Section 4

UTTERANCE MEANING

4.1 Presupposition • Presupposition is what a speaker or writer assumes that the receiver of
4.1.1 Definition the message already knows.
ex). Jonh doesn’t write poems anymore,
→ John once wrote poetry.
ex). would you like another beer?
→ “you” has already had at least one beer.
• Presuppositions are inferences about what is assumed to be true in the
utterance rather than directly asserted to be true
ex). Faye has looked for the keys.
→ Faye has looked for the keys
ex). Where has Faye looked for the keys?
→ Faye has looked for the keys.
• Speakers often make implicit assumptions about the real world, and the
sense of an utterance may depend on those assumptions, which some
linguists term presuppositions.
ex). both A and B know
(1) who Simon and Monica are
(2) Simon has a vehicle, most probably a car
(3) Monica has no vehicle at the moment
A: what about inviting Simon tonight?
B: What a good idea; then he can give Monica a lift.

• Presuppositions can be used to communicate information indirectly. If

someone says My brother is rich, we assume that the person has a brother,
even though that fact is not explicitly stated. Much of the information that is
exchanged in a conversation or discourse is of this kind. Often, after a
conversation has ended, we will realize that some fact imparted to us was not
specifically mentioned. That fact is often a presuppositions.
4.1.2 Characteristics • The presupposition of an utterance remains the same under its
NEGATION

ex). a. John stopped smoking.

b. John didn’t stop smoking,

→ both presuppose that John once smoked cigarettes.

• remains the same under its INTERROGATION

ex). a. John stopped smoking.

b. Did John stop smoking?

c, Why did John stop smoking?

→ all presuppose that John once smoked cigarettes.

• remains the same under its EXTENSION

ex). a. she didn’t feel regret at the over-cooked meat.

b. she didn’t feel regret at the over-cooked meat because it was

in fact well-done,

→ a. presupposes that the meat was overcooked.

b, presupposes that the meat was well-done.
4.2 Conversational
implicature

4.2.1 Definition • Conversational implicature promises to bridge the gap between what is
literally said and what is conveyed.

ex). A: Coffee?
B: It would keep me awake all night.

ex). A: Have you finish the student’s evaluation form and reading list?
B: I’ve done the reading list.

4.2.2 Characteristics

4.2.2.1
• People may draw somewhat different conversational implicature
from a certain utterance.

ex). Annie: Was the dessert any good?

Mike: Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.

ex). Virginia: Do you like my new hat?

Mary: It’s pink.

• a different conversation implicature may be drawn despite the

fact that the content of the second speaker’s utterance remains
the same.

ex). A: We went to see The Omen last night but it wasn’t very scary.

B: It would keep me awake all night.

ex). A: You look very pleased with yourself.

B: I’ve done the reading lists.

 ex). Phil: His garden looks awful.

Jean: Well, Mark’s got those dogs now.

ex). Annie: I thought the pie would cheer you up.

Mike: Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.

ex). Virginia: Try the roast pork.

Mary: It’s pink.

• unlike presuppositions and entailments, implicatures are inferences that

cannot be made in isolated utterances. They are dependent on the context
of the utterance and shared knowledge between the speaker & the hearer.

4.2.2.2 • Conversational implicature can be suspended or denied. Since

conversational implicature is part of what is communicated and not said,
the speaker can explicitly suspend or deny that he/she intended to
communicate such meaning in different ways.

ex). – you have won five dollars.

– you have at least won five dollars.

– you have won five dollars, in fact, you’ve won ten!

– you have won five dollars, that’s four more than one.

4.2.2.3
• Conversational implicatures are “conclusions drawn from utterances on
particular occasions and not from isolated sentences. In this respect the
problem of implicature resembles the problem of how a hearer arrives at the
indirect illocutions of utterances.
4.2.3 Grice’ theory of • Grice has proposed a way of analysing conversational implicature based
conversational on the co-operative principle and its four basic maxims of Quality,
implicature Quantity, Relevance, and Manner.

– the co-operative principle, which can be stated simply as be as

helpful to your hearer as you can, and which controls the way in which
a conversation may proceed, and its maxims, which are “guidelines for
the efficient and effective use of language in conversation, are
expressed as follows:

+ the co-operative principle: make your 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.

+ the maxim of quality: try to make your contribution one that

is true, specifically:

o Do not say what you believe to be false

o Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

+ the maxim of quantity:

o Make your contribution as informative as required for current

purpose of the exchange

o Do not make your contribution more informative than is

required

+ the maxim of relevance: make your contribution relevant

+ the maxim of manner: be perspicuous, and specifically

o Avoid obscurity

o Avoid ambiguity

o Be brief

o Be orderly
 • the speaker observes the maxims in a fairly direct way: he may amplify
what he says by some straightforward inferences

ex). A: I am out of petrol.

B: Oh; there is a garage just around the corner.

• the speaker deliberately and ostentatiously breaches or (as Grice put it)
flouts the maxims

ex). A: Let’s get the kids something.

B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E C-R-E-A-M-S.

B ostentatiously infringes the maxim of Manner (be perspicuous) by

spelling out the word ice-creams, and thereby conveys to A that B would
rather not have ice-creams mentioned directly in the presence of the
children, in case they are thereby prompted to demand some.

4.2.4 Classification
The two following types of conversational implicature are both of great
interest.
4.2.4.1 • Those that derive from the observation of conversational maxims:

– Maxim of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as

required and do not make your contribution
more informative than is required.

ex). Mother: have y finished yr homework & put yr books away?

Son: I have finished my homework.

– Maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant.

ex). A: Can you tell me the time?

B: Well, the milkman has come.
4.2.4.2 • Those that derive from the violation of conversational maxims
– Maxim of Quantity: make your contribution one that is true.

ex). A: John has two PhDs.

B: John has two PhDs but I don’t believe he has.

+ Here B’s contribution, taken literally, is pragmatically anomalous

because, by violating the maxim of Quality, it contradicts the
standard Quality implicature55 that one believes what one asserts. At
some deeper (non-superficial) level, however, B’s contribution should
not in fact be anomalous for “implicatures (as we shall see) are
deniable.

ex). A: Does your farm contain 400 acres?

B: I don’t know that it does, and I want to know if it does.

+ B’s contribution violates the maxim of Quality by pointing out

that since A does not ask sincerely and hence does not lack and
require the requested information, B does not need to try to make
his/her response one that is true, i.e. B is also free to say what
he/she believes to be false.

– Maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant.

ex). A: Where’s Bill?

B: There’s a yellow VW outside Sue’s house.

+ B’s contribution, taken literally, fails to answer A’s question, and

thus seems to violate at least the maxims of Quantity and Relevance.

Despite this apparent failure of co-operation, there could be possible
connection between the location of Bill and that of a yellow VW. Thus
4.2.5 Distinction between • A presupposition is “anything the speaker assumes to be true before
presupposition making the utterance.
and
• A conversational implicature is an inference or an additional unstated
conversational
meaning drawn from any conversation.
implicature

PRESUPPOSITION CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

Presupposition is more straightforward Conversational implicature is less

and more objective. straightforward and more
subjective/personal.
It is easily drawn before making an
utterance. It is derived from observing or
violating one or more maxims and
drawn after a conversation is over.

Ex: ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ Ex: A: ‘Do you like apples?’
B: ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’
The utterance presupposes that
B’s utterance may implicate that
the Pope does exist in the world.
he/she does like apples.
4.3 • Unlike conversational implicatures, conventional implicatures “don’t

Conventional implicature have to occur in conversation, and they don’t depend on special contexts
for their interpretation.

• Not unlike lexical presuppositions, conventional implicatures are

associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings
when those words are used. Among these words are and, but, even, and
yet.

ex). Linda suggested black, but I chose white

ex). Even John came to the party

ex). Jenny isn’t here yet

ex). She put on her clothes and left the house

4.4 Speech acts

An important part of the meaning of utterances is what speakers DO by
uttering them
4.4.1 Definition • A speech act is an UTTERANCE as a functional unit in communicatio
• Quite contrary to the popular belief that actions and words are entirely
distinct, many actions can actually be performed with words.

• A speech act has two kinds of meaning:

4.4.2 Characteristics
– locutionary meaning (also known as propositional meaning), which is
its basic literal meaning conveyed by its particular words and
structure(s);

– illocutionary meaning (also known as illocutionary force), which is

the effect the utterance might have on the hearer.
 The locutionary The illocutionary
meaning meaning

Sam: I am thirsty.
Annie: I’ll bring you a
glass of water

A: can you shut the

window?
B: certainly

4.4.3 Classification There are five main types of speech acts

4.4.3.1 The
• describes a state of affairs in the world: asserting, stating, claiming,
representative
affirming, making hypotheses, describing, predicting, reporting, etc.

• The representative can generally be characterized as being true or false

ex). Tom: ‘Where are you from?’

David: ‘I’m from Canada

ex). Teacher: There are only two seasons in the south: the dry season
and the rainy season.
Student 1: Then, each season is exactly six months long?
Student 2: Is there any transitional period between them?
4.4.3.2 The commissive • commits the speaker to a course of action: promising, vowing,
threatening, offering, etc.

ex). Jenny: If you don’t stop fighting, I’ll call the police.
Bill: Call them at once to turn your brother in.

ex). Alice: When will I receive my reimbursement?.

Victor: Authors always pay their debts.

4.4.3.3 The declarative • changes the world by bringing about or altering the state of affairs it
names: dismissing, sentencing, naming, announcing marriage, etc.

ex). Vicar: ‘I now pronounce you man and wife. (at the wedding)

ex). Minister of Education: I resign.

Prime Minister: You’ll be free from tomorrow.

4.4.3.4 The directive • intends to get the listener to carry out an action: commanding,
requesting, begging, warning, challenging, inviting, suggesting, giving
advice, etc.

ex). Ed: the garage is a mess

Faye: Clean it up
4.4.3.5 The expressive • indicates the speaker’s psychological state(s) or feeling(s)/attitude(s)
about something: greeting, apologizing, complaining, thanking, etc.

ex). Desk clerk: I beg your pardon. I’ll be right back

Client: No problem

ex). Jack’s friend: This beer is disgusting

Jack: Why don’t you learn to take the bad with the good?

4.4.3.6 The rogative

• refers to a special kind of directives which deals with requests for
information and which is typically in form of a question.

ex). Tom: ‘Where are you from?’

David: ‘I’m from Canada
Speech-act category Typical expression Example

Declaratives declarative structure with speaker as We find the defendant guilty.

subject and a performative verb I resign
in simple present tense

Representatives declarative structure Tom’s eating grapes. Bill was an

accountant.

Expressives declarative structure with words I’m sorry to hear that.

referring to feelings This beer is disgusting.

Directives imperative sentence Sit down!

Fasten your seat belts.

Rogatives interrogative sentence Where did he go? Is she leaving?

Commissives declarative structure with speaker as I’ll call you tonight.

subject and future time expressed We ’re going to turn you in
4.4.4 Distinction between • Speech acts can be classified as direct or indirect. In a direct speech act
Direct and indirect there is a direct relationship between its linguistic structure and the work
speech acts it is doing. In indirect speech acts the speech act is performed indirectly
through the performance of another speech act

• Performing a direct speech act, the speaker utters a sentence which

means exactly what he or she says:

ex). – Come in, please.

– It is quite wrong to condone robbery.
– You should go to the doctor.

• Performing an indirect speech act, the speaker utters a sentence which

does not mean exactly what he or she says:

ex). – won’t you come in?

– is it right to condone robbery?

– why don’t you go to the doctor?

• Indirect speech acts are often felt to be more polite ways of performing
certain kinds of speech acts, such as requests and refusals. It is crucial for
any language learner to approach indirect speech acts and learn how to
recognize them and then use them in context.
4.4.5 Distiction between
locution, illocution • A locutionary act is the saying of something which is meaningful and

and perlocution can be understood.

• An illocutionary act is using a sentence to perform a function.

• A perlocutionary act is the results or effects that are produced by means

of saying something.

Shoot the snake

locution

illocution

perlocution

4.4.6 Felicity conditions • FELICITY CONDITIONS are the conditions which must be fulfilled
for a speech act to be satisfactorily performed or realized.
• The felicity conditions necessary for promises are:
– A sentence is used which states a future act of the speaker
– The speaker has the ability to do the act.
– The hearer prefers the speaker to do the act rather than not to do it.
– The speaker would not otherwise usually do the act.
– The speaker intends to do the act.
4.5 Performatives and
constatives
4.5.1 Definition • A performative is “one that actually describes the act that it performs, it
PERFORMS some act and SIMULTANEOUSLY DESCRIBES that act.
ex). – I promise to repay you tomorrow.

• A constative asserts something that is either true or false.

ex). – John promised to repay you tomorrow.

4.5.2 Characteristics
Performative utterances contain a performative verb and many have 1st
person singular subjects and are in the present tense. But there are
exceptions to this pattern. Some performatives do not have a 1st person
singular subject.

4.5.2.1 • To make his/her utterance more polite, the speaker tends to replace an
active performative with the 1st person singular subject by its passive
version with the 2nd or 3rd person singular/plural subject:

ex). – You ARE hereby FORBIDDEN to leave this room.

– I hereby FORBID you to leave this room.

ex). – Spitting IS hereby FORBIDDEN.

– I hereby FORBID you to spit.

ex). – All passengers on flight number 47 ARE REQUESTED

to proceed to gate 10.
– I REQUEST all passengers on flight num. 47 to proceed to gate 10.
4.5.2.2 • The 1st person singular subject, which is I, can be replaced by the 1st
person plural subject, which is we:
ex). – We hereby THANK you for the compliments you have paid us.

– My wife and I hereby THANK you for the compliments

4.5.2.3
• The 1st person singular subject, which is I, can be replaced by the 3rd
person plural subject, which is the management.
ex). – The management hereby WARN customers that mistakes in
change cannot be rectified once the customer has left the counter.
– I hereby WARN customers that mistakes in change cannot be
rectified once the customer has left the counter .

4.5.3 Distinction between • Explicit performatives are those that contain A PERFORMATIVE

explicit performatives and VERB

implicit performatives
ex). I hereby WARN you that you will fail.

• implicit performatives are those that do not contain A

PERFORMATIVE VERB.

ex). I PROMISE to give you a helpful hand when you are in need.
4.6 Politeness,
co-operation and
indirectness
4.6.1 The principle of • two maxims concerning the principle of politeness:
politeness
– The approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of the other; maximize
praise of the other.

– The tact maxim: Minimize the cost to the other; maximize the
benefit to the other.

• Accordingly, some utterances seem more polite than others. The higher
the cost of the direct act, the more likely it is for the speaker to use an
indirect form.

• ex). Set the table

Can you set the table?

Could I possibly ask you to set the table?

4.6.2 Politeness and • There is no doubt that politeness and co-operation are often in conflict
co-operation with each other. Language users must be consciously aware of this conflict
and flexibly apply both of the principles in face-to-face conversation.

ex). – Tom: Do you like the wine I picked out?

Gina: Not really.

– Tom: Do you like the wine I picked out?

Gina: It’s Italian, isn’t it?
4.6.3 Politeness and • Politeness and indirectness are closely related to each other and that is
indirectness why indirect negative responses are more polite than direct ones:
– ex). Jenny: Well, I’ve done this. I’ve dyed my hair blonde
Ed: You look awful.
You look amazing
The ambiguity of amazing (amazing for its beauty or amazing for its
awfulness) in You look amazing allows the speaker to be truthful and
yet somewhat more polite than the direct answer You look awful.

– ex). Jean: ‘What did the students say about my teaching?

Kate: Pretty bad.
Let’s hope none of them are lawyers
Some students are very positive.

Let’s hope none of them are lawyers’ and Some students are very
positive both imply rather than directly state that overall the student
evaluations were not good and therefore are more polite than Pretty
bad.

4.7 Deixis
4.7.1 Definition
• Deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things
we do with utterances.

• It means ‘pointing’ via language. Any linguistic form used to accomplish

this ‘pointing’ is called a deictic expression.

• When you notice a strange object and ask, ‘What’s that?’, you are using
a deictic expression (‘that’) to indicate something in the immediate
context.

• Deictic expressions are also sometimes called indexicals.

4.7.2 Classification
Deixis consists of three notions:
• Personal deixis:
– can mark a number of overlapping distinction: person, gender,
number, and social relations.
– Pronouns and their alternative forms are usually markers of personal
deixis.
– the system of English pronouns contrasts in person between first
person, second person and third person and in number between
singular and plural. The gender distinction is made in English in the
third person singular only: he for masculine referents and she for
feminine referents.
– Unlike French, for example, the choice of an English pronoun in the
second person does not clearly reflect the social status of referents.
– ex). In my family, we rarely smoke or drink.
– ex). Did you get the carton of milk I asked you to?
• Spatial deixis
– is the marking in language of the orientation or position in space of
the referent of a linguistic expression.
– Common markers of spatial deixis in English are demonstratives
(this vs. that) and such adverbs of place as here, there and the like.
– ex). I’m over here.
– ex). Would you like this one or that one?
• Spatial deixis
– is the orientation or position of the reference of actions and events
in time.
– In English, temporal deixis can be marked either by such words and
phrases as before, last time, now, then, tomorrow, and the like or
through tense, encoded on the verb with affixes or expressed in an
independent morpheme.
– ex). I walked to school every day.
– ex). Tomorrow is a holiday.
4.7.3 Complexity in the
use of deictic
expressions • ex). We clean up after ourselves around here.
4.7.3.1
• As for the first person plural in ex)., There is, in English, a potential
ambiguity in such uses which allows two different interpretations. There is
an exclusive ‘we’ (speaker plus other(s), excluding addressee) and an
inclusive ‘we’ (speaker and addressee included).

• ex). a. Somebody didn’t clean up after himself.

4.7.3.2

• ex). b. Each person has to clean up after him or herself.

• The distance associated with third person forms is also used to make
potential accusations (for example, ‘you didn’t clean up’) less direct, as in
(a), or make a potential personal issue seem like an impersonal one, based
on a general rule, as in (b).

• If here means the place of the speaker’s utterance and

4.7.3.3
now means the time of the speaker’s utterance, an utterance such as

should be nonsense:

• ex). I am not here now.

• However, one can say ex). into the recorder of a telephone answering
machine, projection that now will apply to anytime someone tries to call
him/her, not to when he/she actually records the word.
4.7.3.4 • Then applies to both past in a and present in b time relative to the
speaker’s present time

• ex). a. April 29th, 1999? I was in Hanoi then.

• ex). b. Dinner at 8:30 on Friday? Okay, I’ll see you then.

4.7.3.5 • The present tense is the proximal form and the past tense is the distal
form.

• Treated as distant from the speaker’s current situation are both,

typically, something that has taken place in the past, as in a, and, less
obviously, something that is treated as extremely unlikely, as in b.

• ex). a. At ten, I could ride a bicycle.

• ex). b. I could buy the house, if I had enough money.

4.7.3.6 • There exists in English a distinction between the ‘near speaker’ meaning

of direct speech and the ‘away from speaker’ meaning of indirect speech.

• ex). I’ll call you tonight.

• ex). He promised to call me that night.