| B.1 — Procedure executed correctly | The procedure must be executed correctly | The words must be said properly | Misfire — incomplete execution |
| B.2 — Procedure completed | The procedure must be completed | The promise must be fully made, not broken off | Misfire — incomplete act |
| Γ.1 — Sincere intentions | The speaker must have the appropriate thoughts/feelings | Must genuinely intend to keep the promise | Abuse — the act is performed but insincere |
| Γ.2 — Follow-through | The speaker must actually follow through | Must keep the promise | Abuse — breaking a promise |
Misfire vs. Abuse
Misfire: When conditions A or B are violated — the speech act FAILS to be performed at all. Example: "I promise the moon to you" — impossible to fulfil → misfires.
Abuse: When condition Γ is violated — the speech act IS performed, but INSINCERELY. Example: promising with no intention of keeping it — the promise is made but abused.
Abuse: When condition Γ is violated — the speech act IS performed, but INSINCERELY. Example: promising with no intention of keeping it — the promise is made but abused.
📋 Core Concept 4
J. R. Searle — Typology of Speech Acts
🌟 Searle Builds on Austin
John R. Searle (born 1932) extended Austin's theory in Speech Acts (1969) and Expression and Meaning (1979). He systematised Austin's work by classifying illocutionary acts into five clear types and by distinguishing direct from indirect speech acts.
📊 Searle's Five Categories of Illocutionary Acts
| Category | Definition | Direction of Fit | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assertives (Representatives) | Committing the speaker to the truth of a proposition — claiming something is true | Word → World (describing reality) | stating, asserting, claiming, reporting, describing, concluding, boasting |
| 2. Directives | Attempts to get the hearer to DO something — trying to influence the listener's behaviour | World → Word (trying to make reality match words) | ordering, requesting, commanding, asking, begging, inviting, advising, warning |
| 3. Commissives | Committing the speaker to a future COURSE OF ACTION — the speaker takes on an obligation | World → Word (speaker commits to making world match) | promising, pledging, offering, vowing, guaranteeing, threatening |
| 4. Expressives | Expressing the speaker's PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE or attitude about a state of affairs | No direction of fit (just expressing) | thanking, apologising, congratulating, welcoming, deploring, condoling |
| 5. Declarations | Bringing about a NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS by the very saying — the saying makes it so | Both directions simultaneously | declaring war, appointing, firing, naming, sentencing, marrying, christening, excommunicating |
🌟 Indian Examples for Each Category
Assertive: "आज सोमवार आहे" (Today is Monday) — stating a fact.
Directive: "दरवाजा बंद कर" (Close the door) — requesting/ordering.
Commissive: "मी उद्या येईन" (I will come tomorrow) — promising.
Expressive: "धन्यवाद! तुमची खूप मदत झाली" (Thank you, you helped a lot) — thanking.
Declaration: "मी तुम्हाला बरखास्त करतो" (I hereby dismiss you) — official firing.
Directive: "दरवाजा बंद कर" (Close the door) — requesting/ordering.
Commissive: "मी उद्या येईन" (I will come tomorrow) — promising.
Expressive: "धन्यवाद! तुमची खूप मदत झाली" (Thank you, you helped a lot) — thanking.
Declaration: "मी तुम्हाला बरखास्त करतो" (I hereby dismiss you) — official firing.
📝 Memory Aid for Searle's Five Types
A-D-C-E-D = Assertives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declarations.
Or remember: "All Directors Can Express Declarations."
Or remember: "All Directors Can Express Declarations."
↔️ Core Concept 5
Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
💬 The Distinction
➡️ Direct Speech Act
- The illocutionary force matches the grammatical form directly
- An imperative = a command; a question = a question; a statement = a statement
- No inference required — the meaning is on the surface
"Close the door." (Imperative → Direct order)
🔀 Indirect Speech Act
- The illocutionary force does NOT match the grammatical form
- The literal meaning ≠ the intended meaning
- Inference is required — the listener must "read between the lines"
"Could you close the door?" (Question form → Indirect request, not really asking about ability)
Direct vs Indirect Speech Acts — Examples
Direct
"Bring me the file." → Imperative form = direct command (Directive)
Indirect
"Could you bring me the file?" → Question form used as a polite request. Literal: Can you? Intended: Please bring it.
Indirect
"It would be nice if someone could bring me the file." → Statement form used as an indirect, even softer, request.
Indian ex.
"तुम्हाला भूक लागली नाही का?" (Aren't you hungry?) → Indirect invitation to eat food. The speaker is not literally asking about hunger — they are offering food.
🔑 Why?
We use indirect speech acts to be polite, to soften requests, to avoid imposing, and to give the listener "face" — the option to refuse without direct confrontation.
🤝 Core Concept 6
Grice's Cooperative Principle & Maxims
🤝 H. P. Grice (1913–1988)
Paul Grice, a British philosopher, proposed in his 1975 paper Logic and Conversation that conversation is fundamentally cooperative — speakers follow shared principles to make communication work. He called this the Cooperative Principle.
The Cooperative Principle
"Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged." — H. P. Grice
Grice argued that this principle operates through four sub-maxims — the Maxims of Conversation:
📏 Maxim of QUANTITY
Be as informative as required. Don't say too little or too much. Give the right amount of information.
Violation: Asked "Where is Priya?" replying "She's in India." — technically true but too vague (too little info).
✔️ Maxim of QUALITY
Don't say what you believe to be false. Don't say what you lack evidence for. Be truthful.
Violation: Telling a friend their terrible presentation was "brilliant" to spare their feelings — white lie that violates Quality.
🎯 Maxim of RELATION
Be relevant. Say things that relate to the topic of conversation. Don't change the subject irrelevantly.
Violation: Asked "Did you finish the report?" replying "The weather is lovely today" — completely irrelevant response.
🧹 Maxim of MANNER
Be clear, brief, orderly, and avoid ambiguity and obscurity. Express yourself perspicuously.
Violation: Using unnecessarily complex language when simple words would do — deliberately confusing the listener.
💡 When Maxims Are Flouted → Implicature Arises
The most important thing about Grice's maxims is what happens when they are flouted (deliberately violated while the violation is obvious to both parties). When a speaker obviously violates a maxim but is still considered cooperative, the listener infers an implicature — an additional, implied meaning.
Flouting vs. Violating
Violating a maxim: Secretly breaking a maxim (e.g., lying) — the listener does not know.
Flouting a maxim: Openly, conspicuously breaking it — the listener SEES the break and infers the speaker must have a reason, generating an implicature.
Flouting a maxim: Openly, conspicuously breaking it — the listener SEES the break and infers the speaker must have a reason, generating an implicature.
💬 Core Concept 7
Conversational Implicature
Definition
A conversational implicature is an implied meaning that goes beyond the literal content of an utterance — a meaning that the speaker communicates without explicitly stating it, relying on the listener's ability to apply the Cooperative Principle.
🔍 How Implicature Works — Examples
Implicature from Flouting the Maxim of Quantity
Examiner
"How good a student is Rahul?"
Professor
"His handwriting is excellent, and he is always on time."
📝 Analysis
The professor says nothing about academic ability — violating Quantity (too little relevant info). Since the professor is clearly cooperative, the examiner infers: the professor cannot say anything positive about Rahul's academic ability. The IMPLICATURE is that Rahul is a poor student.
Implicature from Flouting the Maxim of Quality (Irony)
Context
Student arrives 30 minutes late to class.
Teacher
"Oh, how punctual of you!"
📝 Analysis
Clearly false (not punctual at all) — violates Quality. Since the teacher is clearly cooperative and not really lying, the implicature is IRONY/SARCASM: the teacher is criticising the student's lateness.
| Maxim Flouted | Type of Implicature Generated | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Quantity | Speaker implies there's no more to say, or implies something negative by omission | "He came, he saw." (implying he didn't conquer — something went wrong) |
| Quality | Irony, sarcasm, metaphor, hyperbole | "You are the cream of the crop" (metaphor); "Nice of you to join us" (sarcasm) |
| Relation | Topic change implies something about what was just said; hints | A: "How's my cooking?" B: "The kitchen smells lovely." (implying the food is not good) |
| Manner | Deliberate obscurity implies something is being hidden or is delicate | "She went to a certain establishment" (deliberate vagueness implies something disreputable) |
🔗 Core Concept 8
Entailment and Presupposition
🔗 Entailment
Definition — Entailment
Sentence A ENTAILS sentence B if whenever A is true, B must also be true. Entailment is a logical relationship — it holds regardless of context.
| Sentence A | Entails → | Sentence B | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| "She murdered him." | → | "He is dead." | Murder = intentional killing; so he must be dead |
| "The dog is a poodle." | → | "The dog is an animal." | Hyponymy: poodle is a type of dog; dog is an animal |
| "Ramesh is a bachelor." | → | "Ramesh is unmarried." | Bachelor = adult, unmarried male; so unmarried is entailed |
| "She is a widow." | → | "Her husband is dead." | Widow = a woman whose husband has died |
📌 Presupposition
Definition — Presupposition
A presupposition is a background assumption that a speaker takes for granted — an implicit proposition that must be TRUE for the utterance to make sense. Unlike entailment, presuppositions survive negation (they are "projection" phenomena).
The Classic Test: Presuppositions Survive Negation
"The King of France is bald." → Presupposes: There IS a King of France.
"The King of France is NOT bald." → Still presupposes: There IS a King of France.
Both the positive AND the negative version share the same presupposition. This is the key test — if a proposition survives negation, it's a presupposition, not an entailment.
"The King of France is NOT bald." → Still presupposes: There IS a King of France.
Both the positive AND the negative version share the same presupposition. This is the key test — if a proposition survives negation, it's a presupposition, not an entailment.
| Utterance | Presupposition | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| "Ramesh stopped smoking." | Ramesh used to smoke. | Aspectual verb "stopped" |
| "The King of France is bald." | There is a King of France. | Definite description "the King of" |
| "Even Priya passed the exam." | Others (less likely than Priya) passed. | Focus particle "even" |
| "When did you stop lying?" | You were lying (at some point). | Loaded question / factive verb |
| "I regret saying that." | The speaker said it. | Factive verb "regret" |
| Aspect | Entailment | Presupposition |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Logical consequence — necessarily follows from meaning | Background assumption — taken for granted before the utterance |
| Survives negation? | NO — negating A cancels its entailments | YES — presuppositions survive negation |
| Domain | Pure semantics / logic | Pragmatics / semantics interface |
| Example test | "She didn't murder him" → he may not be dead (entailment cancelled) | "Ramesh didn't stop smoking" → still presupposes he smoked (presupposition survives) |
📍 Core Concept 9
Deixis
Definition
Deixis (from Greek: "pointing" or "showing") refers to words and phrases whose interpretation depends entirely on context — specifically, who is speaking, where, and when. Deictic expressions are like linguistic pointers that only make sense if you know the context of utterance.
Person Deixis
I, you, we, they, he, she
Place Deixis
here, there, this, that, come, go
Time Deixis
now, then, yesterday, today, soon, later
Discourse Deixis
the above, the following, as I said, the former, the latter
Social Deixis
Sir, Madam, tu/vous (French), तू/आप (Hindi)
💡 Why Deixis Matters
The sentence "I'll meet you here tomorrow" contains FOUR deictic expressions: I (person), you (person), here (place), tomorrow (time). Without knowing who is speaking, to whom, where, and when — the sentence is completely uninterpretable. This shows how deeply language is anchored in context.
🌟 Indian Language Example
Hindi/Marathi has elaborate person and social deixis:
तू (tu) = informal you (for children, close friends, God in some contexts)
तुम (tum) = semi-formal you (familiar adults)
आप (aap) = formal you (respect, elders, strangers)
Using the wrong form is a major social error — this is social deixis encoding respect and relationship.
तू (tu) = informal you (for children, close friends, God in some contexts)
तुम (tum) = semi-formal you (familiar adults)
आप (aap) = formal you (respect, elders, strangers)
Using the wrong form is a major social error — this is social deixis encoding respect and relationship.
Origo and Deictic Centre
The ORIGO (deictic centre) is the "zero point" from which deictic expressions are interpreted — typically the speaker's position, the time of speaking, and the speaker themselves. "Here" = close to the speaker. "There" = away from the speaker. Deictic shift = when the origo moves (e.g., in narrative: "She walked in. The room was dark. A stranger sat there.")
🔗 Core Concept 10
Cohesion and Coherence
🔗 Cohesion
The FORMAL (surface-level) links between sentences that hold a text together. Cohesion is grammatical and lexical — it refers to HOW a text is connected structurally.
Halliday & Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English
💡 Coherence
The SEMANTIC unity that makes a text meaningful and interpretable as a whole. Coherence is about meaning, logic, and relevance — WHY the text makes sense as a connected whole.
A text can be cohesive but incoherent, or coherent without explicit cohesive ties.
🔗 Five Types of Cohesive Devices (Halliday & Hasan)
📎 1. Reference
Using pronouns or pro-forms to point to something mentioned elsewhere in the text (anaphoric = back, cataphoric = forward).
"Ramesh came in. HE looked tired." → "he" refers back to Ramesh (anaphoric reference)
✂️ 2. Substitution
Replacing a word/phrase with a substitute form (one, ones, do, so) to avoid repetition.
"I want a mango. I'll take ONE." → "one" substitutes for "mango"
⬛ 3. Ellipsis
Omitting words that are recoverable from context — a "zero" substitution.
"She can swim and so can [∅ swim]." → "swim" omitted after "can" (ellipsis)
🔀 4. Conjunction
Using connecting words to show logical relationships (addition, contrast, cause, time) between clauses and sentences.
"She worked hard. HOWEVER, she failed." → "however" = adversative conjunction
📚 5. Lexical Cohesion
Using vocabulary relationships to link parts of a text: reiteration (same word, synonym, superordinate, general word) or collocation (words that typically go together).
"She bought a rose. The FLOWER was beautiful." → "flower" is superordinate of rose — reiteration
"The doctor examined the patient. The NURSE brought the medicine." → doctor/nurse/medicine are collocates
"The doctor examined the patient. The NURSE brought the medicine." → doctor/nurse/medicine are collocates
Cohesion vs Coherence — The Key Example
Cohesive but INCOHERENT:
"The cat sat on the mat. Moreover, the mat was blue. However, blue is a colour. Nevertheless, colours are pleasing."
→ Lots of conjunctions (cohesive ties) but NO logical connection between ideas — incoherent.
Coherent but NOT explicitly cohesive:
"The menu was extensive. The waiter was friendly. The food arrived quickly."
→ No explicit connectors — but the topic (restaurant experience) makes it clearly coherent.
"The cat sat on the mat. Moreover, the mat was blue. However, blue is a colour. Nevertheless, colours are pleasing."
→ Lots of conjunctions (cohesive ties) but NO logical connection between ideas — incoherent.
Coherent but NOT explicitly cohesive:
"The menu was extensive. The waiter was friendly. The food arrived quickly."
→ No explicit connectors — but the topic (restaurant experience) makes it clearly coherent.
🔄 Core Concept 11
Turn Taking and Adjacency Pairs
🔄 Turn Taking — How Conversations Are Managed
Definition — Turn Taking
Turn taking is the conversational mechanism by which participants in a conversation alternate speaking. Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) showed that turn taking is a highly organised, rule-governed system — not random.
| Turn-Taking Mechanism | Explanation | Example Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Turn-allocation | Current speaker selects next speaker (by address, gaze, question) | "What do YOU think, Priya?" |
| Self-selection | Next speaker self-selects at a transition relevance place (TRP) | Jumping in at a pause or sentence completion |
| Transition relevance places (TRPs) | Points where a turn can naturally end and a new one begin (sentence-final intonation, pause) | Falling intonation at end of a statement |
| Overlap and interruption | Two speakers speaking at once — repairs are negotiated | "Sorry, go ahead" / "No, you first" |
| Backchannels | Minimal responses showing attention without taking a full turn | "mm," "yeah," "uh-huh," "हो," "हाँ" |
👥 Adjacency Pairs
Definition — Adjacency Pairs
An adjacency pair is a paired sequence of two utterances — the first part (FPP) and second part (SPP) — where the first utterance from one speaker creates an expectation for a particular type of response from the next speaker.
| First Pair Part (FPP) | Expected Second Pair Part (SPP) | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Greeting | Greeting | "Hello!" → "Hello!" |
| Question | Answer | "What's the time?" → "It's 3 o'clock." |
| Invitation | Acceptance / Decline | "Come for dinner?" → "Love to!" / "Sorry, I can't." |
| Offer | Acceptance / Refusal | "Tea?" → "Yes please." / "No, thank you." |
| Complaint | Apology / Denial | "You're late!" → "I'm sorry." / "The traffic was terrible." |
| Compliment | Acceptance / Deflection | "I love your sari!" → "Thank you!" / "Oh, it's very old." |
| Request | Grant / Refusal | "Can I borrow your notes?" → "Sure!" / "I'm using them, sorry." |
Preferred vs Dispreferred Second Parts
When a question is asked, an answer is "preferred." Non-answers are "dispreferred." Dispreferred responses are typically accompanied by delays, hedges, and explanations — showing the social pressure to produce the preferred response.
Offer: "Tea?" → Preferred: "Yes please." (immediate, direct) → Dispreferred: "Well… I suppose… if you don't mind… maybe just a small cup." (delayed, hedged)
Offer: "Tea?" → Preferred: "Yes please." (immediate, direct) → Dispreferred: "Well… I suppose… if you don't mind… maybe just a small cup." (delayed, hedged)
💬 Core Concept 12
The Concept of Discourse & Discourse Analysis
Definition — Discourse
Discourse refers to language in use above the sentence level — connected stretches of language (spoken or written) that form a coherent whole. Discourse is language as social practice, embedded in a context.
🔍 Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis examines how language is used in actual communication — how texts are structured, how conversations unfold, how language creates social reality. It bridges linguistics, sociology, and psychology.
🗣️ Conversational Analysis (CA)
- Focuses on spoken interaction
- Associated with Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson
- Studies: turn taking, adjacency pairs, repair, opening/closing sequences
- Ethnomethodological approach — studies how ordinary people make sense of talk
📝 Discourse Analysis (Written)
- Focuses on written texts
- Associated with Halliday, van Dijk, Fairclough
- Studies: cohesion, coherence, genre, ideology in texts
- Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines power and ideology in language
| Approach | What It Studies | Key Scholars | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversation Analysis | Structure of spoken interaction: turns, sequences, repair, openings/closings | Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson | How a doctor-patient consultation opens and closes |
| Genre Analysis | How texts in a genre are structured to achieve social purposes | Swales, Bhatia | The structure of an academic journal article (IMRD) |
| Critical Discourse Analysis | How language reflects and constructs power, ideology, and social relations | Fairclough, van Dijk, Wodak | How news headlines about immigration encode bias |
| Systemic Functional Linguistics | How language fulfils social functions through metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, textual) | M. A. K. Halliday | Analysing how a political speech constructs reality |
🎓 Exam Orientation
University QP Analysis — Sem II Unit 3
🔥 Q3 (Any 2 of 4) — 15 Marks — Pragmatics & Discourse
Speech Act Theory (Austin + Searle):
→ Austin's insight: language does things → Constative vs performative → Three acts (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary) with example table → Felicity conditions → Searle's 5 types (ADCED) with Indian examples → Direct vs indirect speech acts → Why indirect speech acts are used (politeness)
→ Austin's insight: language does things → Constative vs performative → Three acts (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary) with example table → Felicity conditions → Searle's 5 types (ADCED) with Indian examples → Direct vs indirect speech acts → Why indirect speech acts are used (politeness)
Entailment, Presupposition & Implicature:
→ Define all three clearly → Entailment: logical consequence (murder→death) → Presupposition: background assumption that survives negation (stopped smoking → smoked) → Implicature: implied meaning from flouting Grice's maxims → Grice's Cooperative Principle and 4 maxims → Example of implicature from each maxim
→ Define all three clearly → Entailment: logical consequence (murder→death) → Presupposition: background assumption that survives negation (stopped smoking → smoked) → Implicature: implied meaning from flouting Grice's maxims → Grice's Cooperative Principle and 4 maxims → Example of implicature from each maxim
Cohesion and Coherence / Discourse Analysis:
→ Define discourse (language above sentence level) → Cohesion: Halliday & Hasan's 5 types (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion) → Coherence: semantic unity, logic → Cohesive-but-incoherent vs coherent-without-cohesion examples → Turn taking and adjacency pairs → Conversational analysis
→ Define discourse (language above sentence level) → Cohesion: Halliday & Hasan's 5 types (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion) → Coherence: semantic unity, logic → Cohesive-but-incoherent vs coherent-without-cohesion examples → Turn taking and adjacency pairs → Conversational analysis
Deixis / Turn Taking / Adjacency Pairs:
→ Deixis: definition, types (person, place, time, discourse, social) → Examples from English and Indian languages → Turn taking: TRPs, backchannels, allocation → Adjacency pairs: FPP/SPP, examples of all types → Preferred vs dispreferred responses
→ Deixis: definition, types (person, place, time, discourse, social) → Examples from English and Indian languages → Turn taking: TRPs, backchannels, allocation → Adjacency pairs: FPP/SPP, examples of all types → Preferred vs dispreferred responses
📌 Predicted Questions
1. What is an illocutionary act? Explain with examples.
2. Distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts.
3. Explain Grice's maxims with examples of each being flouted.
4. Distinguish between presupposition and entailment.
5. What is deixis? Explain its types with examples.
6. What are adjacency pairs? Give examples of different types.
2. Distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts.
3. Explain Grice's maxims with examples of each being flouted.
4. Distinguish between presupposition and entailment.
5. What is deixis? Explain its types with examples.
6. What are adjacency pairs? Give examples of different types.
⚠️ Common Mistakes
Mistakes Students Commonly Make
Confusing Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts
The LOCUTIONARY act is simply the act of saying words with a meaning (the literal content). The ILLOCUTIONARY act is WHAT YOU DO with those words — the social action performed (warning, promising, requesting...). The illocutionary act is the heart of Speech Act Theory. When answering exam questions, always identify which illocutionary act is being performed, not just what the words literally say.
Confusing Presupposition with Entailment
The key test: negate the sentence. If the implicit meaning SURVIVES negation → presupposition. If it disappears → entailment. "She murdered him" entails "he is dead" — but "She did NOT murder him" cancels this (he may be alive). "Ramesh stopped smoking" presupposes he smoked — "Ramesh did NOT stop smoking" still presupposes he smoked (just that he's still smoking). Always apply the negation test in exam answers.
Saying Grice's maxims are always "followed"
Grice's point is precisely about when maxims are FLOUTED (deliberately violated) — because that's when implicature arises. Always distinguish: obeying a maxim (normal communication), violating a maxim (secret breach, like lying), and FLOUTING a maxim (overt, conspicuous breach that generates implicature — like irony, sarcasm, understatement).
Writing that Cohesion = Coherence
These are different. Cohesion = surface-level formal links (pronouns, conjunctions, lexical repetition). Coherence = the overall semantic unity and meaningfulness of a text. A text can have lots of cohesive devices and still be incoherent (meaningless). A text can lack explicit cohesive devices and still be perfectly coherent (meaningful). Coherence is ultimately a property of reader interpretation, not just text structure.
Forgetting Searle's "direction of fit"
This is an important distinguishing feature. Assertives: word fits world (we say true things about reality). Directives and Commissives: world fits word (we try to make reality match what we said). Declarations: both simultaneously (saying makes it so). Many students memorise the names but skip this key conceptual distinction.
⚡ Quick Revision
One-Page Summary
Austin's Theory
- Constative vs Performative
- Locutionary = saying words
- Illocutionary = the action performed
- Perlocutionary = effect on listener
- Felicity conditions: A1,A2,B1,B2,Γ1,Γ2
Searle's 5 Types
- Assertives (claiming truth)
- Directives (getting listener to act)
- Commissives (speaker commits)
- Expressives (emotional state)
- Declarations (saying makes it so)
Grice's Maxims
- Quantity: right amount
- Quality: truthful
- Relation: relevant
- Manner: clear and brief
- Flouting → implicature arises
Presupposition vs Entailment
- Entailment: logical; cancelled by negation
- Presupposition: survives negation
- "stopped smoking" → presupposes smoking
- "murdered" → entails death (cancellable)
Deixis Types
- Person: I, you, we
- Place: here, there, this, that
- Time: now, yesterday, soon
- Discourse: the above, the following
- Social: Sir, tu/aap, vous/tu
Cohesion (5 types)
- Reference (he, she, it, this)
- Substitution (one, ones, do)
- Ellipsis (omission)
- Conjunction (and, but, however)
- Lexical (reiteration, collocation)
Adjacency Pairs
- Greeting → Greeting
- Question → Answer
- Offer → Accept/Refuse
- Complaint → Apology/Denial
- Preferred vs Dispreferred responses
Discourse Analysis
- Discourse = language above sentence
- CA: Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson
- Halliday: SFL, cohesion
- CDA: Fairclough — power & ideology
- Coherence: semantic unity of a text
🧠 Memory Tricks
Austin's 3 acts: "LIP" = Locutionary (saying), Illocutionary (Intending), Perlocutionary (effect on the Person listening).
Searle's 5 types: "All Directors Can Express Declarations" = Assertives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declarations.
Grice's maxims: "QQRM" = Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner.
Presupposition test: Negate the sentence — if the implicit meaning SURVIVES, it's a presupposition. If it disappears, it's an entailment.
Cohesion types: "RSECL" = Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, Conjunction, Lexical cohesion.
Searle's 5 types: "All Directors Can Express Declarations" = Assertives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declarations.
Grice's maxims: "QQRM" = Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner.
Presupposition test: Negate the sentence — if the implicit meaning SURVIVES, it's a presupposition. If it disappears, it's an entailment.
Cohesion types: "RSECL" = Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, Conjunction, Lexical cohesion.
Practice MCQs — Sem II Unit 3: Pragmatics & Discourse
20 Questions · Choose the best answer · Submit for instant score
Question 01
The act performed BY saying words — the speaker's intention (warning, requesting, promising) — is called the ___ act.
Question 02
Austin's theory of Speech Acts was published in ___.
Question 03
A judge saying "I sentence you to five years" is a ___ utterance — it performs an action by being said.
Question 04
According to Searle, speech acts that commit the SPEAKER to a future course of action (like promising) are called ___.
Question 05
"Can you pass the salt?" — used as a request rather than a question about ability — is an example of a(n) ___ speech act.
Question 06
Grice's Cooperative Principle was proposed in his 1975 paper titled ___.
Question 07
The maxim that says "Be truthful — don't say what you believe to be false" is the Maxim of ___.
Question 08
A teacher saying "Nice of you to join us" to a late student is an example of irony arising from flouting the Maxim of ___.
Question 09
"Ramesh stopped smoking" presupposes that ___.
Question 10
The key test that DISTINGUISHES presupposition from entailment is that presuppositions ___.
Question 11
Words like "I," "here," "now," and "this" whose meaning depends entirely on who is speaking, where, and when are called ___ expressions.
Question 12
In "She walked in. THE WOMAN looked exhausted," the phrase "the woman" referring back to "she" is an example of which cohesive device?
Question 13
According to Halliday & Hasan, the cohesive device where words are omitted because they are recoverable from context is called ___.
Question 14
An adjacency pair is ___.
Question 15
Searle's type of speech act that brings about a new state of affairs by the very saying (e.g., "I hereby declare war") is called ___.
Question 16
The implied meaning that a listener infers when a speaker conspicuously flouts a conversational maxim is called a ___.
Question 17
Conversational Analysis (CA) is associated with which scholars?
Question 18
"She murdered him" ENTAILS "He is dead" — this means ___.
Question 19
When Felicity conditions are violated and a speech act fails to be performed at all, Austin called this a ___.
Question 20
The overall semantic unity that makes a text interpretable and meaningful as a whole — beyond surface-level formal links — is called ___.
0/20
Questions Correct