Lecture 6: Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics

1. Pragmatics
Concerning the relationship with other subjects in the area of linguistics,
pragmatics was once called the waste-basket of semantics. Semantics
studies what the words mean by themselves without considering the
context, whereas a word or sentence will have different meanings in
different situations. Therefore, this discipline leaves an unsolved problem
and pragmatics is the approach to deal with that problem.

The language phenomena which are discussed in pragmatics mostly deal

with the use of language by its users. It allows humans to carefully analyze
how language is used in contexts. One can talk about people’s intended
meanings, their assumptions, their purpose or goal, and the kinds of
actions that they are performing when they speak. In addition, when
dealing with pragmatics, one should consider the situation in which a
conversation takes place.
Levinson (1983: 5) defines pragmatics as the study of language use, that is,
the study of the relation between language and context that are basic to an
account of language understanding. In this case, language understanding
means that understanding an utterance involves the making of inferences
that will connect what is said to what is mutually assumed or what has
been said before. Meanwhile, according to Mey (1993: 42), pragmatics has
to do with language and its users. It studies the condition of human
language uses as these are determined by the context of society.
Another definition of pragmatics comes from Finch. He says that pragmatics
is concerned with the meaning of utterances. He asserts that it focuses on
what is not explicitly stated and on how people interpret utterances in
situational context (2000: 150). In addition, Bowen (2001: 8) states that
pragmatics is the area of language function that embraces the use of
language in social contexts (knowing what to say, how to say it, and when
to say it and how to “be” with other people).

Further, Yule (1996: 3) has a broader definition. He states three important

points. First, pragmatics is the study of speaker‘s meaning. It is concerned
with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and
interpreted by a listener (or reader). Second, pragmatics is the study of
contextual meaning, which involves the interpretation of what speaker
means in a particular context and how the context influences what is said.
Then, it requires a consideration of how speakers organize what they want
PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID
1
to say in accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under
what circumstances. Third, pragmatics is the study that explores how the
unsaid is recognized as a part of what is communicated. It explores how a
listener can make assumption about what is said in order to arrive at an
interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. Lastly, pragmatics is the
study of the relationship between linguistic forms and the user of those
forms

In short, pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate. It

is concerned with how people use language within a context and why they
use language in particular ways.

2. Scope of Pragmatics

As one of linguistics branches, pragmatics covers several scopes, i.e. deixis,

presupposition, cooperative principle, implicature, and speech act (Yule,
1996: 4).
a. Deixis
One way to resolve the relationship between language and context is
through the phenomenon of deixis. According to Levinson (1983: 54), deixis
is concerned with the way in which language encodes or grammaticalizes
features of the contexts of utterance of a speech event, and thus also
concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterances depends on the
analysis of the context of those utterances.
Another definition of deixis is stated by Yule (1996: 9). He states that deixis
is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things people do
with utterances. It means ‘pointing’ via language. He classifies deixis into
three categories:

1) Person Deixis
Person deixis is used to point to people. It clearly operates a basic three-part
division, exemplified by the pronouns for first person (I), second person
(you), and third person (he, she, or it). In many languages, these deictic
categories of speaker, addressee, and other(s) are elaborated with makers
of relative social status (for example, addressee with higher status versus
addressee with lower status). Expressions, which indicate higher status are
described as honorifics.

2) Spatial Deixis

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

2
Spatial deixis is used to point to location. The most primary English
examples are the adverbs here and there and the demonstratives this and
that, though they are far from the only deictic words.

3) Temporal Deixis

Temporal deixis is used to point to location in time. This includes time

adverbs like yesterday, now, then, tomorrow, soon, and forth, and also
different tenses. Speakers also know how to use this knowledge when they
listen and read, when they speak and write or when they communicate.
People need, then, to consider what kind of knowledge a person has to
have, and use, in particular acts of communication. For a question like
“When did you last see my brother?”, there are numerous answers that are
linguistically appropriate Around noon, Last Tuesday, I think it was on June
first, and so on, but on a specific occasion only one answer (or its
paraphrase) is correct. What is correct in a particular instance is, people may
say, pragmatically appropriate.

b. Presupposition

According to Yule (1996: 25), presupposition is something the speaker

assumes to be the case prior to making utterance. He adds that
presupposition is treated as a relationship between two propositions. For
example, the utterance “Mary’s dog is cute.” means that Mary has a dog.
Then, he classifies presupposition into seven types, they are:

1) Potential presupposition

Potential presupposition is an assumption typically associated with the use

of linguistic form, e.g. the use of the verb regret in “He regrets doing that.”
carries an assumption that he actually did that.

2) Existential presupposition

Existential presupposition is an assumption that someone or something,

identified by the use of a noun phrase, does exist. For example, in “Your
bag.”, it is assumed that you have a bag.

3) Factive presupposition

Factive presupposition is the assumption that information stated after

certain words, e.g. realize, regret, be, aware, odd and glad is true. For
example, in “We regret telling him.”, it is assumed that we told him.
4) Lexical presupposition

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

3
Lexical presupposition is the assumption that, in using one word, the
speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood. For
example, in “He stopped smoking.”, it is assumed that he used to smoke.

5) Structural presupposition

Structural presupposition is the assumption that part of a structure

contains information being treated as already known. For example, in
“Where did you buy the bike?”, it is assumed that You bought the bike.

6) Non-factive presupposition

Non-factive presupposition is the assumption that certain information, as

presented, is not true. For example, in “We imagined we were in Hawaii.”, it
is assumed that we were not in Hawaii.

7) Counterfactual presupposition

Counterfactual presupposition is the assumption that certain information is

the opposite of true. For example, in “If you were my friend, you would
have helped me.”, it is assumed that you are not my friend.

c. The Cooperative Principle

The success of a conversation depends on the cooperation between the

interlocutors. Grice (1975: 26) proposes the cooperative principle as a
guidance, which usually operates between the speakers and hearers in
conversational interactions. According to Yule (1996: 128), cooperative
principle is a basic assumption in conversation that each participant will
attempt to contribute appropriately, at the required time, to the current
exchange of talk.
Further, based on Grice’s opinion (1989: 26-27), the cooperative principle in
conversation can be described in terms of four conversational maxims
(Gricean maxims):

1) The Maxim of Quantity

The maxim of quantity emphasizes information. A contribution should be as
informative as is required for the conversation to proceed. It should be
neither too little, nor too much.
2) The Maxim of Quality

It says that speakers should be truthful. They should not say something that
they think or believe is false, or make statement for which they have no

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

4
evidence. Therefore, lying is an obvious violation of the cooperative
principles.

3) The Maxim of Relation

The maxim of relation emphasizes relevance, in which the speaker has to be

relevant with the topic under discussion. Speakers who change the subject
abruptly are usually considered rude or uncooperative.

4) The Maxim of Manner

The maxim of manner emphasizes clarity. Speakers’ contributions should be

perspicuous: clear and brief, avoiding absurdity of expression and ambiguity.

d. Implicature

Grice (1975: 24) says that implicature is what a speaker can imply, suggest,
or mean as distinct from what he/she literally says. It is an implied message
that is based on the interpretation of the language use and its context of
communication. He points out that there are two kinds of implicature,
namely, conventional and conversational implicature.

1) Conventional Implicature

Conventional implicature happens when the speaker is presenting a true

fact in a misleading way. The implicated elements associate with the
conventional meaning of the words used. In other words, it is associated
with specific words and result in additional conveyed meaning when those
words are used (Yule, 1996: 45). It actually does not have to occur in
conversation, and does not depend on special context for the interpretation.
It can be said that certain expressions in language implicate
‘conventionally’ a certain state of the world, regardless of their use. For
example, the word last will be denoted in conventional implicature as ‘the
ultimate item of a sequence’. The conjunction but will be interpreted as
‘contrast’ between the information precedes the conjunction and the
information after the conjunction. The word even in any sentence describing
an event implicates a ‘contrary to expectation’ interpretation of the event.

2) Conversational Implicature

It is another level at which speaker’s meaning can differ from what is said,
depends on the context of conversation. In conversational implicature,
meaning is conveyed not so much by what is said, but by the fact that it is
said. The cooperative principle and the maxims take part when the
conversational implicature arises. There are four kinds of conversational

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

5
implicature proposed by Grice (1975) and Levinson (1983), i.e. generalized,
particularized, standard, and complex conversational implicature.

e. Speech Acts

1) Definition of Speech Act

The term speech act was coined by Austin (1962) and developed by Searle
(1969). Austin defines speech acts as acts performed in saying something.
Further, he identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of
utterance. He distinguishes the act of saying something, what one does in
saying it, and what one does by saying it, and dubs these a locutionary, an
illocutionary, and a perlocutionary act.

Another definition comes from Nunan. “Speech acts are simply things
people do through language-for example, apologizing, complaining,
instructing, agreeing, and warning” (1993: 65). In line with Nunan’s
statement, Yule (1996: 47) says “Actions performed via utterances are
generally called speech acts”. Both agree that speech act is an utterance
that replaces an action for particular purpose in certain situation.

Further, Aitchison (2003: 106) defines speech act as a number of utterance

behave somewhat like actions. He states that when a person utters a
sequence of words, the speaker is often trying to achieve some effects
with those words; an effect which might in some cases has been
accomplished by an alternative action. In conclusion, speech act is an
utterance that replaces an action for particular purpose in a certain
situation.

2) Speech Act Classification

Some linguists have different classifications of speech act. There are three
classifications of speech act based on Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Leech
(1983).

a) Austin’s Classification of Speech Act

Austin (1962: 101) identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of
utterance, they are:
i) Locutionary Act

Locutionary act is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain utterance with

certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to meaning
in the traditional sense (Austin, 1962: 108). This act performs the acts of
saying something. Further, Leech (1996: 199) formulates it as S says to H
PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID
6
that X, in which S refers to the speaker, H refers to the hearer, and X refers
to the certain word spoken with a certain sense and reference. Another
definition comes from Yule (1996: 48). He asserts this kind of act as the basic
act of utterances of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. In line
with Yule, Cutting (2002: 16) defines locutionary act as what is said; the
form of the words uttered. There are three patterns of locutionary act
according to which English sentences are constructed. They are declarative
if it tells something, imperative if it gives an order, and interrogative if it
asks a question (Austin, 1962: 108).

ii) Illocutionary Act

Illocutionary act refers to informing, ordering, warning, undertaking, and

etc. Austin (1962: 108) defines it as an utterance which has a certain
(conventional) force. It can also be said that illocutionary act refers to what
one does in saying something. The formulation of illocutionary act is in
saying X, s asserts that P (Leech, 1996: 199). P refers to the proposition or
basic meaning of an utterance. In Yule’s example (1996: 48), “I’ve just
made some coffee.”, in saying it, the speaker makes an offer or a statement.
More importantly, Austin (1962: 150) distinguishes five more general
classes of utterance according to the illocutionary force. The detail is as
follows:

(1) Verdictives

Verdictives are typified by the giving of verdict, as the name implies, by a

jury, arbitrator, or umpire. However, the need not be final; they may be, for
example, an estimation, reckoning, or appraisal. It is essential to give a
finding to something - fact or value - which is for different reasons hard to
be certain about.
(2) Exercitives

Exercitives are exercise of power, right, or influence. The examples are

appointing, voting, ordering, urging, advising, and warning.

(3) Commisives
Commisives are typified by promising or otherwise undertaking; they
commit the hearer to do something, but include also declaration or
announcements of intention, which are not promise, and also rather vague
things which can be called espousal, as for example siding with.

(4) Behabitives

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

7
Behabitives are very miscellaneous group, and have to do with attitudes
and social behavior. The example are apologizing, congratulating,
condoling, cursing, and challenging.

(5) Expositives

Expositives are difficult to define. They make plain how utterances fit into
the course of an argument or conversation, how words are use, or in
general are expository. The examples are ‘I reply’, ‘I concede’, ‘I illustrate’, ‘I
assume’, and ‘I postulate’.

iii) Perlocutionary Act

Perlocutionary act is the effect of an utterance. It is what people bring

about or achieve by saying something such as to get H to know, get H to do
something, get H to expect something, show pleasant and pleasant feeling,
and praise (Austin, 1969: 108). For example, if someone shouts, “Fire!” and
by that act causes people to exit a building which they believe to be on fire,
they have performed the perlocutionary act of getting h to exit the
building. Meanwhile, Leech(1996:199) argues that the formulation of the
perlocutionary act is by saying X, s convinces H that P. For example, by
saying “I’ve just made some coffee,”, the speaker performs perlocutionary
act of causing the hearer to account for a wonderful smell, or to get the
hearer to drink some coffee.
b) Searle’s Classification of Speech Act

Searle (2005: 23-24) starts with the notion that when a person speaks,
he/she performs three different acts, i.e. utterance acts, propositional
acts, and illocutionary acts. Utterance acts consist simply of uttering strings
of words. Meanwhile, propositional acts and illocutionary acts consist
characteristically of uttering words in sentences in certain context, under
certain condition, and with certain intention. Searle classifies the
illocutionary acts based on varied criteria as the following:

i) Assertive or Representative

Searle (2005: 12) says that the purpose of the members of this class is to
commit the speaker (in varying degrees) to something’s being the case, to
the truth of the expressed proposition. It describes states or events in the
world such as an assertion, a description, a claim, a statement of fact, a
report, and a conclusion. Therefore, testing an assertive can be done by
simply questioning whether it can be categorized as true or false. Kreidler
(1998: 183) adds in the assertive function speakers and writers use
language to tell what they know or believe; assertive language is
PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID
8
concerned with facts. The purpose is to inform. By performing an assertive
or representative, the speaker makes the words fit the world (belief). For
examples:

(1) The name of British queen is Elizabeth.

(2) The earth is flat.

The two examples represent the world’s events as what the speaker
believes. Example (1) implies the speaker’s assertion that the British queen’s
name is Elizabeth. In example (2) the speaker asserts that he/she believes
that the earth is flat.

ii) Directive

The illocutionary point of this category shows in the fact that it is an

attempt by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (Searle, 2005:
13). He adds it includes some actions, such as commanding, requesting,
inviting, forbidding, and suggesting. In addition, Yule (1996: 54) states it
expresses what the speakers want. By using a directive, the speaker
attempts to make the world fit the words. Leech (1996: 105-107) also
defines directive as an intention to produce some effects through an action
by the hearer. The following sentences are the examples of directive speech
acts:
(1) You may ask.
(2) Would you make me a cup of tea?
(3) Freeze!
Example (1) is a suggestion that has a function to get the hearer to do
something as what the speaker suggests, i.e. suggests someone to ask.
Meanwhile, in example (2), in saying an interrogative sentence, the speaker
has an intention to perform a request that has a function to get the hearer
to do something that the speaker wants, i.e. requests someone to make
him/her a cup of tea. The speaker does not expect the hearer to answer the
question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but the action of making him/her a cup of tea.
Example (3) is a command to get the hearer to act as what the speaker
wants, i.e. commands someone to freeze something.

iii) Commissive
Searle (2005: 14) suggests that commissive refers to an illocutionary act
whose point is to commit the speaker(again in varying degrees) to some
future course of action, such as promising, offering, threatening, refusing,
vowing, and volunteering. Yule (1996: 54) and Leech (1996: 105-107) add it
expresses what the speaker intends. Further, Kreidler (1998: 192) explains
PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID
9
that commissive verbs are illustrated by agree, ask, offer, refuse, swear, all
with following infinitives. A commissive predicate is one that can be used to
commit oneself (or refuse to commit oneself) to some future action. The
subject of the sentence is therefore most likely to be I or we. The examples
are as follows:
(1) We’ll be right back.
(2) I’m gonna love you till the end.

The content of the commissives has something to do with a future and

possible action of the speaker. The modal will or (to be) going to (in certain
rules, contexts and situation) signifies a promise in which it is considered as
commissive.

iv) Expressive
Expressive includes acts in which the words are to express the
psychological state specified in the sincerity condition about a state of
affairs specified in the propositional content (Searle, 2005: 15). In other
word, it refers to a speech act in which the speaker expresses his/her
feeling and attitude about something. It can be a statement of pleasure,
pain, like, dislike, joy and sorrow. He adds the paradigms of expressive
verbs are thank, congratulate, apologize, regret, deplore, and welcome.
In line with Searle, Yule (1996: 53) states that this class is a kind of speech
acts that states what the speaker feels. It can be a statement of pleasure,
pain, like, dislike, joy or sorrow. The examples are:

(1) I’m terribly sorry.

(2) Congratulation!
(3) We greatly appreciate what you did for us.

Example (1) is an expression to show sympathy. Example (2) is used to

congratulate someone. The last example (3) can be used to thank or to
appreciate someone.

v) Declaration
Its successful performance brings about the correspondence between the
propositional content and reality, successful performance guarantees that
the propositional content corresponds to the world; the direction of fit is
words-to- world. Searle (2005:17) gives examples that

“If I successfully perform the act of appointing you chairman, then you are
chairman; if I successfully perform the act of nominating you as candidate, then
you are a candidate; if I successfully perform the act of declaring a state of war,

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

10
then war is on; if I successfully perform the act of marrying you, then you are
married.”

Yule (1996: 53) and Cutting (2002: 16), simplify Searle’s long explanation by
saying that declaration is a kind of speech acts that changes the world via
utterance. The speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific
context, in order to perform a declaration appropriately. Leech (1996: 105-
107) adds that declaration are the illocution whose successful performance
brings about the correspondence between propositional content and reality.
Christening or baptizing, declaring war, abdicating, resigning, dismissing,
naming, and excommunicating are the examples of declaration. Some
examples of utterances classified as declarations are:

(1) Boss: “You’re fired”

(2) Umpire: “Time out!”

Examples (1) and (2) bring about the change in reality and they are more than
just statements. Example (1) can be used to perform the act of ending the
employment and example (2) can be used to perform the end of the game.

The researcher decides to use Searle’s classification because it is actually a

modification of Austin’s general theory of speech acts. Searle’s classification is
based on what the speaker wants to imply in his/her utterances. In addition,
this classification is more specific and detail than other classifications.

c) Leech’s Classification of Speech Act

Another classification is from Leech. According to Leech (1996: 104-105),

illocutionary functions are based on how utterances relate to the social goal
of establishing and maintaining community. Speech acts are classified into the
following types.

i) Competitive

The illocutionary goal competes with the social goal. The function of this type
of speech act is for showing politeness in the form of negative parameter. The
point is to reduce the discord implicit in the competition between what the
speaker wants to achieve and what is ‘good manner’. The examples of this
speech acts are ordering, asking, demanding, begging, and requesting.

ii) Convivial

The illocutionary goal deals with social goal. On the contrary with the previous
category, the convivial type is intrinsically courteous. It means that politeness
here is in the positive form of seeking opportunities for comity. The examples

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

11
of this type of speech acts are offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, and
congratulating.

iii) Collaborative

The illocutionary goal is different from the social goal. In this function, both
politeness and impoliteness are relevant. It can be found in most of written
discourse. The examples of this category are asserting, reporting, announcing,
and instructing.

iv) Conflictive

The illocutionary goal conflicts with the social goal. Similar to the
collaborative function, politeness does not need to be questioned for the
terms in this illocutionary function are used to cause offence or hurt the
feeling of the hearer. The examples of the conflictive function are threatening,
accusing, cursing, and reprimanding.

3) Direct and Indirect Speech Act

In relation to speech acts theory, Searle (2005: 30) also introduces a
distinction between direct and indirect speech acts. He mentions that the
simplest cases of meaning are those in which the speaker utters a sentence
and means exactly and literally what he says. This case is called a direct
speech act. Thus, a declarative form has the function of statement or
assertion; an interrogative one has the function of a question; and an
imperative type has the function of a request or order.

In addition to Searle’s explanation, Cutting (2002: 19) states that a speaker

using a direct speech act wants to communicate the literal meaning that the
words conventionally express; there is a direct relationship between the
form and the function. The example “Do you like the tuna and sweet corn
ones?” is a direct speech act in an interrogative form that has the function of a
question.

However, notoriously, not all cases of meaning are simple because the
speaker’s utterance meaning and the sentence meaning come apart in
various ways. One important class of such cases is that in which the speaker
utters a sentence, means what he says, but also means something more. For
example, a speaker may utter the sentence “I want you to do it.” by way of
requesting the hearer to do something. The utterance is incidentally meant as
a statement, but it is also meant primarily as a request, a request made by way
of making a statement. Another example is someone says, “Can you reach the

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

12
salt?” and mean it not merely as a question but as a request to pass the salt.
These utterances are identified as indirect speech acts.

Searle (2005: 31) argues that indirect speech acts are cases in which one
illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another.
Therefore, there is an indirect relationship between a surface structure and
function. A declarative sentence can be used to make a command, an
interrogative to make a request, etc.

In line with Searle’s opinion, Cutting (2002: 19) explains that someone using an
indirect speech act wants to communicate a different meaning from the
apparent surface meaning; the form and the function are not directly
connected. Hence, a declarative form such as “I was going to get another
one”, or “You could get me a tuna and sweetcorn one” might have the
function of a request or order.

4) Speech Events
The basic unit of analysis in verbal interaction is speech event. In performing
indirect request, one can treat that performance in two ways. One may
simply utter a single speech act in a single utterance and one may utter some
utterances without performing a single speech act clearly, but it allows the
hearer to react as if the request has been made. In the first condition, for
example, when S is asking H to do X by performing only a single speech act in a
single utterance “Will you do X?”. In the second condition, S is asking H if the
precondition for doing X is in place for making a request result. Then, to
understand this, i.e. studying how to get more than what is communicated
through the speech, analysis of speech event is needed.

Yule (1996: 57) defines speech event as an activity in which participants

interact via language in some conventional ways to arrive at some outcomes. It
may include an obvious central speech act, such as, “I don’t really like this.”,
as in speech event of complaining, but it will also include other utterances
leading up to and subsequently reacting to that central action. According to
him, in most cases, a request is not made by means of a single speech act
suddenly uttered. He proposes an example below (1996: 57).
Him : Oh, Marry, I’m glad you’re here.
Her : What’s up?
Him : I can’t get my computer to work.
Her : Is it broken?
Him : I don’t think so.
Her : What’s it doing?
Him : I don’t know. I’m useless with computers.
PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID
13
Her : What kind is it?
Him : It’s a Mac. Do you use them?
Her : Yeah.
Him : Do you have a minute?
Her : Sure.
Him : Oh, great.
The extended interaction above may be called a requesting speech act without
a central speech act of request. There is no actual request from him to her to
do anything. However, by looking at the question “Do you have a minute?”,
one can assume that that question is pre-request’ in which it allows the
receiver to say that she is busy or that she has to be somewhere else. The
response “Sure.” is taken to be acknowledgement not only of having time
available, but also a willingness to perform the uttered action.

3. Context
Context is an important concept in pragmatic analysis because pragmatics
focuses on the meaning of words in context or interaction and how the
persons involved in the interaction communicate more information than the
word they use. This statement is in line with Finegan et al.’s explanation. They
(1997: 345) state that the essential element in the interpretation of an
utterance is the context in which it is uttered. It is the obvious case of
pragmatics as the study of contextual meaning. Therefore, analyzing the
meaning of an utterance cannot ignore the context since the meaning of an
utterance will be different if the context is different. It will establish the
interpretation of the utterance.

Yule (1996: 21) mentions that context simply means the physical environment
in which a word is used. Meanwhile, Mey (1993: 39-40) states that context is
more than a matter of reference and of understanding what things are about.
It gives a deeper meaning to utterances. The utterance “It is a long time since
we visited your mother.”, when uttered at the living room by a married
couple, has a totally different meaning from if it is uttered by a husband and
wife while they are standing in front of the hippopotamus enclosure at the
zoo, in which it can be considered as a joke.

a. Context of situation

Context of situation or situational context is what speakers know about what

they can see around them (Cutting, 2002: 3). It is an important part in
communication. This is similar with Widdowson’s assumption. He (2004: 37)
says,

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

14
“Exactly as in the reality of spoken or written languages, a word without linguistic
context is a mere figment and stands for nothing by itself, so in the reality of a
spoken living tongue, the utterance has no meaning except in the context of
situation.”

Further, Hymes (1974: 55-60) puts forward several concepts for describing the
context of situation. For convenience, he uses the word SPEAKING as an
acronym for the various factors he deems to be relevant.

1) (S) Setting and Scene

Setting refers to the time and place, i.e. the concrete physical circumstances in
which a speech event takes place. For example, the living room in the
grandparents’ home might be a setting for a family story. Scene refers to the
abstract psychological setting, or the cultural definition of the occasion,
including characteristics such as range of formality and sense of play or
seriousness. For instance, the family story may be told at a reunion celebrating
the grandparents' anniversary. At times, the family would be festive and
playful; at other times, serious and commemorative.
2) (P) Participants
Participants are ones who are speaking and to whom they are speaking to.
They include speaker and listener, addressor-addressee, or sender-receiver.
The social factors, such as age, gender, status, social distance, and role or
profession of the participants have to be considered as well.

3) (E) End

End refers to the conventionally recognized and expected outcomes of an

exchange as well as the personal goals that participants seek to accomplish on
particular occasions. In other words, it refers to the purpose, goal, and
outcomes of a speech event. For example, the aunt may tell a story about the
grandmother to entertain the audience, teach the young women, and honor
the grandmother.

4) (A) Act Sequence

Act refers to the actual form and content of what is said the precise words
used, how they are used, and the relationship of what is said with the actual
topic at hand.

5) (K) Key

Key refers to the cues that establish the tone, manner, or in which a particular
message is conveyed: light-hearted, serious, precise, sarcastic, and so on. Key

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

15
may also be marked nonverbally by certain kinds of behavior, gesture, posture,
or even deportment.

6) (I) Instrumentalities

Instrumentalities basically refer to the choice of channel and the actual forms
of speech employed, such as the language, dialect, code, or register that is
chosen. The choice of channel itself can be oral, written, or telegraphic.

7) (N) Norm of Interaction and Interpretation

This factor refers to the specific behaviors and properties attached to speaking
and also to how these may be viewed by someone who does not share them,
e.g. loudness, silence, and gaze return. In simpler words, norms here are social
rules governing the event and the participants’ action and reaction.

8) (G) Genre
Genre refers to the clearly demarcated types of utterance, such as poem,
proverb, riddles, sermon, prayer, lecturer, and editorial.

However, sometimes, it is hard to find all elements of the context of situation

in analyzing an utterance because not every utterance has them. Therefore,
only some of them are used or considered in interpreting an utterance.

Then, another opinion about context of situation comes from Leech. He

(1996: 13) states it includes relevant aspects of the physical or social setting
of an utterance. In this sense, it plays an important role in understanding the
meaning of an utterance because by this context, the speaker and the
addressee share their background in understanding their utterances. Further,
Malinowski in Halliday and Hasan (1986: 6) defines it as environment of the
text including the verbal and the situational environment in which the text is
uttered.

In addition to context of situation, Holmes (2001: 8) states that in any

situation, linguistic choices will generally reflect the influence of one or more
of the following components:

a) the participants: who is speaking and whom he is speaking to,

b) the setting or social context of interaction: where they are speaking
(physical setting) and what psychological situation in which they are
speaking (psychological setting),
c) the topic: what is being talked about,
d) the function: why they are speaking.

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

16
Those are basic components in pragmatic explanation of why people do not
all speak in the same way all of the time.

b. Cultural or Social Context

Another context that influences the way people say something is the
cultural or social context. It also affects the linguistic choice of the speaker.
In this case, Malinowski in Halliday and Hasan (1986: 6) defines context of
culture as the institutional and ideological background that gives value and
contains an interpretation. For example, one says X that will be considered
as an insult in a group conversation in a place, but X may not be considered
as an insult in another group conversation in another place too. This
phenomenon can happen because the parties in those conversations have
different cultures.
Furthermore, any kind of linguistic interaction involves not only the
immediate sight and sound surrounding the event but also the whole
cultural history behind the participants and the kind of practices that they
are engaging in. Therefore, it is not sufficient if people only consider the
context of situation and neglect the context of culture.

PROF. DR. BUSHRA NI’MA RASHID

17