Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research

University of Babylon
College of Education for Human Sciences
Department of English
M.A .Programme in Linguistics
Course Material :Semantics

Semantics and Pragmatics

Presented by

Hussein Hadi Muzahim

Thair Ghany
 Supervised by
Prof.Dr.Qasim Obayes Al-Azzawi (Ph.D.)

1445 2023

Contents

1) Introduction
2) Complementarism in Linguistics

3) Austin’s (1962) Theory of Speech Acts

4) The Cooperative Principle
5) The Illocutionary Force
6) Conversational Implicatures
7) Indirect Illocutions
8) Conclusion
 1. Introduction

Semantics and pragmatics are concerned with aspects of meaning in

language. Generally, semantics deals with the description of word and
sentence meaning. Pragmatics is concerned with the characterization of
speaker meaning. It studies the factors, which control a language user's
choice of utterance. Pragmatics is applied to the study of language from
the point of view of the users, especially of the choices they make, the
constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and the
effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of
communication.

In fact, pragmatics study those aspects of meaning which cannot be

captured by semantic theory . In brief ,it deals with how speakers use
language in ways which cannot be predicted from linguistic knowledge
alone. In a narrow sense, it deals with how listeners arrive at the intended
meaning of speakers. In its broadest sense, it deals with the general
principles followed by human beings whwn they communicate with one
another. It is therefore sometimes lighted –heartedly refeered to as ''the
waste-paper- basket of semantics.
 In its most general sense, pragmatics studies the relation between
linguistic expressions and their users. The use of the term generally implies
a dichotomy between language per se - the language competence in the
abstract - and the use that is made of that competence by speakers and
hearers. So , the difference between semantics and pragmatics, therefore,
tends to go with the difference between meaning and use, or more
generally, that between competence and performance.

2.Complementarism in Linguistics

Complementarism is a view of the relationship between semantics and

pragmatics that holds that both are necessary for a complete understanding
of language meaning. Semantics is concerned with the literal meaning of
words and sentences, while pragmatics is concerned with the contextual
meaning of language. According to complementarism, semantics provides
the basic building blocks of meaning, while pragmatics provides the
framework for interpreting those building blocks in context.

Key aspects of complementarism:

 Semantics and pragmatics are distinct but interdependent aspects

of language meaning.
 Semantics provides the literal meaning of words and sentences,
while pragmatics provides the contextual meaning.
 Both semantics and pragmatics are necessary for a complete
understanding of language meaning.

 The sentence "I'm fine" can be interpreted literally to mean that the
speaker is physically and emotionally healthy. However, in the context of a
heated argument, the same sentence can be interpreted sarcastically to mean
that the speaker is not fine.
 The word "bank" can refer to the institution where people deposit
their money, or it can refer to the edge of a river. The intended meaning of
the word is determined by the context in which it is used.

Despite these arguments, complementarism remains a dominant view in

linguistics. It is a powerful framework for understanding the relationship
between semantics and pragmatics, and it has been used to explain a wide
range of linguistic phenomena.

The relationship between semantics and pragmatics has been a major

topic in recent years, due in part to the work of philosophers like J. L.
Austin, J. R. Searle, and H. P. Grice. In linguistics, there has been a
similar shift away from purely formal theories of language and towards a
more pragmatic approach, which takes into account the context of
communication and the intentions of the speaker. As a result, pragmatics is
now one of the most active areas of linguistic research.

Semantics is the level of linguistics which has been most affected by

pragmatics, but the relation between semantics (in the sense of conceptual
semantics) and pragmatics has remained a matter for fundamental
disagreement. The central issue is: Is it possible to separate pragmatics
from semantics?


 Three logically different positions in this debate can be stated:

(1) Pragmatics should be subsumed under semantics.

(2) Semantics should be subsumed under pragmatics.
(3) Semantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of
study.
 The following are outward criteria for judging whether a particular
discussion of meaning takes us into the realm of pragmatics:
(a) Is reference made to addressers or addressees, or speakers or hearers?
(b) Is reference made to the intention of the speaker or the interpretation of
the hearer?
(c) Is reference made to context?
(d) Is reference made to the kind of act or action performed by means of or
by virtue of using language?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is yes, there is a reason to

suppose that we are dealing with pragmatics.
3.Austin’s (1962) Theory of Speech Acts

Austin's theory divides speech acts into three categories :

 Locutionary acts: are the basic acts of saying something. They
involve the use of words to produce meaningful sounds or utterances. For
example:
The locutionary act of saying "I promise to pay you back" involves the use
of the words "I", "promise", "pay", "you", and "back" in a grammatically
correct order.
 Illocutionary acts: are the acts that are performed by saying something.
They are the intended meanings of our utterances. For example:
The illocutionary act of saying "I promise to pay you back" is to make a
promise.
 Perlocutionary acts: are the effects that our utterances have on
others. They are the non-intended consequences of our speech. For
example:
The perlocutionary act of saying "I promise to pay you back" might be to
make the listener feel more confident that you will repay them.
Austin's theory has been influential in the study of language and
communication. It has been used to analyze a wide range of speech acts,
from simple commands to complex political speeches. The theory has also
been used to develop new ways of thinking about language and its role in
society.

4.The Cooperative Principle

In 1975, the Cooperative Principle theory was developed by Paul
Grice. He is an American philosopher who is known as the father of
pragmatics, and he is credited with being the first to use the term "CP."
His theory has been one of the most influential in the development of
pragmatics.( Thomas,1995:56).According to Grice, cooperation in
conversation is shaped by the "cooperative Principle" which runs as
follows:
''make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage,
at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged'' (Grice, 1989: 26).
In the light of Gricean theory, there are four basic guidelines,called the
rubrics of conversation, Grice names respectively as quantity, quality,
relevance and manner. These rubrics Specify the efficient and effective use
of language
Actually, Grice is the first who talks about the relation between co-
operation and the act of linguistic communication. He mentions that the CP
does work in abstract world of principle but in the actual language use
otherwise communication would be very difficult and perhaps breakdown
altogether .
  The four maxims are stated in the following points:
 Quantity Maxim: Make your contribution as informative as is
required for the current purpose of the exchange.
 Quality Maxim: Do not say what you believe to be false.
 Relevance Maxim: Be relevant to the topic at hand.
 Manner Maxim: Be perspicuous, brief, orderly, and unambiguous.

5.The Illocutionary Force

Generally ,the illocutionary force of an utterance is not made explicit by the

utterance itself; but a notable class of exceptions to this rule includes such
sentences as:
 I do. (uttered at a marriage ceremony)
 I name this ship Queen Elizabeth, (said when smashing a bottle
against the bows)
 I give and bequeath my watch to my brother, (in a will)
 I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.

These sentences illustrate the class of utterances Austin calls

performatives , that is, they are utterances which themselves describe the
speech act which they perform. Performatives look like statements
syntactically, but as Austin points out, they differ from most statements in
that they cannot (easily) be declared false.

The characteristic syntactic markers of a performative sentence are

the following:
 (i) The subject is in the first person. (I or we)
(ii) The verb is in the simple present tense, (state, ask,
pardon, etc.)
(iii) The indirect object, if one is present, is you.
(iv) It is possible to insert the adverb hereby.
(v) The sentence is not negative

All these characteristics are realized in:

I hereby declare to you my innocence.

But not all verbs referring to speech events can function as

performative verbs, as we gather from the ‘infelicity’ of these
sentences:
 I hereby remark that the weather is cloudy.
 I hereby persuade you to eat fish in Lent.
 I hereby denigrate your parents

Performatives are problematic semantically because for every non

performative sentence it is possible to find one or more performative
equivalents. Thus one can maintain, with Austin, that the only difference
between I order you to go! and Go! is that the former is explicitly
performative, while the latter is implicitly so. The problem is, how do we
give an account of the quasi-equivalence of these utterances - a matter to
which I shall return shortly.
Austin’s study of speech acts and performatives was taken further and
systematized by his pupil J. R. Searle (Speech Acts, 1969), who went so far
as to claim that ‘a theory of language is part of a theory of action.'

6.Conversational Implicatures

Speakers convey, imply, or hint the feature of meaning without

really saying it. As a result, a phenomena known as "swarming" is
created.
The term "implicature" is regarded as Grice's fundamental contribution
to pragmatics. According to Grice, language has two levels of meaning:
the first level refers to what is spoken, while the second level refers to
what is meant. The crucial component of implicature is founded on this
distinction .
Grice distinguishes between two types of implicature: conventional and
conversational. Beyond the utterance's semantic meaning, both kinds of
implicature transmit a greater degree of meaning.

Consequently, the two sorts of implicatures are drawn by interlocutors

due to the
speaker's relation to the maxims. They can be drawn either by observing
the maxims or breaking them. Concerning the observance of maxims, the
speaker may depend upon the listener to interpret or infer what is said by
making propositions assuming that the maxims are being obeyed.
Whereas taking into consideration the case of breaking certain maxims,
 the speaker obliges the listener to draw more inferences and if the
speaker can be assumed to imply these inferences, then the cooperative
principle is still operative.

In performatives, the marriage between semantics and pragmatics is a

very unequal one: the force of the utterance is explicitly given as part of
its sense, so that need for a complementary model of pragmatics is not
evident. But there are other, perhaps more typical cases where the gap
between sense and force is wider, and where pragmatics has a good deal
to explain. Consider:
 (1)Is that your coat on the floor?
 (2)Waiter, there’s a fly in my soup.

Both of these are likely to have a force which is a mixture of a complaint

and a directive. If a parent asks a child (1), it is not likely to be just a
request for information, but an utterance whose purport might be roughly
expressed as follows: ‘If that is your coat on the floor, I am displeased
with you for leaving it there, and I want you to pick it up.’
If a customer says (2) to a waiter, he is not just passing on some gratuitous
information, but may well be implying something like this: ‘I am outraged
at the standards of this restaurant, and you’d better hurry and bring me a
new bowl of soup, or else ...’
Of course, intonation has an important semantic role here; but the main
point is that there is a clear discrepancy between what the sentence says and
what the speaker of the sentence intends the hearer to understand by it.

7.Indirect Illocutions
 Grice’s account of implicature gives insight into both the difference and
the connection between sense and force; but in Grice’s own treatment, it is
largely restricted to propositional meaning. An apparently different kind of
relation between ‘said’ and ‘implied’ meaning arises in types of utterance
which have been termed indirect illocutions; e.g.:
 Could you speak more slowly?
 I wonder if you’d pass me that hammer.
 Did you know that Mr Potts is resigning?
 Have you any idea what the time is?
 Why don’t you sit down?
8. Conclusion
In summary, this TOPIC has considered three approaches to the relation
between semantics and pragmatics: pragmaticism ( all meaning is
pragmatics ) semanticism ( all meaning is semantics ) and complemen-
tarism ( semantics and pragmatics are complementary to one another in the
study of meaning’).