Example of Implementing Pragmatic Theories That Deal With Presupposition, Implicature, Deixis, and Speech Act
“Let’s Learn Pragmatics”
(https://unsplash.com/photos/s9CC2SKySJM by Green Chameleon)
Hello
everyone!
Do
you have any examples of implementing pragmatic tehories that relate to
Presupposition, Implicature, Deixis, and Speech Act? If you don’t have and you
want to know, let’s check here because in this moment I would like to share
about the example.
Dialogue
Fred : “Dad, can I use the car tonight?”
Dad : “Uhmmm?”
Fred : “I said, “Can I use the car tonight?”
Dad : “May I ...”
Fred : Okey, May I?”
Dad : “No.”
Fred : “Why not?”
Dad : “It’s Wednesday.”
The projected world can be seen in Fred’s first expression “Dad, can I
use the car tonight?”. To express his intention to ask for permission to use
the car, he does not need to explain what the pronoun I means and the relation
between I and Dad from which it is possible for Fred to borrow a car. The
knowledge on kinship and its psychological, social and cultural aspects creates
a general knowledge saying that it is common for a son to ask for using his
father’s car and other properties. It is impossible for Fred to say the same
expression to someone who does not have this relation. He cannot address
someone who does not have conditions to be his father with ‘Dad’ and the
participant he communicates with will definitely ask for explanation towards
what ‘I’ means—who damn are you? It is now clear that using dexis (personal
deixis: Dad and I; time deixis: tonight) is common in a real speech event.
Using deixis and applying the background knowledge, the participants of a
speech event are trying to be economical in using the language.
Beside deixis, the above dialogue shows that
conversational implicature is also applied. Based on the theory of
conversational implicature above, Fred can immediately understand that his
Dad’s expression ‘Uhmmm’ implies that Fred’s father could not catch his words
completely and therefore he asks for repetition. The “Uhmmm” (with a question
mark) with raising intonation has been internalized in both Fred and his Dad,
which implies a specific meaning.
Based on this background knowledge, Fred’s Dad presumes (he takes it for
granted) that Fred can understand the meaning of
his ‘Uhmmm’. Fred takes it for granted that with ‘Uhmmm’ his father wants him
to repeat what he has just said. This is why Fred then repeats his
question.
Another pragmatic aspect involved in the
dialogue above is speech act. illocutionary act can be clearly observed from Fred’s
first sentence “Dad, can I use the car tonight?”. This sentence is an
interrogative with which Fred does not merely want to ask for an agreement (Yes
or No) but rather intends to ask for a permission to use a car. What Fred says,
“Dad, can I use the car tonight?” is the locutionary act; his intention to ask
for a permission to use a car is his illocutionary act, and what Fred’s father
interpret and the impact it has to his father—to answer ‘No’—is the
perlocutionary act.
Presupposition is another aspect of
pragmatics which is applied in the above dialogue. Presupposition is concerned
with the information that must be assumed in order for a sentence to be meaningful.
Fred’s first question “Dad, can I use the car tonight?” presupposes that Fred’s
Dad has a car and the car is usable. With these presuppositions, both Fred and
Fred’s father can communicate economically and effectively. Fred does not need
to state that his father has a car first, make sure that the car is usable, and
then ask his father for permission to use the car. The dialogue shares the
turns between the two participants to speak. The sequence is typical to two
participant dialogue i.e. A—B—A—B—A—B.
Based on all of the pragmatic theories
above, the real conversation can be pragmatically explained as follows:
Fred : “Dad, can I use the car tonight?”
(It presupposes that Fred’s Dad owns a car; Fred
intends to ask his Dad for permission to use the car that
night).
Dad : “Uhmmm?”
(It is conventionally
understood as an expression of his father for not being able to catch
Fred’s expression clearly and for asking for repetition).
Fred : “I said, “Can I use the car tonight?”’
(Fred proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency pair
principles to take the turn to speak and repeat what he said before).
Dad : “May I ...”
(Fred’s Dad is a bit disappointed with Fred’s knowledge on
English grammatical structure; that is not good and therefore he needs to
correct Fred’s grammars of his English).
Fred : “Okey. May I?”
(Fred realizes that he produces inappropriate grammars and
agrees to make it up. Fred can also catch the illocutionary act of ‘May I ...,
therefore he corrects his grammar).
Dad : “No.”
(Fred’s Dad proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency
pair principles to take the turn to speak and give a definite answer).
Fred : “Why not?” (Fred can catch his Dad illocutionary act,
and then proceeds the turn-taking principles and adjacency pair principles to
take the turn to speak and give a response to ask for the reason of the
refusal).
Dad : “It’s Wednesday.”
(Fred’s Dad can catch
the illocutionary act of Fred’s question, and proceeds the turn-taking
principle and adjacency pair principles to take the turn to speak and give the
definite answer; Fred’s Dad is trying to remind Fred of the rules on using a
car. One of the rules says that Fred may use the car only at the weekends, and
it is Wednesday. This is why Fred is not allowed to use the car).
1. Man : “Have you got your email,
Honey?”
Woman : “I don’t need that. I’ve got you
for 20 years.”
Man : “Funny Angel. I love you.”
The
projected world can be clearly seen in Man’s first expression ‘Have you got
your email, Honey?’ The intention of his expression is to ask whether the Woman
got the email or not. He does not need to explain what the pronoun ‘you’ means
and ‘honey’ means and the relation between Man and Woman which it is possible
for Man to ask about her business as the closeness between husband and wife.
The knowledge on kinship and its psychological, social, and cultural aspects
creates a general knowledge saying that it is common for a husband to ask about
his wife’s business, in this case her email. It is impossible for Man or
husband to say the same expression to someone who does not have this relation.
It is now clear that using deixis (personal deixis: you and honey and in the
last man’s expression is funny angel) is common in a real speech event. Using
deixis and applying the background knowledge, the participants of a speech
event are trying to be economical in using the language.
Besides deixis, the
above dialogue shows that conversational implicature is also applied. Based on the theory of conversational
implicature, Man can immediately understand that Woman’s expression (Wife) ‘I
don’t need that. I’ve got you for 20 years’ implies that the Woman has not got
the email but it is no problem for her. She even adds the expression ‘I’ve got
you for 20 years’ which implies that the email is not her everything but the
Man is her everything and she wants to tell implicitly that she loves the Man
more than anything. This also implies that the relationship between her and the
Man is 20 years. Based on the background knowledge, Woman presumes (she takes
it for granted) that the Man can understand her expression. Man takes it for
granted that with ‘I don’t need that. I’ve got you for 20 years’ the Woman
wants him to be not worried about the email by making the situation not to be
serious. This is why Man then responds it by saying ‘Funny Angel. I love you’
which implies that he loves the Woman and he can catch what she means by her
expression and he responds it by saying ‘Funny Angel’.
Another pragmatic
aspect involved in the dialogue above is speech act. It can be clearly observed
from Man’s first sentence ‘Have you got your email, Honey?’. This sentence is
an interrogative with which Man does not merely want to ask for an agreement (Yes
or No) but rather intends to give his care as well to her wife by asking about
her business. What Man says ‘Have you got your email, Honey?’ is the
locutionary act; his intention to whether the Woman got the email or not is his
illocutionary act, and what Woman interprets and the impact it has to his wife
or Woman – to answer ‘I don’t need that. I’ve got you for 20 years’ is the
perlocutionary act. Without applying the speech acts, the dialogue does not
work. If the Woman fails to get the intention of Man’s utterance, she will not
get proper interpretation and therefore will
give different response to Man’s utterance, which might be inappropriate.
Presupposition
is another aspect of pragmatics which is applied in the above dialogue.
Man’s first question ‘Have you got your email, Honey?’ presupposes that the Woman or his wife has a business
that deals with the email and the email might be about the notification,
promotion, or some sort. With these presuppositions, both Man and Woman can
communicate economically and effectively. Man does not need to state that the
Woman has a business and ask the Woman
about the email whether she has received the email or not. The analysis on
conversational structure, one aspect of pragmatics, provides explanation to
understand the above dialogue. Viewed from the turn-taking principle, the
dialogue has good turn-taking sequence. The dialogue shares the turns between
the two participants to speak. The sequence is typical to two participant
dialogue i.e. A—B—A
The dialogue (like most
of all real speech events), however, seems to violate the adjacency pair
principle. This happens because of non-linguistic contexts in the forms of
conversational implicatures, presuppositions, speech acts, and background
knowledge in the forms of projected world. Because of the contexts, the
violations do not cancel the dialogue.
Based on all of the pragmatic theories above, the real
conversation (as the narration of the dialogue) can be pragmatically explained
as follows:
Man : “Have you got your email,
Honey?”
(It presupposes that the Woman owns a certain business
that deals with the email; Man intends to ask the Woman or his wife whether she
has got the email or not and to show his care as well as a husband)
Woman : “I don’t need that. I’ve got you
for 20 years.”
(Woman proceeds the turn-taking principle and adjacency
pair principles to take the turn to speak and says implicitly that she
has not got the email but it is no problem for her. it is no problem for her. She even adds the expression ‘I’ve got
you for 20 years’ which implies that the email is not her everything but the
Man is her everything and she wants to tell implicitly that she loves the Man
more than anything)
Man : “Funny Angel. I love you.”
(Man can catch the Woman’s illocutionary act, and then
proceeds the turn-taking principles and adjacency pair principles to take the
turn to speak and gives a response that he loves the Woman. Also he can
catch what she means by her expression and he responds it by saying ‘Funny
Angel’.
That’s
all about the example of implementing pragmatic theories that deal with Presupposition,
Implicature, Deixis, and Speech Act. I hope this writings could provide you
benefit. If you have or know the other examples, please feel free to comment on
the comment box below. Thank you very much.
Post a Comment