Meaning and Communication 2010

Adriana Vizental Meaning and Communication From Semantic Meaning to Pragmatic Meaning
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei VIZENTAL, ADRIANA Meaning and communication / Adriana Vizental. Arad : Editura Universitii Aurel Vlaicu, 2009 Bibliogr. ISBN 978-973-752-390-7 811.111
Contents
Introduction 0.1 Language a semiotic system 0.2 From semantic meaning to pragmatic meaning Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence 1.1 Semantic competence 1.2 Types of meaning 1.2.1 Conceptual meaning 1.2.2 Associative meanings 1.2.2.1 Social meaning 1.2.2.2 Connotative and affective meaning 1.2.2.2.1 Connotative meaning 1.2.2.2.2 Affective meaning 1.2.2.3 Collocative and reflected meaning 1.2.2.3.1 Collocative meaning 1.2.2.3.2 Reflected meaning 1.2.3 Pragmatic meaning 1.3 Sense relations 1.3.1 Form-meaning relations 1.3.1.1 Synonymy 1.3.1.2 Polysemy 1.3.1.3 Homonymy 1.3.2 Meaning-meaning relations: Congruence 1.3.2.1 Hyponymy 1.3.2.2 Incompatibility 1.3.3 Normality relations: Consonance and dissonance 1.3.3.1 Lexical consonance 1.3.3.2 Lexical dissonance 1.3.4 Truth-conditional semantics Chapter 2: Lexical innovation 2.1 Neologisms and lexical creativity 2.1.1 Development of the English language: Loan words 2.1.2 Word formation 2.1.2.1 Derivation, deflection, back formation 2.1.2.2 Conversion 2.1.2.3 Composition and blending 2.1.2.4 Contraction and abbreviation 2.1.2.5 Onomatopoeia and ablaut 2.1.2.6 Word coinage 2.1.3 Lexicalization 2.1.3.1 The functions of neologisms 2.1.3.2 The process of lexicalization 2.1.3.3 Neologisms and change of meaning 7 7 10 15 15 17 18 24 25 26 27 29 31 31 32 34 39 39 39 41 42 44 44 45 48 48 50 52 55 55 56 63 63 65 67 70 72 72 74 75 77 80
2.1.3.3.1 The lexicalization of loan words 2.1.3.3.2 Word formation and lexicalization 2.2 Transfer of meaning: Figurative speech 2.2.1 Diachronic change of meaning 2.2.2 Figurative transfer of meaning 2.2.2.1 Relations between signifier and signified 2.2.2.1.1 Comparison 2.2.2.1.1.1 Simile and the metaphor 2.2.2.1.1.2 Zoosemy, personification, antonomasia 2.2.2.1.2 Vagueness and exaggeration 2.2.2.1.2.1 Euphemism, paraphrase, circumlocution 2.2.2.1.2.2 Ellipsis and substitution 2.2.2.1.2.3 Hyperbole and litotes, irony and banter 2.2.2.2 Sense relations 2.2.2.2.1. Synonymy 2.2.2.2.1.1 Tautology 2.2.2.2.1.2 Repetition, accumulation, gradation 2.2.2.2.2 Hyponymy: The metonymy 2.2.2.2.3 Opposition of meaning 2.2.2.2.3.1 Antithesis 2.2.2.2.3.2 False homology: Ambiguity and paradox 2.2.2.2.4 Semantic anomaly: Zeugma and bathos 2.2.3 Change of meaning and lexicalization Chapter 3: Idiom and style 3.1 Idiomatic speech 3.1.1 Defining idiom 3.1.2 The origins of idioms 3.1.3 Idioms and figures of speech 3.1.4 Transparency and lexicalization of idioms 3.2 Register and style 3.2.1 The formality scale 3.2.1.1 Formal and beyond formal 3.2.1.2 Neutral and informal 3.2.1.3 Colloquial speech and slang 3.2.1.4 Argot and taboo 3.3 The formality of idioms Chapter 4: The text 4.1 Constituents: Minimal groups 4.2 The clause 4.2.1 Clause as message 4.2.2 Clause as exchange 4.2.3 Clause as representation 4.3 Intonation and key 4.4 Clause complexes and sentences
80 82 84 85 88 89 89 89 92 93 93 98 99 100 101 101 101 102 103 103 104 107 108 113 113 116 119 123 126 130 132 134 135 136 142 143 147 149 152 154 155 156 159 161
5
4.5 The text 4.5.1 Text and textness 4.5.2 Written and spoken discourses 4.5.2.1 Written texts 4.5.2.2 Oral texts 4.5.2.3 Speech in writing 4.5.2.4 The grammar of little texts Chapter 5: Context and reference 5.1 Language in context 5.2 Reference 5.2.1 Person deixis 5.2.2 Social deixis 5.2.3 Place deixis 5.2.4 Time deixis 5.2.5 Discourse deixis 5.3 Manipulation of deixis Chapter 6: Language in use: Speech acts 6.1 Linguistic competence vs. linguistic performance 6.2 Language functions 6.3 Speech acts 6.3.1 Locution illocution perlocution 6.3.2 Levels of meaning 6.4 Indirectness 6.4.1 Speech acts and indirectness 6.4.2 Factors that govern indirectness 6.4.2.1 Power 6.4.2.2 Social distance 6.4.2.3 Size of imposition 6.4.2.4 Rights and obligations Chapter 7: Cooperation and inferential communication 7.1 Meaning in interaction 7.2 Indirectness and implicature 7.3 Cooperative communication 7.3.1 Observing the maxims 7.3.1.1 Observing the maxim of Quality 7.3.1.2 Observing the maxim of Quantity 7.3.1.3 Observing the maxim of Relevance 7.3.1.4 Observing the maxim of Manner 7.3.2 Flouting the maxims 7.3.2.1 Flouting the maxim of Quality 7.3.2.2 Flouting the maxim of Quantity 7.3.2.3 Flouting the maxim of Relevance 7.3.2.4 Flouting the maxim of Manner 7.4 Types of implicature Chapter 8: Strategies of politeness 8.1 Politeness: Principles and maxims 8.1.1 Tact and Generosity 8.1.2 Approbation and Modesty 164 164 169 170 172 175 177 181 182 188 191 194 197 197 199 200 203 203 206 207 212 214 216 217 220 221 222 224 226 227 227 229 231 235 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 249 250 252 254 8.1.3 Agreement and Sympathy 8.1.4. Other maxims 8.2 Face and face management 8.2.1 Strategies of positive politeness 8.2.2 Strategies of negative politeness 8.2.3 Off record strategies 9 Conclusions: Language and thought 9.1 Explicit vs. implicit communication 9.2 Relevance Annexes ANNEX 1. English a crazy language ANNEX 2: Lexical innovation and associative meaning ANNEX 3: Sense relations ANNEX 4: Figurative speech ANNEX 5: Meaning and thought ANNEX 6: Idioms and style ANNEX 7: Register and style ANNEX 8: The text ANNEX 9: Meaning in context ANNEX 10: What words do! ANNEX 11: Lexical meaning vs. speakers meaning ANNEX 12: Diplomatic language Bibliography 255 256 257 261 264 267 269 269 273 277 277 279 281 282 283 285 286 288 289 290 292 293 295
Meaning and Communication
Introduction
0.1
Language a semiotic system
The role of a language is, in many ways, similar to that of money. Just like money, which helps people to sell their ware and get the goods they need for daily existence, a common language enables people to get things (objects, information, help), to convey and exchange ideas, etc. People learn their first language at a very early age. At first, children become familiar with the sonority of their mother tongue, then they begin to learn the words used to designate objects, actions and ideas, and they gradually begin to use them to express their own thoughts and feelings. At a later stage, they are taught the letters of the alphabet, which they learn to use to represent in writing what they want to say. When it comes to learning a second or a third language, learners must get familiar with the foreign language equivalents of those items, and it is only by acquiring the new lexis and grammar that they can begin to communicate with the members of the new language community. Language is a semiotic system, i.e. a system of signs used as a code by a social group to name and describe things and actions, to communicate and negotiate meaning. Within the language community, the phonemes of the language, the letters of the alphabet, the words of the dictionary, etc. have the same value: they represent the generally accepted code that ensures smooth and relatively problem-free exchange of ideas. For a long time, linguists considered that the signs of a language are arbitrary, e.g. that there is no logical explanation why an object is named book in English, livre in French, or carte in Romanian; today, they argue that there is logic in every naming. This, however, is of lesser importance for the communicative process itself. What is essential is that the conventional signs of a language are shared by all the members of that language community. Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the father of semiology (the science of signs) describes linguistic communication as a process of encoding and decoding that goes on between two or more individuals who know the code, i.e. share the same language. The process starts in the mind of the
speaker1 (the producer/sender of the message), who puts his thoughts (meanings) into words, organizes them into structures according to the rules of the language, then gives them a physical (phonetic) form. The message thus constructed is sent towards the listener in the form of a continuous ribbon of sound waves. In his turn, the hearer who knows the language decodes the message by following the same route, but in the opposite direction: he receives the phonetic form, analyzes its structures and works out the meaning the speaker wanted to express. Schematically, this can be represented in the following way: ENCODING MEANING STRUCTURE FORM DECODING MEANING STRUCTURE FORM
In language, as in all semiotic systems, the individual signs have no meaning of their own; they acquire their meaning when they appear together with other signs of the same system2. The signs of the language are grouped by linguistic levels. For example, the minimal signs of phonetics are the phonemes, e.g. [], [], [b], [t]. The letters of the alphabet e.g. a, e, u, m, n represent the minimal signs of graphology. The morphemes (e.g. work+ing) function as the minimal units of grammar, etc. In themselves, such minimal signs have no meaning; it is only when they appear within larger signs e.g. words that they acquire a certain meaning. Thus, for example, the individual phonemes [b], [u], [k] are meaningless; together they make up the word book, whose meaning is known to all those who speak English. The linguistic message, whether spoken or written, comes in a linear form: sounds/letters follow one another to form words; words combine into phrases and sentences/utterances3; utterances in their succession produce the stream of speech; in writing,
De Saussure referred only to oral communication. Today, the term speaker is often used generically in linguistics, to refer to the producer/ sender of the message, including writer. 2 The colour red has no meaning in itself, but it conveys the meaning stop when it appears together with green (= go) in the context of traffic lights. 3 Spoken sentences.
Introduction
10
sentences build up into paragraphs and texts. The organisation of the message (i.e. the way sounds, letters, words and sentences, combine into larger units) is not random, but follows the unwritten laws of the language. De Saussure suggested that semiotic systems convey meaning by virtue of their place in the system and of their relationship to each other. That is to say, the individual signs acquire meaning by paradigmatic choice and syntagmatic combination. The paradigmatic axis controls the linguistic choices (e.g. of the right sound, letter or word) the speaker makes. In a semiotic system, most individual elements can be substituted by a number of other elements, thus creating new items with different meanings. For example, t in tin can be replaced by p or k to produce other semantically logical combinations: pin and kin. In the same way, the sentence consists of a number of slots to be filled in: a subject slot, a predicate slot, an object slot, etc. The actual wording for each individual slot is unlimited. For example, the subject can be expressed by a proper noun (John opened the door), a common noun (The boy opened the door), a noun phrase (The young boy opened the door), a pronoun (He opened the door), etc. The syntagmatic axis governs the combinatory capacity of signs. The individually meaningless speech sounds/letters become meaningful within larger units. Thus, the meaningless letter i becomes meaningful within words: when preceded by t and followed by n it makes up the word tin; when preceded by k and followed by t it produces the word kit. The combinatory power of phonemes/letters is limited: English does not accept clusters of consonants, such as *prgn1. In their turn, words gain their full semantic power only within larger units, i.e. phrases, sentences or paragraphs. Thus, for example, the word get a highly polysemantic word in English gains its full/exact sense only within a phrase (e.g. to get well) or a sentence (e.g. He got the book, He got well again). However, further context may be required to show exactly whether he received the book, or bought it. The combinatory power of words is also limited, both grammatically and logically. The verb to sing, for instance, requires a subsequent adverb to form a grammatically well formed sentence (e.g. He sings well), but does not accept an adjective (e.g. *He sings good is ungrammatical). Or, the proper noun John
1
can combine with the verb to drink (living beings can perform the act of drinking) and with the common noun water (a potable kind of liquid), so that the sentence John drinks water is logical and semantically well formed. But air and drink do not provide a logical combination (air an abstract noun cannot perform the act of drinking), so that *Air drinks water is semantically anomalous. Paradigmatic choice and syntagmatic combination work within all semiotic systems. Thus, for example, a lady going to a party has to choose one pair of shoes to put on instead of all the others she has got: this represents her paradigmatic choice. On the other hand, her choice is determined by the other items of clothing she puts on (e.g. black shoes, to go with a black dress and a black purse), which represent her syntagmatic combination.
0.2 From semantic meaning to pragmatic meaning

To name the native speakers ability to encode and decode linguistic messages thanks to his knowledge of the language, Noam Chomsky1 (1928- ) proposed the term linguistic competence. According to Chomsky, the native speaker possesses a universal grammar, i.e. an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages. This is how, with the help of a limited vocabulary and a finite set of grammar rules, he can recognize and produce an infinite number of grammatically and semantically well-formed (i.e. accurate) sentences2, including sentences that are totally new. Hand in hand with his linguistic competence, Chomsky argued, goes the speakers linguistic performance3, i.e. his actual use of the language. Chomsky admitted that, in their performance, native speakers often produce utterances that are not well-formed (e.g. elliptical sentences), and that they often make mistakes when using the language informally. However, he considered that such utterances are not worthy of linguists attention. The fluent speakers linguistic competence results from his knowledge of the words of the language and of its grammar.
1
The founder of transformational-generative grammar, a system of linguistic analysis that revolutionized linguistics. A sentence such as, He is a boy, is both grammatically and semantically well formed; *He has some air, may be grammatically well formed, but semantically it is anomalous. Chomskys distinction between competence and performance is based on the division proposed by de Saussure, between langue and parole.
The asterisk * shows that the construct is non-grammatical, anomalous, etc.
Introduction
11
12
An analysis of any dictionary entry points to the fact that the Saussurian levels of encoding/decoding can traced down to each and every word. Let us analyse a typical entry, as presented by Webster Dictionary (abridged): house (n., adj. hous; v. houz) n. pl. <hous-es>(hou'ziz) v. < housed, hous-ing> adj. n. 1. a building in which people live; residence. 2. a household. 3. (often cap.) a family, including ancestors and descendants: the House of Hapsburg. 4. a building, enclosure, or other construction for any of various purposes (usu. used in combination): a clubhouse; a boathouse; a doghouse. 5. a theater, concert hall, or auditorium. etc. ... 16. HOUSE MUSIC. v.t. 17. to put or receive into a house, dwelling, or shelter; lodge or harbor: to house students in a dormitory; to house flood victims in a church. etc. ... v.i. 20. to take shelter; dwell. adj. 21. of, pertaining to, or noting a house. 22. suitable for or customarily used or kept in a house: house paint; house pets. etc. . Idiom 25. <bring down the house> to inspire a live audience to break into prolonged, unrestrained laughter or applause over one's performance. etc. ... 28. <put> or <set one's house in order>. to settle one's affairs. The first line names the entry (and thus also provides the correct spelling of the word), the grammatical classes it can take on (in this case: noun, adjective and verb), and a pronunciation guide1 for each word class and inflected form (in this case, for the plural of the noun, and the preterit and present participle of the verb). There follows a list of meaning definitions: 16 meanings for house as a noun, 3 meanings as a transitive verb, 1 meaning as an intransitive verb, 4 meanings as an adjective, and there are also 4 idiomatic phrases.
1
The words emboldened in the previous paragraph stand for the Saussurian levels: form, structure and meaning. These levels also represent the object of three traditional branches of linguistics: phonetics and phonology for the oral form; grammar for the structures; and semantics for meanings. Thus, spelling and pronunciation provide the written and, respectively, oral FORM of words. Pronunciation, together with suprasegmental phenomena, such as stress and intonation, represent the object of phonetics/phonology. The word classes and inflectional forms illustrate linguistic STRUCTURE, and are the object of grammar, which also surveys the way in which meaningful units are brought into sequence to convey wider and more varied patterns of meaning (Crystal, 1987: 82). Thus, grammar surveys the internal organization of words. In this respect, dictionaries provide lists of words related to the entry by structural variation (e.g. careless adj. > care'less-ly, adv., care'less-ness, n.), and there are also specialized dictionaries, which survey more complex linguistic units, e.g. phrasal verbs, idioms, etc. At a higher level, structure refers to the organization of longer stretches of language e.g. phrases1, clauses and sentences where grammar provides rules for correct syntagmatic combinations. For example, grammar describes the way the constituent elements of a clause labelled Subject (S), Attribute (A), Verb (V), Object (O), Complement (C) or Modifier (M) can combine to produce grammatically well-formed stretches of language, as in: S + V (My father + is working) S + V + O (They + bought + a house) S + V + A + O (I + bought + a blue + dress) S + V + O + C (He + painted + the fence + green) S + V + O + M (I + read + the book + yesterday) Traditionally, form and structure were viewed as carrying no meaning; but functional grammar (see chapter 4) has demonstrated that meaning is carried by every level of the language.
Webster uses a simplified version. Other dictionaries (e.g. Cambridge or Oxford) use the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).
In grammar, the term phrase denotes a cluster of words grouped around a Head, e.g. the noun phrase (the big ball); in semantics, it is used to refer to all types of word groups which have a fixed structure.
Introduction
13
14
MEANING the main character of the present work is the most controversial aspect of the language and of communication, because it is extremely complex and unstable. To list the meanings of words, dictionaries were created. In linguistics, semantics was developed with the specific purpose to investigate meaning. Two very popular approaches to semantics are conceptual analysis which studies the meaning of lexical items by surveying their basic conceptual features (see section 1.2.1), and truthconditional semantics which surveys the truth or falsehood of utterances (see section 1.3.4). But semanticists soon realized that the meaning of words and utterances cannot be described simply in terms of their logical content or truthfulness. They identified several types of associative meanings (see section 1.2.2), and they also understood that pragmatic meaning (based on the communicators knowledge of the world see section 1.2.3) has a great impact on the formulation and reception of the message. Moreover, languages, and their basic bricks, the words of the dictionary, are nor fixed: they change continuously, under the impact of their inner laws and of the transformations that occur in society. To highlight the way in which speakers create language so as to cope with an ever wider and more complex world, chapter 2 focuses on linguistic creativity, on lexical innovation by word formation and transfer of meaning. Conversely, chapter 3 centres upon the social function of language, surveying the functions of idiom and style. Furthermore, linguists have realized that communication is more than a simple matter of encoding/decoding. Meaning is not carried by isolated words: it develops within strings of lexical items (i.e. by full texts) organized according to the rules of the language. For the analysis of texts, the functional perspective is adopted (see chapter 4). Furthermore, in ordinary communication, texts are embedded in their non-linguistic context (discourses). To interpret what the speaker says, the hearer must rely not only on the dictionary and on his knowledge of the world, but also on features of the realworld context in which the conversation takes place. Such features are pragmatic by nature. Therefore, it is the role of pragmatics and of discourse analysis to survey the way in which features of the real-world context of an utterance are reflected/grammaticalized in the language and affect the meaning of that utterance (see chapter 5).
In addition, neither the dictionary nor semantics can account for the intricate ways in which meaning circulates among communicators. That is why, the last three chapters of the book focus on various types of strategic and cooperative communication: how the speaker uses the language to do things with it (chapter 6); how the speaker manages to convey more meaning than is carried by the logical content of his words and how the receiver manages to bridge the gap between what the speaker says and what the speaker means (chapter 7); how speakers exploit the language to appear polite, so as to keep social relations in good repair (chapter 8). In other words, to provide a thorough account of meaning, the analyst must first survey what speakers know about the dictionary; then he must proceed and investigate the way communicators actually use the language to make and negotiate meaning. In conclusion, for the study meaning, the present work adopts a semantic-pragmatic approach. Starting from the meaning carried by the dictionary and by the speakers semantic competence, it gradually proceeds to meanings that result from the interlocutors knowledge of the world and of the context in which the linguistic interaction takes place, to finally investigate the way meaning is created and negotiated by the interlocutors within the cooperative act of communication.
16
Chapter 1
Meaning and semantic competence
1.1
Semantic competence
Semantic competence is an essential component of the native speaker's knowledge of the language, and thus, of his linguistic competence. For a semantic approach to language, the first thing to do is to determine the basic unit for a semantic analysis. The word, which is basic for establishing grammatical classes, cannot be accepted as basic unit in semantics for two reasons: o the term word does not designate the entire paradigm, i.e. the set of all the inflected forms of a word based on a single stem or root (Webster); forms, such as sing, sings, sang and sung are semantically related and appear as one entry in the dictionary there are numerous groups of words (phrases) which have a unitary meaning and must be considered together, e.g. the meaning of the idiom to break the ice is completely different from the sum of the individual words.
from very simple, to rather complex ones. For example, one of the earliest definitions is that of L. Bloomfield (Language, 1933:139), who defines meaning as the semantic load carried by any linguistic sign. The definition has the merit of being quite succinct, but it is rather vague and does not cover a multitude of facets of the term. Analysing various definitions of meaning, and finding that none of them can cope with the wide spectrum of significances the term covers, Geoffrey Leech (1981: Chapter 1) suggests that, instead of trying to define the notion of meaning, semanticists should focus on describing the native speaker's semantic competence, i.e. they should investigate what it is to know a language semantically. In a nutshell, we can say that the native speaker: knows the conceptual system of the language, i.e. the lexical items in the dictionary and their lexical/logical meanings: two persons cannot communicate properly unless words such as window and freedom, to buy and to sell have the same meaning for both of them; can recognise and use grammatical markers: of plurality (e.g. boy-boys; man-men); of preterity (e.g. worked; sang); of degree (e.g. bigger), etc., as well as discourse markers (e.g. but, therefore, however, consequently), which determine logical and grammatical relations within the text (e.g. of condition, consequence or result); can identify various types of meaning (connotations, social meaning, etc.), carried by lexical items alongside their conceptual meaning; can identify relations of meaning between lexical items and constructs: a competent speaker knows that house and building are semantically synonymous, that young and old, or I went and Ill go express opposite meanings, that dog is a hyponym1 of animal, that weather and whether may sound alike, but express completely different things, etc.; can distinguish between semantically meaningful sentences and semantically anomalous ones: a sentence such as, She is a girl, is both grammatically and semantically well formed; She eats air, may be grammatically well formed, but semantically it is anomalous.
To cope with both cases, semanticists propose the terms lexeme, lexical item and linguistic unit. The term lexeme is used to name the carrier of meaning, i.e. the basic underlying dictionary form of words, e.g. go for go, goes, went and gone. Linguistic unit is generally employed to refer to phrases, e.g. to make up ones mind, to go crazy, etc. The term linguistic item can be used to refer either to an individual lexeme (e.g. go), or to a phrase (e.g. to go crazy) as, semantically, they both function as one item. Another essential factor for establishing the scope of semantics involves defining the notion of meaning. Linguists have dedicated a great amount of time and energy and have provided numerous definitions for the term meaning,
Hyponymy = inclusion of meaning (see Chapter 3 of the present work).
Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence
17
18
They often say that English is a crazy language: the relationship between the form/structure of lexical items and their meaning does not always follow logical criteria. Read Annex 1 to see just how illogical such relations can be. And yet, the competent speaker has no trouble in dealing with them. In the following sections and chapters we shall therefore focus on various aspects of the speakers semantic competence.
1.2.1
Conceptual meaning
1.2
Types of meaning
It was shown in the previous section that defining meaning is no easy task. This is also because its study can be approached from various perspectives. Thus, for example, in a wide sense, meaning can be defined as all that is communicated by language; its narrow semantic interpretation limits it to the study of the conceptual system of the language. However, there is so much in communication that does not obey the rules of the dictionary that even a strictly semantic approach cannot ignore the additional types of meaning lexical items carry. Language is not a close and rigid conceptual system, but an open-ended one. Apart from their basic lexical/conceptual meaning(s), words also carry additional semantic loads that have a great impact on the sense of the message. Furthermore, the meaning of words depends on the speakers encyclopaedic knowledge, as well as on the way he uses the language: words can mean what their user wants them to mean. Consequently, it is advisable to break down meaning into several types of meaning. Three categories are suggested: 1. conceptual/logical meaning, i.e. the type of meaning that is strictly related to the conceptual system of the language and which is basic for the speakers semantic competence; 2. several types of associative meanings (as Leech calls them), i.e. the types of meaning which lexical items carry beyond their actual semantic charge; and 3. pragmatic meaning, i.e. the meaning which results from the speakers knowledge of the world and from the way he organizes his message. Let us survey briefly these types of meaning.
Language is the means by which we interpret our environment, by which we classify or conceptualize our experiences, by which we are able to impose structure on reality, so as to use what we have observed for present and future learning and understanding (Leech, 1981: Chapter 3). It is also the main instrument of educated communication among people. The conceptual system of the language represents what linguists call our mental dictionary. It is shared by all the members of a language community, and thus facilitates meaningful communication. Conceptual meaning (also called logical or cognitive meaning, denotation or sense) is closely related to the dictionary and accounts for the competent language users ability to encode and decode meaning. Conceptual meaning reflects and encapsulates a terms referent (i.e. the real-world object or phenomenon the item refers to), focusing on its criterial and stable attributes. Dictionaries are the generally acknowledged preservers of the vocabulary of a language, accepted and shared by all the speakers of that given language. That is why, the dictionary functions as a go-between for the world and the members of a certain language community. There has been considerable debate among linguists whether there is a single, universal, conceptual framework common to all languages, or as many conceptual systems as there are languages. The general consensus is that, although languages differ widely in the way they classify human experience, they all share roughly speaking the same conceptual framework and approximately the same grammar. Some semanticists have even suggested that a universal property of the human mind has triggered a common basic conceptual framework for all languages. Indeed, most languages of the world possess words to name a number of basic things (house, land, man, horse), activities (to go, to eat, to learn), characteristics (good, bad, tall, blue), etc., because such referents are universal. The theory of semantic universals also explains how translation from one language to another is possible. Words such as father, house, work or good have correspondents in most languages: tat, cas, munc, bun in Romanian; pre, maison, travail, bon in French; etc. But cross references from one language to another (e.g. one speaks one language, the other
19
20
uses words and structures of his own mother tongue, or they both use a mixed kind of language) can lead, at best, to partial, largely non-linguistic, communication. This is why speakers of different languages cannot communicate according to the standards of educated linguistic communication. Discussing semantic universals, Chomsky (1965: 27-30) makes a distinction between: formal universals, i.e. universal rules of logical structure, or general characteristics of language construction; and substantive universals, i.e. universal categories of conceptual content, viewed in terms of what elements or components a language contains. In other words, the category of formal universals is related to grammar; that of substantive universals pertains to semantics, and surveys the conceptual system of the language. Leech (1981: Chapter 12) argues that, in the theory of substantive universals, a further distinction must be made between strong universals, i.e. that all languages have a category x; and weak (or language-neutral) universals, i.e. that there exists a universal set of semantic features, of which every language possesses a subset. The strong universal approach is contradicted by empirical observation. Each language reflects the specific reality and life experience of the people who speak it: Eskimos pay great attention to describing the snow and its whiteness; Arabs living in the desert focus on the sand and the winds; peoples living in tropical regions devote large sections of their vocabularies to naming the countless species of plants, insects and animals that live in the centre of their universe. Furthermore, classifications of the world and of society are often culturally determined and terminologies differ significantly from one language or culture to another. Leech (1981: Chapter 121) supports this assertion with an analysis of kinship terminologies. For example, in a number of cultures (e.g. the Nayar castes of South India), the nuclear family, of parents and children, does not exist. In other cultures, one or the other parent is biologically considered to have an incidental role in procreation. Thus, the notion of parenthood subsuming motherhood and fatherhood is at best only a near-universal (in the strong sense) of kinship semantics.
1
In practice, however, the same semantic categories are seen to operate in different languages, so that categories of meaning can be regarded as language-neutral, i.e. as belonging to the common human faculty of language, rather than to the ability to speak a certain language. Conceptual analysis is one of the most popular approaches to analysing logical meaning. Conceptual analysis is based on de Saussures idea according to which semiotic systems make meaning by paradigmatic choice and syntagmatic combination, which operate on all the levels of the language. For example, phoneticians have identified minimal sound features, which combine to produce the phonemes of language. The sound system is organized by minimal pairs of opposite phonemes, distinguished by one minimal feature in binary opposition. For example, in the minimal pair [p]-[b], where [p] is plosive, bilabial, voiceless, and [b] is plosive, bilabial, voiced, the opposition is accomplished by the distinction voiceless (for [p]) and voiced (for [b]). Studying linguistic forms and structures, semanticists reached the conclusion that they could also describe meaning by analysing their basic semantic components. Thus, according to conceptual analysis, the meaning of an item is broken down into its minimal components (or features) of meaning. Just like the phonological system, the features of meaning are organized contrastively (i.e. expressed in terms of []), so that the semantic opposition characterizes the referent positively (by features it possesses) or negatively (by features it does not possess). For example, father and mother are distinguished by the and the same opposition opposition [+MALE]1/[-MALE], distinguishes the pairs brother and sister, stallion and mare, gander and goose. The distinction between boy and man, between girl and woman, between kitten and cat, etc., is based on the opposition [ADULT]. The distinction between bear and teddy bear is [ANIMATE]; that between fact and idea is [CONCRETE]; between history and story is [TRUE], etc. Not only nouns can be defined conceptually, but also: adjectives and adverbs: good: [GOOD] bad: [GOOD];
1
The + sign can be discarded.
Quoting Goodenough (1970) and Lounsbury (1969).
Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence alive: [LIVE] horizontal: [HORIZONTAL] dead: [LIVE] vertical: [HORIZONTAL]
21
22
listener must stretch his imagination and perform some metaphoric interpretation (see section 2.2.2 Figurative transfer of meaning). Semantically, the sentence is viewed as a proposition. Propositions ignore the surface (grammatical) form of the sentence (e.g. affirmative, interrogative or imperative) and focus on the underlying semantic structure. For example, the sentences, The child has a book, and Does the child have a book?, rely on the same proposition: Child have book. To analyse the semantic structure of the sentence, semanticists rely on the predication as their minimal unit. In most cases, the predication can be broken down into three logico-semantic units: o two arguments, i.e. the logical participants: child and book o a predicate (not in the grammatical sense), i.e. the relational element that links them: have For example, the sentence (Leech, 1981: Chapter 8) A tall woman was in front of the car contains: argument a: tall woman argument b: car predicate: be in front of Defining in front of conceptually as [ POSITION] and [-LATERAL] (as oppose [LATERAL] = beside), we can represent the predication as: a POSITION - LATERAL b
prepositions: in front of: [ DIRECTION]; behind, over, under: [ DIRECTION]; Conceptual analysis goes hand in hand with compositional analysis, where conceptual meanings are descried in terms of syntagmatic combinations of contrastive features. Thus, the componential definitions of man, woman, boy and girl are: man: [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE] woman: [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE] boy: [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE] girl: [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE] or we can define car as: car: [PRIVATE] [MOTOR] [VEHICLE]. Grammatical categories e.g. [PRESENT], or [SINGULAR] can also be expressed componentially/compositionally, as in: boil: [COOK] [IN WATER] [PRESENT]; fried: [COOK] [IN OIL] [-PRESENT]; etc. Componential analysis also surveys the combinatory power of semantic features. Logic, as well as the way things in nature and society work, imposes some limitations on what semantic features can combine, and what features cannot. Componential analysis, therefore, explains how violations of selection restrictions trigger anomalous constructs. For example, male man is pleonastic because the componential definition of man (i.e. [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE]) presupposes the feature MALE; a second MALE dimension ([MALE] [HUMAN] [ADULT] [MALE]) makes the definition redundant. The same is true for dead corpse: corpse already contains the feature dead. Combination of opposing features triggers another kind of anomaly. For example, in male car there is a clash of features: male presupposes the feature [ANIMATE], while car is by definition [-ANIMATE]. Metaphorical speech often relies on such violations of selection restrictions. In She eats air, for instance, there is a semantic clash between the verb eat (which requires a [CONCRETE] object), and the abstract noun air (i.e. [-CONCRETE]). Or, in He is a dog, the [HUMAN] feature carried by he clashes with the [-HUMAN] feature which defines the word dog. Faced with such semantic dilemmas, the
Further on, we can describe the arguments componentially as: - argument a: [TALL] [HUMAN] [ADULT] [-MALE]; - argument b: [PRIVATE] [MOTOR] [VEHICLE]; This brings us to the predication-componential formula of the sentence as:
TALL HUMAN ADULT -MALE SINGULAR POSITION -LATERAL PAST PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE SINGULAR
Componential analysis can be used to symbolise classificatory, as well as relational structures of meaning.
23
24
For example, my uncle can be defined componentially by using the features: - male: [MALE] (as opposed aunt: [-MALE]); - collateral kin: [-LINEAL] (as opposed to lineal kin for father, mother, brother, etc.); or [-PARALLEL] (as opposed to [PARALLEL] for father, mother, etc.); - one generation senior: [>GENERATION] (as compared to [<GENERATION] junior generation, or to [=GENERATION] same generation). so that we get my uncle: [>GENERATION] [-PARALLEL] [MALE] Other members of the speakers family can be defined componentially as: mother: [>GENERATION] [PARALLEL] [-MALE] aunt: [>GENERATION] [-PARALLEL] [-MALE] nephew: [<GENERATION] [-PARALLEL] [MALE], etc. Going a step further, to predication componential analysis, we can symbolise the relationship between parents and children by using merely two oppositions: - of sex: MALE; and - of parenthood: [ PARENT] (= parent of) [ PARENT] (= child of) by which we get: father: [ PARENT] [MALE]; as opposed to son: [ PARENT] [MALE] mother: [ PARENT] [-MALE]; as opposed to daughter: [ PARENT] [-MALE] This way, the predications, John is Toms father and, respectively, Tom is Johns son can be defined as: Tom John PARENT PARENT John Tom
1.2.2
Associative meanings
According to some semanticists, conceptual meaning is the only type of meaning that belongs to the field of semantics. The other types of meaning, they claim, largely depend on pragmatic factors, e.g. on the speakers knowledge of the world and his life experience, so that they should be included in the study of pragmatics. Other linguists, however, agree that the weight of additional meanings is so great that they can hardly be ignored without prejudicing semantics and the study of meaning itself. Human linguistic communication does not rely on the dictionary alone, but is greatly influenced by the knowledge of the world (encyclopaedic knowledge) and the communicative experience the speaker and the listener bring along. This background knowledge helps them to use the dictionary efficiently, so as to interact smoothly and economically. In fact, conceptual meaning covers only a small part of a terms communicative content. The great problem with conceptual analysis is that it views semantic features as invariable. But in reality there are significant variations among peoples interpretation of words. These variations may be historical (differences from one age to another), social (from one social group to another), or personal (different persons interpret the same item differently). For example, Webster defines the word rat as any of several long-tailed rodents resembling but larger than mice a scientific definition that is addressed exclusively to our minds. But in reality, people react emotionally to the word rat, and there may be as many different reactions as there are receivers: a housewife who has had rats in her cellar will get goose bumps at the very sound of the word; conversely, a child who has seen the cartoon Ratatouille (in which a human-friendly rat is a sophisticated creator of French cuisine) will react positively both to the name and to the sight of an animal of the category in his mothers kitchen. This shows that words carry significant additional meanings which are generally not included in their dictionary definitions. While conceptual meaning is shared by all the members of a speech community, these additional meanings are less stable: they may vary from person to person, from society to society, and from age to age; yet, many of them are shared across contexts. Leech (1981: 18) distinguishes five types of associative meanings social meaning, connotation, affective meaning,
25
26
collocation and reflected meaning of which he asserts that they all have the same open-ended, variable character, and lend themselves to analysis in terms of scales or ranges, rather than in discrete either-this-or-that terms.
1.2.2.1
Social meaning
Social meaning refers to what a piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its use (Leech, 1981: 14). Pronunciation tells us a lot about the speakers social and geographic background: even a beginner learner of the language can distinguish an Englishman from an American or from an Australian. Pronunciation can also provide clues for the speakers social origin and educational background, e.g. working class or gentry, educated or not. In the same way, vocabulary (e.g. lexical and stylistic choice) and grammar (i.e. linguistic accuracy) give us information about the speakers, their relative roles, the social distance between them, the situational context, etc. Vocabulary and style are the most direct ways by which the speaker grammaticalizes (i.e. encodes in the language) his awareness of his own social status. In the vocabulary of every language there are words1 (titles of address, honorifics) which encode the speakers perception of his own place in the interaction. For example, by addressing a person as Sir or Madam, the speaker automatically voices his consideration and respect, as well as his awareness of his own social inferiority. Terms of address, e.g. Your Honour and Your Lordship, are restricted to well-defined social categories (i.e. a judge, respectively, a lord). Titles of address and honorifics have corresponding rules of morphological agreement, which sometimes contradict conventional grammar rules, e.g. some second person singular formulae of address (e.g. Your Lordship) require agreement with a third person singular verb (e.g. Your Lordship knows the truth). Vocative terms (pal, man), greeting, parting, or ritual formulae also convey a lot of social meaning. Their use requires careful stylistic grading, according to the relative position between the speaker and the hearer, e.g. How do you do! (formal); Good morning (neutral); Hello (informal); Hi (familiar).
1
Stylistic levels range from elevated and formal at one end of the scale, to colloquial and slangy at the other. Stylistic dimensions of status vary according to the relative position of the participants (e.g. socially equal or socially distant), the type of discourse (e.g. the language of law, of lectures, of casual conversation), etc. Thus, the lexical choices the speaker makes are controlled by socio-stylistic considerations. Estimation of the social background tells the speaker whether to use child (neutral), kid (informal), or brat (slang, pejorative); to die (neutral), to pass on (formal, polite), or to kick the bucket (slang, derisive). Bad linguistic choice triggers social sanction. For example, expressing your condolences to your boss because his motherin-law kicked the bucket is an insult, rather than an act of courtesy. Formality of style affects not only vocabulary, but also the grammatical structure of the sentence: formal language requires longer and more complex sentences, with intricate subordination (e.g. Would you mind terribly if I asked you to). It also involves manipulation of the illocutionary force of the utterance, which will be discussed in Chapter 6 (section 6.4). The scope of social meaning is much wider than dictionary definitions: it is closely related to register and style (see section 3.2), it mirrors the real-world situation in which the interaction unfolds (e.g. see sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 Person deixis and Social deixis ), and it also results from the strategic intentions of the speaker (e.g. see Chapter 8 Politeness).
1.2.2.2
Connotative and affective meaning
The next two categories of associative meaning i.e. connotation and affective meaning should be analysed together, as they are both related to the language users affectivity (positive or negative). But, while connotative meaning involves the receivers affective reactions to a certain lexical item, affective meaning gives voice to the senders feelings regarding a real-world object or situation.
Social meaning is closely related to register and style, which represent the subject of section 3.2, as well as to social and person deixis, discussed in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the present book.
27
28
1.2.2.2.1 Connotative meaning

Probably the most important type of associative meaning, connotation is conveyed over and above the conceptual content of the word, being based on the non-criterial characteristics of the referent. While denotation is generally stable and invariable, connotation varies from person to person, from social group to social group, as well as from age to age. For example, the word baby is defined by the dictionary as an infant or very young child, and can be defined conceptually as [HUMAN] [-ADULT] [MALE]. However, mention of the word baby causes positive feelings in a young mother, and negative ones in a person who is continuously disturbed by the shrieks of his neighbours children. Connotations can be carried visually or auditively, too: the picture of a baby, or the sound of its cry, can induce the same reaction in the listener. Thus, semantically/conceptually words are neutral and stable; however, they carry connotations which are variable, open-ended and personal. Dictionaries list the denotations of words; monosemantic words have one denotation, polysemantic ones have several. The number of meanings thus listed is limited. Conversely, the connotations words carry are open-ended. For example, the word apple is defined by Webster as: 1. the usu. round red or yellow edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family; 2. the tree, cultivated in most temperate regions; 3. the fruit of any of certain other species of tree of the same genus; 4. any of various other similar fruits or plants, as the custard apple or May apple; 5. something resembling an apple in size and shape, as a baseball; Idiom: 6. <apple of one's eye> someone or something very precious or dear to one; a favorite. But the connotations of the word cannot be listed fully: there are as many connotations as there are people and occasions of use. Some are generally accepted by most educated members of the Western world: e.g. it connotes1 the Garden of Eden, the original sin, wisdom, etc. The list will always be incomplete, because connotations are also personal: for one individual it may connote childhood, for another winter evenings in the house of the grandparents, for a third a happy memory, etc.
Connotations cannot be described simply, in terms of positive or negative, but rather, as connotations of . Words, such as concept, theory, cognition, etc. carry connotations of scientific achievement; infection and virus connotations of disease, even when the item under discussion is a computer, not a human being; skyscraper or rocket convey a sense of aspiration and flight; chocolate and perfume carry connotations of softness and sensual indulgence; cowboy and sheriff of virility; etc. Connotations also vary from culture to culture. Think of pairs of words, such as king and shah, Pope and Imam. To Westerners, the notion of king is a reality (there are kings in Europe), while their perception of shah is mostly based on connotations (e.g. of a romantic and mysterious East); for Arabs, the situation is the reverse: the term shah is closer to their world, while their perception of king largely relies on connotations (e.g. of authority). Similarly, the words denoting the religious rulers of the two worlds trigger different reactions in the case of a Catholic or a Muslim. The culture dependence of connotations makes translation or transposition from one language/culture to another problematic. Take, for example, advertisements transposed literally: if the audience of the target country does not share the same system of connotations as the country of origin, the new public will fail to understand its message, or will understand it differently. Consider the Marlboro Country series. To Romanians, the aura of freedom and tradition carried by the lonely cowboy is lost. Still, the ad does carry some connotations for the Romanian public: they see in it the living in America concept, the glamour and fascination that America exerts upon the whole world today. In The Discourse of Advertising, Guy Cook (1992: 104) makes a detailed analysis of brand names, choosing perfumes and cars as prototypical products, expressions of self and sexuality: a woman is her perfume, a man is his car. Perfumes, he shows, are indescribable in words: a smell has no denotation; and, since there is no component to be denoted, there are almost no restrictions in their naming. As a result, perfume names concentrate on connotation. To prove the primacy of connotation in the naming of perfumes, Cook gives the following example: Opium (the name of a perfume) denotes a well-known narcotic. Morphine (a narcotic refined from opium), and heroine (a narcotic refined from morphine) are semantically related to the word opium (they are its co-hyponyms). Yet, the connotations of the latter words make it
After Cook, 1992.
29
30
highly unlikely that a perfume should be named either morphine or heroin: while opium connotes the nineteenth century, the Orient, Romantic poetry, and bohemian illegality (i.e. alluring), morphine recalls painful disease, hospitals and accidents, and heroin speaks of organized crime, premature death, HIV infection, unwilling prostitution, urban poverty.1 With cars, the situation is slightly different: a car has a physical materiality which cannot be ignored, so that the brand name must share some denotational components with its referent. Thus, the car named Jaguar2 is streamlined and accelerates fast, just like the animal whose name it carries. But the name also carries connotations of rarity, beauty, superiority, aggression, violence, sexuality, etc.
1.2.2.2.2
Affective meaning
With affective meaning, the main function of words is to express the speakers emotions, his feelings and attitudes towards things or events going on. For example, many interjections have no (or barely any) conceptual content; speakers react positively or negatively to what is going on, giving voice to their admiration (Wow!), delight (Yippee!) or disgust (Yuck!). Adjectives can also be used to express feelings of pleasure (Great!), of satisfaction (Cool!), of displeasure (Awful!), etc. Some words (e.g. darling, love, hate, gorgeous, horrible) convey positive or negative feelings explicitly, through their conceptual content: e.g. I love you, or I hate you, give voice to the speakers feelings straightforwardly. In most cases, though, the speakers attitude is conveyed more indirectly. In numerous cases, words carry their affective charge through their connotations. Some words intrinsically carry strong connotations, either positive or negative: pet, honey or jewel, indicate that the speakers feelings are positive; conversely, the affective charge of dog, louse, leech or shark, is clearly negative.
Linguists1 call the words with intrinsic negative connotations snarl words, and those with positive connotations purr words. The main function of purr words and of snarl words is to convey the speakers feelings and attitudes, while their conceptual content is of secondary importance. As Leech (1981: 44) puts it, with snarl words, conceptual meaning becomes irrelevant because whoever is using them is simply capitalizing on their unfavourable connotations in order to give forceful expression to his own hostility. In the language of the press, terms like communist or fascist, sharks or vultures, corruption and pollution, are generally used to snarl. The category of political purr words can be illustrated with terms like democracy, freedom, or human rights. Advertising has its own purr words and snarls words. New, soft, free, only, high-tech, innovative are used to purr, while old and other (e.g. your old detergent/your other products) have the function of snarling at the competitors seemingly inferior products. In many cases, the educated speaker resorts to stylistic devices to convey his likes or dislikes indirectly. For instance, he may rely on word choice and intricacy of the grammatical structure to make his remarks more or less polite. Will you be so kind as to keep your voice down, conveys a completely different attitude than a barked Shut up! Furthermore, expression of affective meaning does not rely on words alone: the speakers paralinguistic message (i.e. his tone of voice, intonation, facial expression) greatly affects the meaning of his words. Even an obviously impolite Shut up! can be made to sound mild if uttered in a friendly tone and with a smile on the face; but a harsh tone of voice turns it into an angry command. Conversely, a linguistically polite request can be made rude and ironic by negative paralanguage, e.g. Will you do me the favour to stop talking?, becomes insulting if the speaker uses a mocking tone and facial expression. How speakers manipulate linguistic indirectness to soften or enhance their message according to their real-world aims will be discussed in more detail in Chapters 6-8 of the present work.
The smoother sonority of opium (compared to morphine or heroin) was probably another criterion of choice. Euphony (agreeableness of sound; pleasing effect to the ear Webster) is often decisive when selecting brand names. Jaguar is also the brand name of a perfume, but in that case its connotations are different: wildness, sexuality, freedom, etc.
Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, quoted by Leech (1981: 44).
31
32
1.2.2.3
Collocative and reflected meaning
Two other types of associative meaning collocative and reflected meaning should also be surveyed in association, as they refer to the effect of one lexical item, or of one type of usage, upon another. But while collocations focus on lexical co-occurrences, as conventionally accepted by the system of the language, and the reciprocal effect of one item upon the other, reflected meaning takes the analysis further, to investigate the effect of the actual realities that stand behind the term upon its semantic load.
1.2.2.3.1
Collocative meaning
A collocation represents a sequence of lexical items that habitually co-occur, i.e. they appear and function together. Their co-occurrence is based on convention and longstanding usage, not on logic. Nobody could explain, for instance, why we say Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year, and not vice-versa: semantically, *A Merry New Year! is well formed; still, the experienced speaker knows it is not English! Any change of partner in a collocative group is either perceived as unnatural, or brings about a certain change of meaning. The example also suggests that mention of one element in the collocative group usually recalls the other: on hearing the word Merry , the word Christmas automatically comes to mind. The same is true for collocations, such as bread and butter, gin and tonic, to take a holiday, to catch a bus, to miss a train, to pay a visit to someone, to book tickets, to lend assistance, to run a risk, etc. Sometimes, collocations have regional variations: e.g. the British say to take a trip and to take a decision, while Americans say to make a trip and to make a decision; the British say to bring a contribution, while Americans prefer to make a contribution; etc. Collocation is also basic for the great number of English verbs with obligatory particles: to look at, to wait for, aimed at, etc., and in this respect there are significant differences between various languages. For example, in English, to be angry is followed by with or at, while the Romanian collocative particle is pe (English on). In many cases, choice of the proper synonym is determined by the general collocative associations of the word. Theoretically, synonyms carry the same semantic load, so that the speaker could choose any member of a synonymic group; in practice, however, his choice of the proper word is limited. For example, shows Leech (1981), the verbs to quiver and to tremble
are semantically synonymous; but collocative usage has imposed the group to tremble with fear and to quiver with excitement. Adjectives have a high degree of co-occurrence regulations. For example, Cruse (1986) shows that the adjective heavy (with the sense of much) collocates with terms of consumption (e.g. a person may be a heavy smoker or a heavy drug-user, and a car can be heavy on petrol, etc.), or with the rain (a heavy rain); but *a heavy eater or *a heavy learner are dissonant. Change of partners in a collocative group is often accompanied by change or addition of meaning. For example, pretty, beautiful and handsome are semantically synonymous, but they are not interchangeable. The word pretty is restricted to young persons (especially female, as in a pretty girl) or small things (as in a pretty box); beautiful is used with nouns denoting mature women and valuable items (as in a beautiful woman/a beautiful painting), while handsome is usually restricted to male persons and nouns denoting objects with connotations of maleness (as in a handsome man/a handsome airliner). Change of the partner is sometimes acceptable (e.g. a handsome woman); however, it involves considerable change of meaning: the new partner (woman) acquires connotations (i.e. of maleness) brought over from the semantic field of the terms usual partner. By the restrictions on the language it imposes, collocation ultimately gives birth to idiomatic phrases, e.g. they say as blind as a bat (the Romanian variant is as blind as a mole), as drunk as a lord (why lord?), etc. Repeated usage conventualizes not only the co-occurrence of words, but also word order and phrase structure: they say ham and eggs and not ham with eggs, nor eggs and ham; no internal variations are allowed.
1.2.2.3.2
Reflected meaning
Reflected meaning occurs especially in the case of polysemantic words which have different types of uses. Think, for example, of the great number of metaphorical computer terms: on hearing a word, such as mouse, virus, or worm, the IT specialist will also think of the computer device, even when the speaker is referring to the real-word item the word designates. In the cases when the term has two types of uses a positive and a negative one, or a general usage and one that is associated with something shameful or unpleasant , the negative/unpleasant
33
34
associations of the term rub off on the general usage, contaminating it to a certain degree. The term ghost, for example, has positive connotations in religious language (in the collocation Holly Ghost), and negative ones in secular language (many people are scared to death of ghosts). Such people are unlikely to find comfort in the mention of the Holly Ghost, especially if they are not regular church-goers. Quite often, words die out of general usage because the shameful or unpleasant sense of the word is reflected upon, and thus contaminates, its other sense(s). Taboo words are perhaps the best example of how lexical items get contaminated and fall out of regular usage on account of the negative associations they recall. For instance, words connected with the bodys excremental functions, or with the physiology of sex, become contaminated by the reality behind the word (i.e. the actual physical act). Since they are perceived as shameful or embarrassing, people avoid using the words in everyday conversation, replacing them with roundabout or euphemistic1 expressions. But the new expressions get again contaminated, because what is shameful is not the linguistic expression, but the reality it covers. To illustrate this assertion, let us analyse the history of the term used to name the room that caters for our (very natural) excremental functions. Hailed as one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, the water closet was given a very decent name. The term euphemistically avoids any reference to what is going on in the room; instead, it focuses on the use of water (connoting cleanliness and hygiene) and on the enclosed quality of the place; the French sonority of the term also connotes elegance and refinement. Gradually, the term water was discarded, leaving the term closet to refer metonymically for the place catering for our physiological needs. Looking up the word closet in the dictionary, we realize that it underwent a process of drastic degradation2, its basic meanings having no negative or shameful component. Webster defines closet as: 1. a small room, enclosed recess, or cabinet for storing clothing, food, utensils, etc. 2. a small private room, esp. one used for prayer, meditation, etc. 3. a state or condition of secrecy or carefully guarded privacy. And yet, on hearing the word closet,
1 2
people today do not think of clothing or food, of prayer or meditation. That is to say, the decent term closet was polluted by the reality (considered shameful) the word was called upon to name, and today people avoid using it in its other senses. The abbreviation WC underwent the same process of degradation, as did all the other euphemistic phrases bathroom, lavatory, ladies room, etc. In the same way, words related to sexual activities get shamed and shunned. Terms, such as erection, or ejaculation, used to be perfectly respectable a short time ago. The word erection means something raised (e.g. a construction), and ejaculation has the non-sexual sense of an abrupt, exclamatory utterance. But sexual usage contaminated the terms, so that there is a tendency towards dropping them from general usage: a teacher who utters one of these words may not be able to control his class afterwards. The same thing happened to words used in slang to name sexual organs: cock, pussy, dick. Taboo contamination on sexual grounds can work very fast: the word gay, for instance, which was perfectly innocent some thirty years ago (meaning cheerful), is generally avoided today because of its more recent sense, i.e. that of homosexual. However, writing is lasting and stands witness of things past: in literary pieces, or in textbooks for teaching English written no more than a quarter of a century ago, the term gay can be encountered in its non-sexual, sense, to the great amusement of many learners of English. The third category of meaning pragmatic meaning has even greater impact upon the meaning of words and utterances.
1.2.3 Pragmatic meaning

The analyses of conceptual and of associative meaning point to the fact that meaning is a complex thing. It also shows that there are many things related to the meanings of lexical items that are not inherent in the dictionary. Leech (1981: Chapter 1) is careful to point out that, in surveying the native speakers semantic competence, the analyst must make distinction between his knowledge of language and his knowledge of the real world. In linguistics, the speakers knowledge of the world (or his encyclopaedic knowledge) is called pragmatic knowledge.
See section 2.2.2.1.2.1 Euphemism, paraphrase, circumlocution. See also section 2.2.1 Diachronic change of meaning.
35
36
Indeed, many aspects of the vocabulary itself involve knowledge of facts pertaining to the world and to human society, rather than to the world of words. Take, for example, associative meanings: it is not the dictionary, but his own background knowledge and experience, which tell the speaker that rose or pet have positive connotations, while those of rat or leech are negative; which help him discern the social meaning carried by terms of address such as kid, old chap or my love, or to react to the reflected meaning of words, such as gay or erection. Figurative speech is also based on the communicators knowledge of the world. How else would they know that you can walk on ice with no ice around, or that you dont have to be in a forest or in a zoo to throw someone to the wolves. A persons mental dictionary, i.e. the overall amount of lexical items that he knows and uses, depends directly on his own life experience and education. The more eventful his life, the richer the baggage of words he can manipulate. But mans life experience and world outlook and therefore his vocabulary also are strictly related to the society he lives in, to the social, cultural, philosophical views of his age. In other words, the conceptual system of the language is subject to significant variations, according to the personal, social or cultural characteristics of the language user. As a result, there is also a serious gap between ones mental dictionary and ones mental encyclopaedia, i.e. his general capacity for assimilating, storing in words and implementing world experience. Just like the world itself, the dictionary is so rich and varied that our mind cannot contain it all. No matter how educated a person might be, he cannot learn all there is to be known about the world, just as he cannot learn all the words in the lexicon. To use the language efficiently, the speaker must use not only his knowledge of the dictionary, but also his background knowledge, which also helps him to put things in order. When learning a foreign language, people often use the dictionary to look up the meaning of a new term. In the case of their mother tongue, though, people rarely use the dictionary. In most cases, they learn new words because there is something new (e.g. some new object or reality) in the world they want to talk about. This means that we first come in touch with the reality behind the word, and only afterwards do we learn the word that names it.
On the other hand, when we come across a new term for which we do not have a handy real-world equivalent, we still prefer to avoid using the dictionary. In the real world, new words come in a well-defined context both linguistic and non-linguistic and we generally infer their meaning by linking the new item to items that we already know. For instance, the receiver who first encounters the word emoticon is a user of the Internet, who reads and writes numerous e-mails, so that the word comes in the context of his experiences, of visual images on the screen (icons) which clarify the words meaning. The real world whether physical or in the form of a (visual) model is always close by. This shows that our mental dictionary is empirical, rather than scientific, i.e. that the words we use, and the way we use them, are strictly determined by our life experience and by the way we perceive the world. It also suggests that ones mental dictionary cannot be separated from ones mental encyclopaedia. Given the importance of pragmatic knowledge in the way speakers use the language, we must briefly survey the way our background knowledge is organized and functions. Dictionaries are complex and the definitions they give precise. To the user of the language, though, complexity and precision are less important than simplicity and practicality. In rapid conversation, the speaker does not have the time to think of the entire dictionary definition of a word such as dog; instead, he may visualize in his mind a typical dog. Naturally, dogs come in all sizes and a great variety of forms e.g. the bulldog is quite different from the chihuahua but the speaker will not waste much time on variations; rather, he will perceive the dog he is talking about as belonging to the wide category that goes under the label dog. In other words, in interpreting and organizing experience, we use mental categories, not individual examples. Thanks to our mental encyclopaedia, we recognize the members of a category by matching them to a prototype1, i.e. a mental model of a typical example of that category (in this case, both bulldog and Chihuahua are dog-like). The word itself (i.e. dog) is used as a label for the entire category of real-world objects that can relate to the prototype. The prototype has some typical central features (e.g. dog: a domesticated animal, four-legged, furry, barks, etc), as well as vague and variable boundaries (e.g. big or small, dangerous or
1
The prototype theory was suggested by Eleanor Rosch, 1977.
37
38
not). Therefore, prototype meaning is fuzzy there are no clearcut delimitations and accommodates borderline cases easily. The capacity of the human mind to define objects by relating them to prototypes may trigger mistakes: most speakers would call a whale a fish (it lives in the water and looks like a fish); yet, the dictionary defines the whale as a mammal, i.e. not a fish. The prototype theory also explains variations of interpretation for the same dictionary item. When asked to describe a car, every person will produce a different description, according to his personal experience (or dream) regarding the object discussed: the child will describe a toy-car; his teenage brother a convertible sports car; his father a powerful BMW; etc. Prototypes depend on the speakers geographical, historical and socio-cultural background. For example, in todays Western society a young female person aged thirteen is generally referred to as a girl; in centuries passed, or in some primitive civilizations even today (e.g. Gypsy communities, tribes in Africa), woman would be the appropriate label. Perception of the term may also be determined geographically: to most European children, the word pet will probably recall a dog or a cat; to African children, it is likely to bring to memory a monkey or a parrot. Pragmatic knowledge also helps communicators to fill in factual gaps (or missing links) in the conversation. In ordinary communication, speakers do not put into words everything that needs to be communicated, but often leave out considerable amounts of information. Take, for example, the utterance, She dressed in white (Levinson, 1983). According to conceptual analysis, the verb to dress in collocates with a word denoting clothes; in this case, however, the word clothes is a missing link. Still, the world-wise hearer can retrieve the word from his pragmatic knowledge: he knows that clothes can be white, so he understands that the adjective white stands metonymically for white clothes. Longer stretches of language generally contain several missing links. For instance, in I went shopping this morning. I saw a nice dress but couldnt afford it, there is one between shopping and saw (the speaker does not mention the fact that shopping involves looking at objects); another between shopping and dress (the speaker does not say that shopping is for objects, and that dress is one such object); one between dress and afford (the speaker does not mention the fact that buying requires money); etc.
Obviously, such information is superfluous: it is understood by default by all communicators who know about the world. The language users capacity to deal with logical gaps is based on psychological factors. Linguists (e.g. Brown & Yule, 1983: 236-52) suggest that our background knowledge is organised into easily accessible units that incorporate conventional aspects of a certain situation: things that are generally known need not be mentioned, thus conversation becomes simple and economical. These units may take the form of frames based on visual perception, e.g. when we hear the word school we automatically see a classroom, with desks and a blackboard, with students and a teacher. Or we may rely on scripts, i.e. action stereotypes, in which a word triggers a sequence of events, e.g. the word shopping is perceived as a series of actions: window-shopping, going in, trying things on, selecting items, paying, etc. A persons background knowledge largely depends on his socio-cultural schemata, i.e. on his societys views concerning the real-world situation behind the term. For example, the act getting married is visualised differently by the rich heiress of an American tycoon and by a poor country girl; similarly different are the images that phrases such as going to a concert, or having fun, trigger in the minds of rich city adolescents and poor middle aged farmers. Nor can 21st century going to a concert or having fun be compared to what the terms covered in earlier times. Prototypes, frames and scripts belong to our pragmatic knowledge, which is activated whenever it is needed, according to the requirements of the conversation. Pragmatic factors influence all our linguistic and non-linguistic choices: of lexis, of grammatical construction, tone of voice, body posture, etc. Everything is constrained by the context of utterance, by the norms and unwritten rules of social coexistence. Nonadherence to these norms is sanctioned by society (e.g. in a public library one must keep ones voice down and move around quietly, so as not to disturb the readers). Pragmatic errors do not necessarily involve semantic or grammatical mistakes. An utterance that is grammatically and semantically well-formed, but uses inappropriate vocabulary (colloquial style at a formal meeting) is obviously more offensive than a linguistic mistake. Wrong usage of honorifics can also
39
40
represent serious blunders: e.g. addressing a person as Mister, when you do not know his name, is terribly impolite1. Pragmatic choices are also culturally determined: what is polite in one country may not be polite in another, e.g. first-name address on short notice is widely popular in the USA, but Romanians would resent it. Honorifics may also be culturally determined: the word Lady is restrictive in England (it is a title of nobility); in America, it is used euphemistically to address politely any person of female sex. To practice types of meaning, go to Annexes 1 and 2.
1.3
Sense relations
It was mentioned in Chapter 1 that semantic competence also involves recognizing semantic relations among lexical items. Relations of meaning operate both on the paradigmatic and on the syntagmatic axis, i.e. they control both word choice and word combination. The meaning relations that arise among lexical items can be analyzed according to various criteria.
screamed, shrieked, whispered, murmured, muttered, mumbled, sighed, gasped, sobbed, wailed, panted, drawled, yelped, growled, snapped, snarled, squeaked, whined, etc. But each variant conveys a meaning that is (slightly or significantly) different from the others. It depends on the larger context which one is the best choice. Mark Twains appreciation, that the difference between the proper word and the almost proper word is like that between lightning and the glow-worm, shows clearly how important it is to select the most appropriate synonym. Synonymy is not a word-to-word relationship. It was shown in section 1.1 that the word is a grammatical category; semantics deals with lexical items/units, which can consist of several words. Thus, to postpone and to put off, to decide and to make up ones mind; to go and to hit the road, etc. are synonymic pairs, in spite of the formal difference between the elements of each pair. Synonymic choice can be constrained o by a words usual collocations (see 1.2.2.3.1), e.g. to tremble with fear and to quiver with excitement; hard worker heavy smoker; etc. by stylistic requirements: e.g. girl (neutral) maiden (poetic) chick (slang); jolly good (colloquial) very good (neutral); etc. regional variations, e.g. underground (Br.E.) subway (Am.E.); pavement (Br.E.) sidewalk (Am.E.); litter (Br.E.) garbage (Am.E.); a storm in a teacup (Br.E.) a tempest in a teapot (Am.E.); etc.
o o
1.3.1
Form-meaning relations
Between the form and the meaning of lexical items there are three basic types of sense relations: synonymy, polysemy and homonymy.
1.3.1.1
Synonymy
Synonymy, or sameness of meaning, is a several-to-one formmeaning relationship: various linguistic items have a similar meaning, e.g. house building; child kid; big huge; to hit to kick; to come in to enter; etc. Synonymy gives the speaker/writer the possibility to choose the most appropriate linguistic form for his thoughts. For example2, the sentence Please leave me alone, she _______ , accepts as possible choices for the empty slot a wide variety of synonymic terms: said, shouted, yelled, cried,
1
It is only acceptable as Mister X; the speaker who does not know the addressees name should address him as Sir. The correct forms of address for a female person are Mrs. X or Madam. 2 After Seely, 2002:14.
In some cases, the synonymy between two terms can be merely contextual. For example, rancid and sour are no real synonyms; but in the context rancid butter and sour wine, the collocations share a similar meaning (= gone bad). There is also grammatical synonymy, e.g. He would go/used to go there every day. In spite of their similarity of meaning, there is no absolute semantic sameness between synonyms; always there is a slight difference, otherwise one of the terms would be excluded from the language. Thus, in the synonymic series big broad large huge immense gigantic tremendous vast, the first element (big) is stylistically neutral and can be used to refer to all types of dimensions (height, width, vastness); broad is used to refer to width (e.g. Broadway); vast to great areas; large to volumes or quantities (e.g. a large house, a large number of ). The elements of the sub-chain huge, immense, gigantic, tremendous
41
42
convey modal connotations (of excess), as well as semantic or stylistic differences: huge is perceived as almost neutral; gigantic recalls fairy tales and suggests objects or people of exceptional size; tremendous connotes extraordinary intensity or achievement; immense sounds more sophisticated and can be used to describe boundless spaces (e.g. the immensity of oceans). The words in the series cannot exchange collocations freely: e.g. broad can collocate with mind (e.g. a broad mind), but not with ball (*a broad ball is anomalous; nor can one say *an immense mind). The examples above belong to the realm of conceptual or cognitive synonymy. But there is also pragmatic synonymy, which results from the language users knowledge of the world, e.g. Shakespeare the Sweet Swan of Avon; London The capital of England; the camel the ship of the desert; etc.
1.3.1.2
Polysemy
Polysemy is a widely represented feature among English lexemes. If synonymy provides several linguistic forms for the same meaning, polysemy is the opposite case: one lexical form has several meanings. Few single words in English are monosemantic (i.e. with only one meaning). For example, Webster gives only one definition for the adverb heretofore (= before this time; until now); this is probably because the word is highly sophisticated, used only in elevated contexts. Monosemy is more frequent among complex lexical items, e.g. phrasal verbs (e.g. to call off = to cancel; to drop out = to cease to participate), or idiomatic phrases (e.g. in a nutshell = briefly; to make up ones mind = to decide; etc.). Most English words, especially those of Germanic origin, are very simple in form (mono- or disyllabic), but very complex in meaning: they are highly polysemantic (i.e. they have more than one meaning). Take, for instance the word round, for which Webster provides 52 meanings: as an adjective 15 meanings (e.g. 1. having a flat, circular form, as a disk or hoop; 2. curved like part of a circle, as an outline; etc.); as a noun 18 meanings (16. any round shape or object; 17. something circular in cross section, as a rung of a ladder; etc.); as an adverb 2 meanings (34. throughout or from the beginning to the end of a recurring period of time: all year round; etc.); as a preposition 2 meanings (36. throughout a period of time: a resort visited round the year; etc.); as a transitive verb 8 meanings (38. to make round; 39. to free
from angularity; fill out symmetrically; etc.); as an intransitive verb 7 meanings (46. to become round, plump, or free from angularity, often fol. by out), including phrasal variants (e.g. round up). The dictionary also lists two idiomatic phrases, in the round and make/go the round, with 4 and, respectively, 2 meanings (e.g. 54. <make the rounds> a. to go from one place to another, as in seeking employment; b. <go the rounds>, of a rumour, story, or the like = to spread from one person to another; etc.). Obviously, no matter how competent the speaker might be, he is unlikely to know all the dictionary definitions of the term. However, he will most probably be able to make sense of most cases in which he encounters the word: the (linguistic and nonlinguistic) context in which the term occurs will help him to deduce more or less precisely which meaning is used in that specific environment. More complex lexical items are often polysemantic, too. For example, phrasal verbs, e.g. to make up: 1. to invent (a story); 2. to make peace with someone; 3. to put makeup on ones face. With idiomatic phrases, e.g. to lose ones shirt, to break ones neck, to have sticky fingers, etc., the situation is different: sometimes they can allow two types of reading a literal reading (e.g. one can actually lose ones shirt) and an idiomatic reading (the idiomatic meaning of the first phrase above is to lose everything one possesses).
1.3.1.3
Homonymy
Homonymy is another widely represented feature in English. Just like polysemy, homonymy is a one-to-several formmeaning relationship, but in this case the relationship is even more complex: various lexical items look and/or sound alike (i.e. are spelt and/or pronounced alike), although they belong to different lexical or grammatical categories. There are three basic types of homonyms: o absolute homonyms, i.e. words pronounced and spelt alike, e.g. bank (= the slope bordering a river) bank (= a financial institution); figure (= a numerical symbol) figure (= the form or shape of something); post (= a pole) post (= mail) post (= a job); race (as in human race) race (= a contest of speed); etc. o homophones, i.e. words pronounced alike but spelt differently, e.g. air heir eer (poetic form of ever); fair fare; I eye; mare mayor; meet meat; peer pier; sun
43
44
son; sore soar; their there; where wear; weather whether; witch which; etc.; homophones are extremely numerous in English. o homographs, i.e. words spelt alike but pronounced differently, e.g. e.g. wind [wind] (= air in natural motion) wind [waind] (= to take a frequently bending course, e.g. winding stairs); wound [wu:nd] (= injury) wound [waund] (Past Tense and Past Participle of to wind), e.g. They wound up in jail); minute [minit] (= a time fraction) minute [mainju:t] (= detailed); record [rekd] (= an account in writing or the like preserving the memory or knowledge of facts or events) to record [rik:d] (= to set down in writing or the like, for the purpose of preserving evidence); etc.
1.3.2
Meaning-meaning relations: Congruence
The relations established among the meanings of individual lexical items can be viewed as relations of congruence, in which case there are four main types of sense relations (after Cruse, 1986: 86-88): cognitive synonymy, i.e. identity of meaning hyponymy, i.e. inclusion of meaning compatibility, i.e. overlap of meaning incompatibility, i.e. disjunction (exclusion) of meaning
Schematically, this can be represented in the following way:
Phrases and grammatical units can also be homophonic, e.g. a notion [nun] an ocean [nun]; an icecream [naiskri:m] a nice cream [naiskri:m]; I can seal [aiknsi:l] I conceal [aikn,si:l]; house trained [haustreind] how strained [haustreind]; (Prlog, 1997:117), etc. Even though stress and juncture differentiate between the members of such homophonic pairs, a learner may have difficulties in establishing the right variant. Homonyms may also require a larger context for the hearer to disambiguate their meaning. In the sentence, The bank was beautiful, for instance, the hearer may imagine that the speaker is talking about the bank of a river; but if the latter continues to say that, It was a very old building, the receiver will realise that he had picked the wrong meaning. Youngsters and advertisers often exploit homonymy for the sake of humour, e.g. 2 fast 4 U? (Too fast for you?); CUL8R (See you later), RU UP 4 IT 2NITE? (Are you up for it tonight?); etc. It is not always easy to distinguish between cases of polysemy and homonymy: it takes specialised literature to tell us whether, in the case of bed (piece of furniture; place where flowers are planted flower-bed), for example, we are facing are case of polysemy (one word with several meanings), or of homonymy (two words spelled in the same way and having the same pronunciation). The easiest way to make the distinction is by looking up in the dictionary the etymology of the word(s). This way we learn, for example, that pole (= a long, slender piece of wood or metal ) comes from the Latin palus (= stake), while pole (as in the North Pole) derives from the Latin polus, which in its turn comes from the Greek polos (= pivot, axis, sky), i.e. an obvious case of polysemy.
Synonymy
Hyponymy
Compatibility
Incompatibility
Synonymy has already been discussed in the previous section. Compatibility of meaning is the semantic relation that exists between two items which have some features in common (some of their traits overlap), as in dog pet (some dogs are pets, but not all/not only dogs are pets); or snake poisonous animal (some snakes are poisonous; but not all/not only snakes are poisonous). The intuition of the language user and his knowledge of the world enable him to identify such cases easily. Therefore, in this section we shall focus on the other two types of congruence relations: on hyponymy and incompatibility. Hyponymy and incompatibility can be represented as taxonomies, i.e. hierarchies organised in the form of tree structures (Cruse, 1986: 88-92).
1.3.2.1
Hyponymy
Hyponymy designates a relation of semantic inclusion of one meaning into another, as in animal horse (i.e. the horse is ranged among animals); fruit apple (i.e. an apple is a kind of fruit); to go to walk (i.e. walking is a type of going); etc. The includer is called supernym, while the elements included are its hyponyms.
45
46 o
Meaning and Communication patent, i.e. the members of a binary pair divide the semantic field exclusively, e.g. boy girl; big small; buy sell; come go; fast slow; male female; dead alive; etc.
Thus, for example, the relationship between the word colour, and the range red, blue, yellow, green, etc., can be schematically represented in the taxonomy: colour red blue yellow green etc.
where the term colour functions as supernym for red, blue, yellow, green, etc., which are its hyponyms. The co-hyponyms of a term are incompatible, i.e. they are mutually exclusive (an object is either red, or blue, or yellow, ). Taxonomic organisation can be developed along several levels. Thus, animal is the supernym of bird, of mammal and of fish. In their turn, these words have their own hyponyms, e.g. sparrow, nightingale, etc. for bird, horse, dog, etc. for mammal, sturgeon, salmon, etc. for fish, etc. Schematically, this appears as: animal
bird
mammal
fish
Latent opposites illustrate oppositeness of meaning: they are contrary (i.e. incompatible), but not contradictory as are the co-hyponyms of any supernym: terms such as dog horse; sparrow nightingale; red blue; blue yellow, blue green; are mutually incompatible because they have nothing in common except their supernym. Conversely, patent opposites involve opposition of meaning, i.e. they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. While oppositeness can be established among several items, opposition of meaning involves binary pairs (two elements). Opposition of meaning is a paradoxical phenomenon, because it involves simultaneously both similarity and difference. The opposite members of a group differ along one dimension, and are identical along all the other. For example, in the binary pair man woman, the feature that differs is [MALE], while the features [HUMAN] and [ADULT] are common. Or, in the pair girl woman, the feature that differs is [ADULT], while the features [HUMAN] and [-MALE] are common. There are two types of patent opposites: gradables (or antonyms), i.e. the kind of opposition which accepts degrees of contrast, e.g. fast slow; easy difficult; much little; well badly; terms which denote degrees of length, weight, speed; etc. non-gradables (or complementaries), i.e. opposites (mostly verbs or adjectives) which divide some conceptual domain to which they belong into two mutually exclusive compartments, so that what does not fall into one compartment, falls into the other (Cruse 1986: 198), e.g. dead alive; come go; male female, succeed fail; true false; in front of behind; etc. In other words, the difference between complementaries consists in the fact that: o antonyms and
sparrow nightingale etc.
horse
dog sturgeon salmon
In this taxonomy, the supernym (animal) is the superordinate term, bird, mammal and fish are the interordinate elements, while the hyponyms (sparrow, nightingale, horse, dog, sturgeon, salmon) are the subordinate elements.
1.3.2.2
Incompatibility
Incompatibility (or disjunction of meaning) involves the exclusion of one meaning by another due to a clash between the semantic features of the items compared. It is important to perceive the difference that exists between oppositeness of meanings and opposition of meaning. Conceptually, oppositeness of meaning can be: o latent, i.e. the semantic field to which the words belong contains other members beside the two named, e.g. Friday as opposed to Monday, or Wednesday, etc.; yellow as opposed to green, or blue, or pink; etc.;
antonyms are defined in terms of more or less, e.g. the passage from easy or difficult, or from slow to fast, moves through a wide range of intermediary degrees complementaries are defined in terms of either or, e.g. a person can be either dead or alive, either male of female, either single or married, etc.
47
48
In practice, however, the term antonym is used generically, to refer to both types of patent opposites. There are also cases of lexical triplets: e.g. learn remember forget; earn save spend; etc. Lexically and grammatically, opposites can be: radical, i.e. expressed by different lexical units, e.g. boy girl; beautiful ugly; to succeed to fail; to drop to pick up; etc. affixal, i.e. expressed by words that have the same root, to which a negative affix is added, e.g. happy unhappy; to trust to distrust; moral immoral; useful useless; etc. grammatical forms, e.g. taller shorter; I know I dont know grammatical categories: of tense (Present vs. Past Tense: I have I had); of voice (active vs. passive: It says It is said); of number (singular vs. plural: cat cats); etc.
We should also mention a rich bulk of cultural antonymy. The sources of such pragmatically antonymic pairs can be the Bible (Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel), folk mythology (the Sun and the Moon; the cat and the mouse; the wolf and the lamb), literature (the ant and the grasshopper La Fontaine; the prince and the pauper Mark Twain; red and black Stendhal); etc.
1.3.3 Normality relations: Consonance and dissonance

The meaning of a lexical item gains its significance in the full set of normality relations which a lexical item contracts with all conceivable contexts (Cruse, 1986: 16). Syntagmatic relations between lexical items can be characterized as consonant (i.e. normal, as in He went to sleep) or dissonant (i.e. anomalous, as in *He woke up to sleep.) The consonance or dissonance of an utterance depends on the syntactic and semantic affinity that exists among its elements. Consonant lexical relations abide by the rules of grammatical and semantic well-formedness; dissonant ones break them. Normality is not an either-or phenomenon; rather, we perceive degrees of normality, i.e. an utterance is felt to be more-or-less consonant or dissonant. Since consonance follows the road of logic, it would seem natural that it should characterize much of the linguistic output of ordinary communicators. And yet, linguistic dissonance (anomaly) is by no means an isolated phenomenon.
Grammatical antonymy can be established between: o o
Just like synonymy, opposition of meaning can be established not only between single words (e.g. to love to hate; good bad), but also between single words and phrases (e.g. ugly a joy to look at), or between two phrases (e.g. to come into being to vanish from the face of the earth). This is because opposition is not established between the lexical items themselves, but between their meanings. Some antonyms are context-free, expressing opposition in any possible context (e.g. north south, above below, to buy to sell, beautiful ugly; child adult; etc.). However, given the high polysemy of English words, as well as the complexity of language use, there is no simple straightforward answer to the question What is the antonym of ?. For example, the word nice has become, through overuse, a clich lacking precision and intensity, so that it has numerous meanings, and each meaning has its own antonym(s): 1. = pretty ant. ugly; 2. = delicate ant. gross; 3. = elegant ant. sloppy; 4. = pleasant ant. unpleasant, disagreeable; 5. = amiable ant. unfriendly; 6. = tactful ant. tactless; 7. = suitable ant. unsuitable, improper; etc. Moreover, the opposition is often merely contextual: the antonym of man can be woman in one context (distinctive feature [MALE]), and boy in another (distinctive feature [ADULT]), and even horse (e.g. I cant do all that work alone, Im a man, not a horse!), in which case the feature of distinction is [HUMAN]. This last example also illustrates pragmatic opposition of meaning.
1.3.3.1
Lexical consonance
Lexical consonance illustrates lexical normality. Utterances, such as, He is walking to school, or The cat drinks milk, abide by the rules of conceptual well-formedness: he ([+HUMAN]) can perform the act of walking, and to school names a logical destination for the act of walking; or, a [+ANIMATE] noun, such as cat, can collocate with a verb denoting feeding (drink), which in its turn requires a noun denoting liquid food (e.g. milk). But even among apparently consonant (grammatically and semantically well-formed) sentences, there are some which break the rules of straightforward communication by being more or less anomalous. Ambiguity is the most obvious type of consonant utterances whose meaning is less than clear. Ambiguity respects not only
49
50
Meaning and Communication a restaurant functions as pizza parlour functions as
grammatical, but also semantic well-formedness; and yet, the message is far from straightforward or obvious. The main sources of ambiguity can be lexical or grammatical. a. Lexical ambiguity relies on form-meaning relations, i.e. on polysemy or homonymy. The apparent similarity (of form) conceals an actual difference (of meaning), so that several possible interpretations are possible. That is why, ambiguity is also called double meaning. Polysemantic words and phrases may trigger ambiguity if their context is not sufficiently informative: e.g. We had a row last night can mean either We had a fight, or We went rowing. Or, They made up, can signify either They made peace, or They put cosmetics on their faces. Homonymy can also trigger multiple interpretations, especially in oral communication. In spoken language, for example, there is no difference between mare (= female horse) and mayor (= elected leader of a town), and the listener who hears the sentence I saw the mare/mayor, will need further context to understand whether the speaker is talking about a human being or an animal. Similarly, on hearing the utterance, The suns/sons up, the listener will not know whether the speaker is referring to the star in the sky, or to the male child of the family. But in communication, the context (either linguistic or situational) will provide the necessary clues. In ordinary speech, ambiguity is often accidental, i.e. the speaker does not realize that his utterance is not clear. For example, in Customers have a right to clear information, the word clear can be interpreted as an adjective, in which case the utterance means Customers have a right to receive unambiguous information, or as a verb, which triggers the reading Customers have a right to erase information. Our knowledge of the world helps us to disambiguate such utterances: in this case, the context being customers rights, it tells us that the correct reading is the first one. Ambiguity (or double meaning) is also an important figurative device (see section 2.2.2.2.3.2 False homology), but in that case the ambiguity is intentional. b. Grammatical (or syntactic) ambiguity relies on the capacity of English words to belong to different grammatical categories without any formal change. Thus, for instance, in I saw her duck, the word duck can be interpreted as a noun (i.e. I saw her (toy) animal), or as a verb (i.e. I saw her perform the action of stooping/bending suddenly).
Or, an Italian pizza parlour can be interpreted as offering Italian pizza (in which case, Italian pizza compound Modifier for the Head parlour), or as a owned by an Italian boss (in which case, Italian Modifier for the compound Head pizza parlour).
1.3.3.2
Lexical dissonance
Lexical dissonance results when there is a semantic clash between two or more lexical items in the same sentence (or discourse) (Cruse, 1986:106). A dissonant sentence can be: inappropriate, for reasons of: o collocation, i.e. the clash results from semantic cooccurrence restrictions, e.g. *The professor was deeply handsome is anomalous because handsome does not collocate with deeply (although, in the collocation deeply touched, deeply means very); the correct collocation of handsome is the adverb very, i.e. very handsome. o stylistic, i.e. the clash is due to the co-occurrence of diverse stylistic levels, e.g. *The professor was very cute is dissonant in terms of formality requirements: the highly formal noun professor clashes with the colloquial adjective cute; a formal adjective (e.g. handsome) is required here. tautologous/pleonastic, i.e. the breach of selectional restrictions triggers redundant and uninformative utterances: o tautologous constructs are grammatically well formed, but semantically redundant: e.g. sentences such as I am my wifes husband, or The orphan has no parents, etc. have no meaning to communicate. o the semantic anomaly of the pleonasm is also caused by redundancy. In *married wife; *young infant; *rich millionaire; *more preferable; *He descended down the stairs; etc. the clashing terms are synonymous, or one is a hyponym of the other: wife carries the feature [+MARRIED]; infant is by definition [+YOUNG]; a millionaire is by definition [+RICH]1; to descend already carries the semantic feature [DOWN]; etc. The difference between the two categories is that, while tautologous constructions are merely uninformative,
Although not in a country where there is monetary inflation.
51
52
pleonastic ones are semantically non-wellformed, i.e. mistakes not to be uttered by educated speakers. And yet, in English we come across some idiomatic phrases that are pleonastic and still perfectly correct, e.g. to gather together, to live a happy life, to dream a wonderful dream, etc. paradoxical, e.g. *a male aunt; *a married bachelor; to sleep awake; to fall upwards; The widow has a husband, etc. If tautology and pleonasm rely on synonymy, the paradox results from opposition of meaning, and from a clash between the semantic features of the elements. Thus, male clashes with the [-MALE] trait carried by aunt, just as married clashes with the [-MARRIED] feature inherent in the word bachelor; the term awake is by definition [-SLEEP], which cannot collocate with the [+SLEEP] trait carried by the verb; to fall is by definition a movement downwards, which clashes semantically with the adverb upwards ; widow automatically involves [-HUSBAND]; etc. incongruous, e.g. a hungry word; to drink air; a square ball; The widows husband is sleeping; etc. Incongruity, viewed as semantic anomaly caused by logical irrationality, results from breaching semantic selectional restrictions and, at the same time, breeching the laws of nature. Thus, word is an abstract notion, while hungry is a state restricted to living beings; a ball is by definition round, so that a square ball is logically absurd; a widow does not have a husband, so that logically there is nobody to perform the act of sleeping; etc. And yet, in language use, we often come across instances of conceptual anomaly. Consider the example, She spits fire: spit is by definition liquid, and no fire can come out of a living beings mouth. But the semantically competent language user knows that neither spit not fire should be taken at face value, i.e. that the phrase as a whole has a figurative/metaphorical meaning (= to be very angry, to scream and shout at everybody around).
1.3.4
Truth-conditional semantics
Truth-conditional semantics surveys relations of meaning that arise between two elements of a phrase or sentence, or between individual sentences, in terms of their truthfulness or falsehood, as perceived by the intuition of native speakers. According to Leech (1981: 73-78), the basic truth-conditional sense relations are: a. Synonymy X is synonymous with Y Truth condition: if X is true, Y is true Also: if X is false, Y is false For example1: I am a married woman is synonymous with I am a woman who has a husband As shown before, synonymy is based on sameness of meaning; in the example above, a married woman is pragmatically synonymous with woman who has a husband. Therefore, if I am a married woman is true, then the statement I am a woman who has a husband is also true. Or, if the former statement is false, the latter is also false. b. Tautology X is a tautology Truth condition: X is invariably true For example: This widow has no husband Tautology relies on redundancy of meaning by inclusion of two synonymous expressions within the same sentence, e.g. widow is synonymous with having no husband. The act of conveying the same meaning twice (under different forms) makes the sentence redundant and void of meaning. Consequently, the tautology is invariably true: in this case, the truth of being a widow semantically implies the truth of her having no husband. c. Contradiction X is a contradiction Truth condition: X is invariably false
1
After Leech, 1981: Chapter 5.
53
54
For example: The widow has a husband Contradiction is based on opposition of meaning, on the inclusion of two antonymous items within the same phrase, sentence or text, e.g. widow and has a husband. In terms of truth condition, contradiction is the opposite of the tautology and is invariably false: if the fact that the person is a widow is true, then her having a husband is false, and vice-versa. d. Presupposition X presupposes Y Truth condition: if X is true, Y is true Also, if the negation of X is true, Y is true For example: My husband is (not) at home presupposes I have a husband Presupposition, defined by Grice as non-controversial information, refers to some piece of information that the speaker presents as known and likely to be accepted as such by the hearer. Thus, for example, the sentence My husband is at home presents the fact that the speaker has a husband as a given, noncontroversial fact, i.e. presupposed to be true. After such a statement there is no need to ask the speaker whether she has a husband or not. In terms of truth condition, if the assertion, My husband is at home is true, then the fact that she has a husband is also true. In addition, if the first statement negated is true (i.e. is not at home), the latter statement is still true (i.e. she still has a husband). e. Entailment X entails Y Truth condition: if X is true, Y is true Also: if Y is false, X is false For example: I am a married woman entails I have a husband Entailment1 is based on hyponymy (i.e. meaning inclusion) and/or on logical consequence. In the example above, having a husband is
1
included by definition in the idea of being a married woman, so that I have a husband logically involves that I am a married woman. In terms of truth condition, if I am a married woman is true, then I have a husband is also true, and vice-versa, if I am a married woman is false, then I have a husband is also false. f. Inconsistency X is inconsistent with Y Truth condition: if X is true, Y is false Also: if Y is true, X is false For example: I am a married woman is inconsistent with I have no husband Inconsistency is based on incompatibility of meaning and stands at the opposite end to entailment because the truth of one assertion automatically contradicts the truth of the other. Thus, if the assertion I am a married woman is true, then the statement I have no husband is automatically false; conversely, if the former statement is false, then the latter must be true. g. Semantic anomaly X is semantically anomalous Truth condition: X is absurd because it presupposes a contradiction For example: The widows husband is sleeping Semantic anomaly is also based on opposition of meaning, in the sense that it implies a clash between the semantic features of the individual items brought together within the same sentence. In the example above, for instance, there is a clash between the [HUSBAND] feature of widow and the assertion that her husband (i.e. [+HUSBAND]) is sleeping. In terms of truth condition, such a statement is logically absurd: it makes no sense to ask whether the widow has a husband or not. Obviously, on the pragmatic level, many of the above cases are manipulated and exploited strategically so as to convey additional meanings. Such manipulations will be discussed in more detail in later sections and chapters, e.g. section 2.2 Figurative speech, section 7.3.2 Flouting the maxims, etc.
To entail = to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence: This project will entail a lot of work (Webster).
56
Chapter 2
Lexical innovation
Language is a living thing, always changing; old words die, new words come in. Some constructions gradually fall out of use, others push their way in. The English of today is not quite the same as the English of the 18th century; the English of King Alfred could not be understood at all by Englishmen of today. What was good grammar for Shakespeare could be bad grammar for Shaw.1
communication, they become familiar to many people in a very short time; a few terms become archaic1 or die out altogether; still others receive new meanings. All events of importance in the development of the world need to be named and discussed. To accommodate those needs, speakers of the language resort to various techniques of lexical creativity. Consequently, the language changes gradually, in accordance with its inner linguistic laws, and under the impact of other civilizations and languages. There are three main types of lexical innovation: borrowing, i.e. importing or loaning words from other languages word formation, i.e. creating new words from words or particles already existing in the language change of meaning, i.e. derivation of new senses from established lexical items
2.1
Neologisms and lexical creativity
Language is a living organism, a body that grows and changes constantly. A person who does not care about reading and education has a limited vocabulary, sufficient to cover his limited life experience and needs; in the same way, the language of primitive (e.g. tribal) peoples is restricted. The more the person experiences and learns, the richer his vocabulary becomes; in the same way, the lexicon of a great civilization, such as that of the British, requires a vast vocabulary to cover the rich life experience and eventful past of the people who speak the language. It is generally recognised that English has a very rich word stock, probably the richest of all languages. Still, it is not equipped to cope with all situations: the world is undergoing dramatic changes at a very fast rate, and new terms are required to cover the developments that occur in various fields, e.g. politics, economy, or science. As a result, large numbers of neologisms2 are introduced in the language almost daily and, thanks to modern mass
1 2
Of the three types, only change of meaning belongs strictly to the field of semantics. But since all linguistic innovation is accompanied by certain semantic change, a brief survey of the techniques and effects of borrowing and of word formation is also justified in this context. The first part of this chapter aims to present in a nutshell the reasons, sources and techniques of lexical borrowing and of word building, as well as the process by which new words and phrases are gradually assimilated by the lexicon. The third type of lexical creativity, change of meaning, represents the subject of the second part of the chapter.
2.1.1 Development of the English language: Loan words

The development of a language is closely linked to that of the way its users live and think, and it also mirrors the most important events in its history. The vocabulary of contemporary English contains words borrowed from a wide range of languages spoken all over the world. These entered the English language either directly (e.g. as a result of the domination of England by another nation), or indirectly (e.g. through literature or philosophy, economic or
Eckersley, Essential English for Foreign Students, vol. 3, Lesson 15. Leech (1981) uses the term neologism in a restricted sense, i.e. as resulting from the techniques of word formation; in its more general acceptance, the term includes recent loans, too.
Their usage is restricted to texts related to historical or mythological subjects.
Chapter 2: Lexical innovation
57
58
political contacts, colonial occupation, etc.). The amount of borrowings (or loans1) in the English vocabulary is extremely high. The English language of today is based on the Germanic language brought over from the continent, in the 5th and 6th century, by the Anglo-Saxon tribes which settled here. Levichi (1970: 32-33) shows that only 35% of the contemporary English vocabulary can be traced back to AngloSaxon, the remaining 75% being non-Germanic. Nevertheless, words of Anglo-Saxon origin hold first place: they are widely represented in the basic word stock, as they name things related to basic human needs, activities and relationships, such as: parts of the body: hand, foot, arm, ankle, nose, finger, etc. household terms: house, home, floor, door, land, etc. family relationships: father, mother, brother, daughter, son, etc. common animals: cow, horse, hound, sheep, swine, etc. common adjectives: good, small, long, old, new, etc. common verbs: have, eat, go, drink, speak, see, etc. Furthermore, the frequency of occurrence and circulation in the language of Old English words is very high: compare the usage of get, drink, hand or good, with words of non-Germanic origin, such as industry, entertainment, location or determination. Apart from the Germanic element, four other elements are widely represented in contemporary English: Latin, Scandinavian, Greek and French. Latin words entered the English vocabulary in successive waves: during the Roman occupation of Britain when English acquired words such as port or caster, or later, beginning with the 6th century, when Christianity was introduced in Britain when English borrowed words related to the religious service (candle, disciple, minister), but also to domestic life (cook, beet, plant). Due to their long history and wide usage, such words are not perceived as alien to speakers of English. Later Latin words, e.g. those borrowed during the Renaissance (appropriate, conspicuous, external, malignant, monopoly, temperature, etc.), sound more sophisticated and learned, so that they are employed mainly in formal speech. The Scandinavian occupation of England had a great impact on the language. With large numbers of Scandinavians (Danes,
1
Loan-word: a word in one language that has been borrowed from another language and usu. naturalized (Webster).
Norwegians, Swedes, Icelanders) settling in England in those days, today more than 1400 places in England bear Scandinavian names. Scandinavian words have been easily accepted into English, as Scandinavian languages are also Germanic. Moreover, many words (e.g. folk, house, life, sorrow, can, better, full, under, well, wise), were identical in both Old English and Old Icelandic. That is why plenty of Scandinavian words became part of the English basic word stock: nouns (anger, crook, crop, guest, knife, link, trust, window); adjectives (happy, ill, low, odd, ugly); verbs (call, cast, clip, cut, die, hit, happen, lift, seem, take): etc. The Greek element is widely represented in the scientific vocabulary, and Greek words entered the English vocabulary mainly during the Revival of Learning. Since Greek words have an almost unlimited power to form compounds and derivatives, Greek has given birth to a great number of technical and scientific terms. For example, in the field of linguistics: lexicology (lexicon/lexikos = word; logos = word, proposition, teaching); etymology (etymon = literal sense of a word); neologism (neo = new); homonym (homos = the same; onyma/onoma = name); homophone (homos = the same; phone = sound); homograph (homos = the same; graphein = to write). We can also add: biology, geology, philosophy, encephalitis, gastritis, etc. The list shows clearly that words of Greek origin are internationally used: the Romanian equivalents, for instance, look quite similar, though there may be significant differences in pronunciation. Thus, Latin, Greek and Scandinavian contributed to enriching the English vocabulary considerably. But the element that affected English the most was the Norman-French element; its effect was so consistent that it almost reversed the Germanic character of the language. The Norman-French domination of England which lasted for almost three centuries can be viewed as the conquest of a whole people by another. The English had no king (Edward had died on the battlefield) and no nobility (most English nobles had perished at Hastings 1066). William the Conqueror crowned himself king of England and brought in a new nobility from Normandy. Obviously, French was imposed as official language in the country, to be used at court and in all official occasions, so that speaking French became a key element to obtaining high positions and important jobs. But the language of the villagers and of the lower classes remained English.
59
60
During the 12th century, though, the need to communicate with the majority of the local population induced many members of the ruling classes to learn English, too, so that a massive part of the population was bilingual. The domination of one nation by another led to a merging of the resources of the two vocabularies and to far-reaching effects on the language of the dominated nation. With the number of French words which gained access into the English vocabulary between 1200 and 1500, the English vocabulary was almost doubled. The French loans of those times were largely accepted in the basic word stock of English. They cover all domains of human life: food terms (appetite, dinner, beef, mutton, poultry, sugar, sausage); household words (chair, lamp, curtain, towel, blanket); family relations (uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew); colours (blue, scarlet, brown); church terms (religion, baptism, sermon, clergy); war terms (battle, victory, defeat, army, peace, enemy); nature terms (mountain, summit, river, lake, flower); learned terms (study, grammar, literature, surgeon, stomach, anatomy); government terms (parliament, chancellor, administration, reign, tyrant, court, minister, rebel, traitor, treason, liberty); etc. By 1200, though, English was back in common use and, towards 1500, French was cancelled out in England. The Norman-French occupation of England imposed the last direct influence upon English. Nevertheless, influences pressuring the language did not cease to occur. They may have been indirect and more elusive, but some no less powerful. The Renaissance meant great interest in the products of Italy and France, where mans spiritual revival had produced material and spiritual goods of unequalled value. The great interest in music and literature, the translation of the great literary works of Greek and Roman antiquity, as well as of the masterpieces of the Italian and French Renaissance, and even of lesser but highly popular contemporary French novels, was accompanied by a massive influx of Italian loans (related mostly to fine arts and entertainment: carnival, concert, opera, sonnet, soprano) and French loans (belonging mostly to aristocratic culture and fashion: ballet, coquette, faade, naive, restaurant, etc.). While old Italian and French loans have been fully assimilated by the English language, most Italian and French words borrowed after 1500 sound sophisticated or specialized, e.g. haute couture, entrepreneur, pasta, graffiti, etc.
On the other hand, ever since the Renaissance, fearless sailors set out to conquer the seas and discover new lands, thus pushing the limits of geographical boundaries. America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Egypt and South Africa were, for longer or shorter periods of time, among the prize possessions of the English crown. With the expansion of the English colonial system, English began to be spoken in widely distant areas of the world. Colonial expansion, and later on, the gradual globalization of the world, meant not only the imposition of English in far away places, but also a confrontation with new cultures and ideas, which in its turn triggered a continuous influx of new loans. As a result, the English vocabulary of today contains words of the most varied origins: Italian: confetti, don, graffiti, Mafia, pasta, pizza, spaghetti, etc. French: chic, divorce, fiance, lingerie, dbut (in society), etc. Spanish & Portuguese: barricade, cannibal, chocolate, embargo, guerrilla, guitar, hurricane, macho, potato, ranch, etc. German: Blitzkrieg, iceberg, mumps, quartz, swindler, waltz, etc. Scandinavian: cruise, yacht, landscape, etc. Russian loans: intelligentsia, Soviet, sputnik, troika, glasnost, etc. Persian & Arabic: ayatollah, bazaar, caravan, coffee, dervis(h), emir, fatwa, fellah, harem, jackal, Imam, sheik, etc. Japanese: kamikaze, hara-kiri, sushi, tycoon, karaoke, etc. East Asian (Chinese, Indian, Malay): amuck, bamboo, bungalow, gong, jungle, ketchup, pyjama, shampoo, thug, etc. Australian: boomerang, dingo, kangaroo, etc. North-American Indian: moccasin, tomahawk, wigwam, shaman, etc. miscellaneous: anorak (Greenlandic), robot (Czech), safari (Swahili), taboo (Fijian), voodoo (West African), etc. The recent loans which mirror in the vocabulary some important international events (e.g. Intifada, Perestroika, Taliban) attest the fact that borrowing is still highly productive. Sometimes foreign words gain access into the target vocabulary by way of translation. For example, the English word homesickness, is a translation loan from the German word Heimweh (Heim = home; weh = pain, sorrow); masterpiece comes from Meisterstuck, place in the sun from Platz in der Sonne; refusenik is a partial translation from Russian, meaning a Soviet citizen who has been denied permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union; etc. In numerous cases, loans triggered misunderstandings and/or mispronunciations, causing instances of folk etymology or corruption.
61
62
Folk etymology is the process by which the form of a foreign word/phrase is reshaped so as to resemble a word/phrase in the mother tongue. Folk etymology may be based on peoples desire to show off. For instance, in their desire to gain access into high society, many Englishmen pretended they could speak French. In fact, they adapted the French phrases they heard to something that was familiar to them. This is how a ne fait rien became Fairy Ann and asparagus turned into sparrow-grass; etc. Misinterpretation is also the reason why the German population of Pennsylvania is called the Pennsylvania Dutch: as the Germans pronounced the word Deutch (= German) [dait], the local inhabitants thought it was [d^t] (i.e. Dutch). Folk etymology can work via translation, e.g. humerus (= the shoulder bone) was interpreted as humorous and translated as funny bone. Folk etymology can also convey a specific attitude: e.g. a riding path in Hype Park was originally named Route de Roi; to show their contempt for the foreign lingo, the English rephrased it as Rotten Row. Corruption is closely related to folk etymology, but in this case speakers simply invent words/phrases which sound like those in the foreign language. For example, the French il ny a plus became na-poo in English, and quelque chose turned into kickshaw. In the same way, Romanians have created blugi (< blue jeans), obsaid (< offside), hen (< hands), ghem (< game), etc. Corruption is mostly the field of the uneducated. And yet, there are instances of corrupted words that have entered the basic word stock, e.g. the French card game jeu parti (involving danger) was assimilated as jeopardy in English, a noun meaning risk of or exposure to loss, harm, death, or injury, etc.; later, it produced the verb to jeopardize. Today English is a source, rather than a receptacle of new words. Although England is no longer a great colonial empire, English is still the most influential language in the world. Today, a quarter of the worlds population speaks English and about 80% of the electronically stocked information is in English. This also means that English loans represent a massive source of enrichment for many languages. For example, Romanian has borrowed countless English loans in the field of economy (management, marketing),
computers (maus, PC, laptop), the mass media and advertising (target, spot publicitar, un trend ascendent), cosmetics (spray, makeup, gloss de buze) or sport (hen, fault, aut), etc. In the olden days, English words and phrases generally originated from British English. Nowadays, it is American English which contributes most consistently to enriching world-wide English. The turning point was, probably, World War II, when the freedom-searching nations of the world united against a common enemy and the U.S.A took on the leading role. In the decades after the war, American popular culture fast established itself as the dominating world power, and languages also accepted the new influence. Among the main reasons for the wide influence of American English today we can mention: o o o o the magnitude of the publishing industry in the U.S.A. the amount and influence of the American mass media the world-wide appeal of American popular culture, language and habits the international political and economic position of the U.S.A.
Thus, for example, the emergence of new media after World War II established powerful channels for the American way of life and popular culture to advertise itself. Thanks to the influence of television, of movies, and nowadays of the interactive media, the U.S.A. has become the major factor of influence. As a result, the changes in the English language today are mostly determined by the changes that occur in American English. Some governments or academies reject loans and insist that new words should be coined in the countrys own language, or that the terms should be translated into the mother tongue (translation loans). The Germans and the French generally abide by this rule: German has coined the word Fernsehe (fern = distance; sehen = to see) for television and Fahrrad (fahren = to travel; Rad = wheel) for bicycle. The French introduced ordinateur for computer and translated mouse as souris. In the Romanian government, there was also a powerful trend against the massive influx of English loans, its supporters insisting that the foreign terms should be translated. But the attempt was forced into failure, mostly by the furious reaction of the public who considered that you cannot translate properly computer terminology, or words related to business, marketing or
63
64
management, etc. They also insisted that the Romanian language could not produce such brief and suggestive terms as fast-food, pet shop or drive-in. Although the former insistence of the Romanian government comes against the natural tendency of the language to develop, there are several aspects about the way Romanians borrow new words that should ring a warning bell: a tendency to use the foreign (English) term even when there is a perfectly valid Romanian correspondent: bodyguard paz de corp; popcorn floricele; target scop; trend current; etc. numerous cases of corruption: obsaid; hen; blugi; sticksuri; etc. funny/stupid adaptations: zumm (< zoom in/out), upgradm computerul (combining Romanian and English pronunciation); aplicm pentru un post (< to apply); Vino la show-roomul Volkswagen s faci un test-drive; etc. by readily accepting foreign terms, speakers become passive imitators and relinquish any attempt to linguistic creativity.
e.g. happy (adj.) un.happy (adj.); kind (adj.) un.kind (adj.), understand (vb.) mis.understand (vb.), etc. A few prefixes are class changing, e.g. a-: sleep (n.) -asleep (adj.); be-: witch (n.) bewitch (vb.), en-: slave (n.) enslave (vb.); mis-: take (vb.) mistake (n.), etc. Suffixes can be grammatical (e.g. s, -ed, -ing), in which case they are called inflections; this category, however, does not pertain to word formation. Lexical (or derivational) suffixes, on the other hand, carry meanings, e.g. prefixes, such as un-, a-, i-, mis-, and the suffix -less express a negative meaning. Appended to smaller lexemes (e.g. to roots or stems, as in un.happy.ness), they give rise to new words whose meaning, and sometimes grammatical function, is different from the initial one. The various forms which result by derivation (e.g. form, form.al, form.al.ity, form.al.ize, etc.) represent the lexemes derivational paradigm. Affixes can be analysed according to various criteria. In the present context, though, we shall focus on the meaning they convey: negative: a- (apolitical); i-/im-/irr-/ill- (immoral, impossible, irregular, illiterate); dis- (dissatisfied); mis- (misfortune); un(uneasy); -less (cloudless); etc. a numerical information: bi- (binoculars); tri- (tricycle); multi- (multimedia); -some (threesome); etc. endowed with a certain quality: -ful (beautiful); -ed (blueeyed); -ish (boyish); -ly (friendly); etc. the doer of an action (agent nouns): -er (worker, writer); etc. a state: -dom (freedom); -hood (childhood); -ness (calmness); etc. a process: -ment (movement); -ion (erosion); etc. a system or philosophy, adherent to a system or philosophy: -ism (Darwinism); -ist (socialist, realist); etc. a type of discourse: -ese (journalese, legalese, officialese); etc. derogatory, deprecatory: -ling (weakling); -eer (profiteer); -art (braggart); -ster (dumster); etc. diminutival suffixes: -let (budlet); -y (doggy); -ette (kitchenette). Affixation is highly productive today, as the following random list of new words suggests: ageism, destatisation, faxable, flavoursome, launderette, monoskiing, megastar, newmannery, pre-schooler, redeployment, wellness, singlehood, sportswear, sub-prime, stardom, vogueing, etc. Derivation has two interesting variants: deflection and back formation.
2.1.2
Word formation
of new lexemes from given the most popular types of source of enrichment of the popular and/or productive
Word formation, i.e. the formation bases (Bauer: 1983: 33), is one of linguistic creativity. It is also a major vocabulary. Let us survey briefly the most techniques of word formation.
2.1.2.1
Derivation, deflection, back formation
Derivation (also called affixation) represents a highly productive technique of word formation. Words such as and, if, talk or book are simplex: they cannot be broken down into constituent segments. But terms, such as selfishness or unhappiness are made up of a root (the ultimate indivisible segmental portion of the word, common to the entire paradigm), a stem/base (the word form that remains after removing the last affix, e.g. the base of the word use.less.ly is useless) and affixes (the lexical or grammatical elements that can be placed at the beginning of a word, i.e. prefixes, or at its end, i.e. suffixes). Most prefixes are class maintaining, i.e. they change the meaning of the word without influencing its morphological status:
65
66
In the case of deflection (or root inflection), the inflection is placed in the root of the word, by vowel change: blood to bleed, full to fill, food to feed, hot heat, long length, broad breadth, wide width, lose loss, run ran, etc. The new words can belong to the same word class, e.g. sing sang sung (vb.) or to different classes, e.g. sing (vb.) song (n.). Deflection was productive in the early days of the English language, but it is no longer productive at present. With back formation, the word initial or final sound/syllable is interpreted1 as an affix and dropped: to donate (< donation); to televise (< television); to force-land (< forced landing); surreal (< surrealist); to survey (< surveillance); to harp (< Harpy); to enthuse (< enthusiasm); to nostalgise (< to indulge in nostalgia); to baby-sit (< babysitter); to globe-trot (< globe trotter); etc.
2.1.2.2
Conversion
Conversion is related to derivation, but is different from it by the fact that there is no suffix added, i.e. it is zero-derivation. Conversion involves using a word that is generally viewed as a belonging to a certain grammatical category as though it belonged to another. Today, conversion is probably the most productive word formation technique in English. This is largely due to the analytical character of the language: in the absence of typical inflections for word classes and categories, the speaker can toss words around according to his own whims. The word while, for example, can be a noun (a while ago, or worth ones while), a conjunction (He ate while he waited), or a verb (to while away the hours). Or, the word round is an adjective in a round ball, a noun in My round is over, a verb in They rounded up the evidence, an adverb in all year round, a preposition in a resort visited round the year, etc. (see also section 1.3.1.2 Polysemy). Such conversions may sound strange to the learner, who may have difficulty in finding the predicate of the sentence such as These buildings house students.
On the other hand, English is a highly graphical language, in the sense that many words trigger visual or auditory images that appeal directly to the senses. For example, in He downed his whiskey (adverb-to-verb conversion), or He swished by (interjection-to-verb), you can actually see, respectively, hear the action described. Obviously, such single-word descriptions are incomparably more suggestive than He drank up his whiskey or He passed by rapidly. Easy transfer from one grammatical category to another has given rise to countless synonymic variants, the different forms often conveying subtle variations of meaning and style. Writers and advertisers often exploit conversion for the sake of fun or for the extra meaning the new words convey. In Three Men in a Boat, for instance, J.K. Jerome suggests to hotel it, and inn it, and pub it when you are on a trip and it rains (so much more suggestive than the straightforward to put up at a hotel or an inn and spend your time in a pub). Or, in an advert for clothes, which offers beautiful ways to weather winter, the noun-verb conversion accomplishes not only more suggestiveness (in comparison with to get through winter), but also euphony (alliteration on w makes the text musical and smooth-flowing). Among the types of conversion that are common in English we can mention: noun to verb: water to water, bridge to bridge (a gap), book to book (seats), cash to cash (a cheque), etc. verb to noun: to hit a hit, to call a call, to drive a drive, to guess a guess, to spy a spy, etc. adjective to noun: rich the rich; English the English; etc. noun to adjective: a chicken (farm); a trial (match); a gold (watch); peace (talks); etc. adjective to verb: better to better; open to open; right to right (a wrong); etc. interjection to verb: to zoom in, to swish by, etc. Compounds and even phrases can also be converted, as in: noun to verb: network to network; data-bank to data-bank; etc. verb to noun: to broadcast a broadcast; to show off a show off; to drive in a drive-in; etc. phrases: also-ran an also-ran; has-been a has-been; good for nothing a good-for-nothing; etc. Conversion goes back to Old English and it is so pervasive that today it is often difficult to say which form is the original and which
In earlier days, back formation was generally based on misinterpretation of a word-final segment as an affix, e.g. the [] sound in the word editor was mistaken for the suffix er (as in writer) and dropped, thus producing the verb to edit. Today, however, the process may be intentional, aimed at creating new words, e.g. lazy < to laze (in the sun).
67
68
the converted one. That it is still highly productive is attested by funny and whimsical IT terms, e.g. Google (a proper noun) is frequently used as a verb: Lets Google it up!
2.1.2.3
Composition and blending
Composition another productive word formation technique relies on the formation of new lexemes from two (or more) potential stems (Bauer, 1983: 202). Unlike free combinations (e.g. a green board, a tall man, a big tooth), in the case of compounds (e.g. blackboard, gentleman, Bluetooth) there is a semantic-grammatical fusion between the original words, roots or stems, the meaning of the compound being different from that of the individual terms. For example, a blackboard names an object that is different from that denoted by the word board: it is used for other purposes (the blackboard is used in the classroom, for writing on it; boards are used for making furniture). In the same way, a gentleman is not a gentle man, but a man of good breeding or social position, and Bluetooth is not a tooth that is blue, but an open wireless protocol for exchanging data over short distances, from fixed and mobile devices, creating personal area networks (PANs) (Wikipedia). Graphically, compounds can be spelt in one word (e.g. laptop, sunflower), they can be hyphenated (e.g. she-wolf, wheel-chair, make-believe) or spelt separately (e.g. deep structure, cable television) there are no definite rules in this respect. In terms of pronunciation, compounds require a single stress, on the first syllable (e.g. blackboard, gentleman), while free combinations are uttered with two stresses, one for each individual word (e.g. a green ,board, a gentle ,man). Nor do compounds accept determinants, the way free combinations do, e.g. *a very blackboard and *a really gentleman are non-well-formed, while a very green board and a really gentle man are accurate. To illustrate these assertions, let us analyse the title of a classic Western movie, Seven-Sinners (starring Marlene Dietrich and John Wayne). At first sight, one may be tempted to interpret it as seven persons who are sinners. But this interpretation is incorrect: the hyphen indicates that we are facing a compound (to be pronounced with only one stress [sevnsinz]), a noun in the plural, for which we can derive a singular form a seven-sinner. Knowledge of the Bible brings to mind the seven deadly sins, so
that we can conclude that a seven-sinner is a person who commits all the seven deadly sins1. When homonymy is involved, the situation becomes even more obvious. For example, the dictionary gives us the adjective grave (= serious, solemn) and the noun grave (= an excavation made in the earth in which to bury a dead body). Obviously, the meaning of grave men is quite different from that of grave men: not all grave men are grave men. Every word class can have its compounds. For example, compound nouns are extremely numerous in contemporary English. Written with or without a hyphen, or even as separate words, they have been coined to name entities in the world that needed a label. Compound nouns can be made up of: noun + noun (sunflower, wheel-chair, cow-elephant, manservant, family planning, flash memory, touchscreen, smartphone, Buckingham Palace); gerund + noun (fishing-rod, walking stick, driving lessons, singing bird); noun + verb (birth-control, brain-drain, nosebleed, sunshine); adjective + noun (blackboard, bluebird, fast-food, software, double-cross, wisecrack); pronoun + noun (s/he-goat, she-wolf); verb + noun (breakfast, pushcart, spoilsport, cutthroat); verb + verb (a make-believe, a has-been); adverb + verb (welcome, upgrade, update, download, overcome); verb + particle (makeup, drawback, breakthrough, drop-out, stand-by, gobetween); phrase compounds (editor-in-chief, lady-in-waiting, Handheld Mobile Computers); etc. Compound adjectives (adverb + adjective: over-qualified, uptight, cross-modal; adverb + participle: easy-going, self-tanning, broad-shouldered), etc. or compound verbs (noun + verb: to brainwash, to shoplift, to breast-feed, to sky-dive; adjective + verb: to whitewash, to sweet-talk, to bad-mouth, to hot-wire a car; verb + verb: to typewrite, to freeze-dry, to make do, to dare say), etc., are almost as numerous and varied. Phrasal verbs composed of a main verb and an adverbial particle (up, off, in, out, through, etc.) are a variety of compound verbs. Most monosyllabic verbs of Germanic origin have given rise to phrasal verbs: to break (down, through, up, etc.); to call (in, up, off, etc.); to drop (by, in, off, etc.); to get (up, out, down, away, in, etc.); to take (down, up, off, etc.); etc.
1
The Romanian translation of the title, apte pcate capitale, falls far behind the suggestiveness of the original title: it only mentions the sins, not the persons who commit them.
69
70
Some phrasal verbs allow a noun or a pronoun to be inserted between the verb and particle, e.g. to add (something) up; to break (something) down; to bring (something) about; to bring (something) off; etc. Others do not allow the particles to be separated from the verb, e.g. to break into (a house); to call for (somebody); to carry on with (something); to catch up with (somebody); to come across (something); etc. There are also verbal phrases (e.g. to break loose/free; to let/leave alone; to get well; to turn bad; etc.). With verbal phrases, the verb is followed by an adverb or an adjective, which carries greater semantic weight. The huge number of phrasal verbs and verbal phrases makes English highly idiomatic and suggestive, but also a hard nut to crack for the foreign learner. Blending takes the device of composition a step further, achieving a formal fusion of the elements. Blends (also called telescoped or portmanteau words1) are a category of disguised compounds where, as Lewis Carroll puts it, there are two meanings packed up in one word. Carroll created several whimsical combinations e.g. slithe (slimy + lithe), mimsy (miserable + flimsy), chortle, (snort + chuckle), or galumph (gallop + triumph) some of which have survived to the present day. Sometimes the constituent elements of such disguised compounds have blended to such a degree that they are difficult to distinguish. Among the best known examples of blends we should mention: smog (smoke + fog), to hustle (hurry + bustle), motel (motor + hotel), to squash (squeeze + crash), etc. Remember also the famous Walt Disney movie that delighted our childhood: Aristocats (aristocratic + cats). Some more recent blends include: brunch (breakfast + lunch); camcorder (camera + recorder); celebutante (celebrity + debutante); Chunnel ([the English] Channel + tunnel); cremains (cremated + remains); cyborg (cybernetic + organism); dawk (dove + hawk with reference to politicians); fantabulous (fantastic + fabulous); frienemy (friend + enemy); guestimate (guess + estimate); slanguage (slang + language); etc.
1
Blending is also productive in Romanian think of words such as aprozar (= aprovizionare + zarzavaturi) or Impex (= import + export). The process of blending is so suggestive and handy that some lexemes are being used today as affixes: auto-: autocide = automobile + suicide; tele-: teleworking = working from home communicating by computer and fax; (-o/-a)holic: workaholic, shopaholic (= addicted to work/shopping); -burger: hamburger, cheeseburger, fishburger, etc.; -cracy: advertocracy (pursuit of public policy by mass advertising campaigns); -mania: Gorbymania (extreme enthusiasm for the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev); etc. Composition or blending may work together with derivation, to produce words which carry great semantic loads. For instance, the word teenager, consists of:
-teen = the suffix of numerals between 13 and 19 age = a noun designating the length of time during which a being/thing
has existed
-er = a suffix designating the doer or sufferer of a certain action/state

Together they produce the overall meaning of person aged between 13 and 19.
2.1.2.4
Contraction and abbreviation
Contraction (also called shortening or clipping) involves the partial reduction of a word, either simple or compound. There are three basic types of contraction (Levichi, 1970): o aphaeresis, i.e. the reduction of the initial segment of the word: e.g. phone (< telephone); car (< motor-car); etc. In most cases, the difference between the two forms is only stylistic (phone < telephone; specially < especially; Fro < Afro); the clipped variant being restricted to casual or slangy speech. In some cases, however, the reduction also brings about change of meaning: history < story; defence < fence; exchange < change; example < sample; etc. syncope, i.e. deletion of the middle part of a word, e.g. mart < market; maam (< madam); parylene < paraxylene; etc. Lexical syncope provides colloquial equivalents for Standard English words, but it often occurs in poetic discourse, e.g. eev (< ever); oer (< over), etc. apocope implies the reduction of the final segment of a word. Unlike back formation, apocope does not involve change of grammatical category.
The term was coined by Lewis Carroll (Through the Looking Glass, 1872) to explain some of the words he had made up and used in the nonsense poem Jabberwocky. Portmanteau is a French term designating a large carrying case for clothes, hinged in the middle, so that it falls open into two halves.
71
72
Meaning and Communication by advertisers, to produce special effects: Str8 [streit] a perfume for men who are straight (i.e. not gay); BU [bi: ju] a womens perfume that urges you to be you(rself).
Apocope is highly productive in contemporary (especially colloquial) English: exam < examination; info < information; deli < delicatessen; fax < facsimile; porn < pornography; mike < microphone; etc. The clipping of compounds is also productive: pub < public house; prefab < pre-fabricated (building material); narc < narcotics agent; shrink < head shrinker); sci-fi < science-fiction; sitcom < situation comedy; etc. Contracted grammatical forms are also cases of aphaeresis (ll < will, d < should/would, ve < have) or of syncope (nt < not, e.g. isnt, doesnt). With such cases, stylistic variation is obvious. Abbreviation takes the device of contraction a step further, reducing the words/word groups to their initial letters. Abbreviated words are read in various ways: o as individual letters of the alphabet: BA < Bachelor of Arts; DVD < digital versatile disk; IT < information technology; MBA [,embi:ei] < Master in Business Administration; PDA [,pidiei] < personal digital assistant; VCR [,visia:] < video cassette recorder; etc. Communication by e-mail or mobile telephony has triggered lots of (funny) abbreviations, e.g. asap [,eieseipi:] = as soon as possible; np [enpi:] = no problem; etc. Sometimes abbreviation goes hand in hand with composition, e.g. iPhone (internet-connected phone), Palm based Color PDA, etc. as a single word (called acronym): laser [leiz] < Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; UFO [jufu] Unidentified Flying Object; SALT [sa:lt] Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; Yuppie < Young Urban Professional; WASP [wsp] White Anglo-Saxon Protestant; etc. abbreviation only in writing, but full pronunciation: terms referring to human beings or professions: Col. (Colonel); Gen. (General); Hon. (Honourable); Lieut. (Lieutenant); Mr. (Mister); Prof. (Professor); etc. units of measurement: ft foot/feet, oz. ounce; etc. terms related to the process of writing: vol. = volume; p = page; e.g. (< exempli gratia) = for example; i.e. (< id est) = that is; etc. abbreviation based on homonymy; it is often used: in Internet or mobile telephony communication: CUL8R (= see you later); ICQ ([aisi:kju] = I seek you); FAQ (!!!); etc.
2.1.2.5
Onomatopoeia and ablaut
Onomatopoeia and ablaut are techniques of word coinage which rely on phonologic principles. Onomatopoeia consists in building new words by imitation of natural sounds. The sound chains thus coined carry their own meaning. Onomatopoeic words can function as: nouns: buzz, cuckoo, crack, plop, snap, splash, swish, etc. adjectives: teeny, wee, crunchy, chewy, yummy, etc. verbs: to crack, to growl, to swish, to snap, to snarl, to squeak, to whine, to whoop, to yelp, etc. interjections: ouch, wow, yuck, etc. Ablaut, or gradation, is closely related to deflection; but unlike the latter, it is still productive today. Ablaut relies on a pattern alternation of the root sound. Today, it is productive in the form of onomatopoeic compounds (usually rhyme-motivated): brain-drain, chit-chat, flip-flop, hokey-pokey, pitter-patter, riff-raff, teeny-weeny, zigzag, etc.
2.1.2.6
Word coinage
Word coinage (or word manufacture) involves building new words ex nihilo. Great writers are artists of the language: they mould it like clay in daring, imaginatively, and often whimsical ways. To name realities in their fictitious world, they often make up new words, e.g. see Lewis Carrolls blends quoted above. Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest creators of words in English: he borrowed, affixed, converted, compounded and clipped words, and even invented some, e.g. auspicious, dauntless, to accost (somebody), to dwindle, etc. (Levitchi, 1970). Another good example is Jonathan Swift who, for his Gullivers Travels, invented a plethora of new terms: Lilliput is inhabited by very small people, the Lilliputians, who are organized into two highly competitive political parties, the Tramecksan and the Slamecksan; they measure the world in blusturgs and drurrs, etc. How far Swift took his creativity can be seen when analysing a word such as Houyhnhnms (to name the horses endowed with
73
74
reason): one may suspect that Swift produced a random chain of letters, to which he gave an arbitrary pronunciation, merely to impress and puzzle his readers. Among the modern writers who exploited creatively the potentialities of the English language, mention should be made of James Joyce, of Anthony Burgess, of George Orwell, etc. (see Annexes 2 and 5). Joyce wrote his Finnegans Wake with the declared intention to baffle his readers and puzzle his critics; while few ordinary readers have completed the tedious task of reading the novel, critics have been analysing it for decades without reaching unanimous conclusions. For A Clockwork Orange, Burgess made up a polyglot teenage argot he calls Nadsat. The main source for the new words is Russian1, but there are also contributions from Gypsy, French, Cockney/English slang and other miscellaneous sources, such as Malay and Dutch, as well as his own imagination. Although at first sight the novel seems quite difficult to read, it gradually opens up to the reader, who is taken into an extremely lively, though appalling, world. Equally appalling is Orwells world in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the communist London he describes is a realm of terror, of physical and moral deprivation. To cope with such a world, an army of linguists is working at creating a new language Newspeak whose principles Orwell2 describes in a detailed Appendix to his novel. Scientists are also great creators of terms required to cover the new realities in the field. The unprecedented development of science and technology in modern times makes it necessary to create thousands upon thousands of terms that did not exist before. Many new scientific terms are coined with the help of the Greek vocabulary, by affixation (e.g. bifocal < Gk. bi- = two) or composition (e.g. telephone < Gk. tele/teleos + phon() = sound, voice); etc. Others are borrowed from various fields: o o in physics: force, mass, orbit, spin, etc. in mathematics: group, function, analytic, regular, etc.
Still other new words are abstracted, by blending or acronyming, from long technical phrases: e.g. pemoline phenilimino-oxazolidinone. The most recent type of word coinage is that accomplished with the help of computers. Numerous brand names (e.g. Kodak, Krylon, Orlon, Teflon) are computer-devised. The ending on, which merely looks like a suffix, endows the word with a scientific look/sound, connoting high technological achievement. Given its great productivity today, however, the ending is gradually acquiring the status of a suffix, signifying artificial or synthetic. Euphony (i.e. the smooth phonetic flow of the word) is also very important when naming a new object or idea. The word roller coaster, for instance, was carefully elaborated, on considerations of rhyme, rhythm, and length. The smooth roll of the machine is suggested by the rhythmic occurrences of the rolling consonant [r] (three times) and of the closing diphthong [u] (twice); the word is also long enough (four syllables) to connote a long and enjoyable experience. Given the intentional character of word manufacture, the name of the terms creator and the date of its creation are often known. Thus, for instance, the word robot was coined by the Czech writer Karel Capek for the play R.U.R. (1920), from the Slavonic base robot- (<robota = compulsory labour, or robotnk = peasant owing such labour). Or, the word cybernetics (= the study of the control of and communication with machines) was coined in 1947 by Norbert Wiener from the Greek word kubernetes (= a steersman); in 1960, the word triggered another neologism: the blend cyborg (cybernetic + organism).
2.1.3
Lexicalization
The large number of Russian words in Nadsat is due to the cold war, which held the world in its grips at the time when Burgess wrote the novel. Orwell was a keen analyst of the English language, whose flaws and misuse he bitterly deplored. See also text D in Annex 7.
It was discussed in the previous sections that languages change at a steady pace and that words are created to reflect the changes that occur in the world. As people begin to use them, these words are gradually assimilated by the language. All lexemes have a past, a history. Some terms have remained unchanged in form and meaning for several centuries: words denoting family relationships (father, mother), everyday objects (book, house, man), activities (to eat, to drink, to sleep) or qualities (good, bad, long), the lower numerals (e.g. one, two), etc. The history of others is extremely short, e.g. words such as
75
76
television, laser, broadcast or space-flight have been introduced into the language but a short while ago. Let us investigate briefly the process by which neologisms are gradually assimilated by the language.
2.1.3.1
The functions of neologisms
Neologisms are borrowed or coined for various reasons. On the world scene there may be an important event, for which people borrow the key words to be able to refer easily and expertly to it: Glasnost, Taliban, etc. Science or technology may need a term to name a new concept or device: e.g. to freeze-dry was coined to name a new procedure to preserve foods, blood plasma, antibiotics, etc.; with the development of information technology, terms such as motherboard and search engine, to log on/off and to Google were introduced. The media may require new words to name their products, e.g. highbrow or tabloid (newspapers), sitcoms, etc. Advertisers may create a new term to serve as an appropriate label for a new idea they want us to associate with the product, e.g. iPod, smartphone, touchscreen, etc. Thus, the basic role of words is to name the world, i.e. to assign linguistic labels to objects, qualities, or activities. As a result, neologisms extend the conceptual system of the language. But words are more than mere labels for naming things. Leech describes the creation of new words as a process of prepackaging, i.e. he views the word as a package into which a particular semantic content is placed, so that it can henceforward be manipulated and shunted about as an indivisible unit of meaning (Leech: 1981: 30). As such, neologisms have several basic functions. First of all, lexical items and hence, neologisms also have a concept-defining role. Words call into existence and define concepts, i.e. categories that exist in the world. From the earliest days of civilisation, speakers needed words such as man, house, bread, to live, and to eat to be able to refer concisely and accurately to those real-world objects and activities. As society progressed, new words were required to name more recent realities, so that words such as train and submarine, spaceflight and aerobatics, computer and Internet, etc. were coined. Secondly, words have an abbreviatory function: they give a succinct and precise linguistic equivalent for some real-world object or fact that would otherwise require a long definition.
There are few lexical items whose meaning can be clarified with the help of a single-word synonym1, e.g. house building, to leave to depart. Most words require longish definitions to explain their meanings. Therefore, the role of neologisms is to condense into a single item an idea that could otherwise be only expressed in a phrase or a whole sentence. For example, the compound breakthrough condenses in a single word a significant or sudden advance, development, etc., as in scientific knowledge or diplomacy, that removes a barrier to progress; the word shorthand was created to name a method of rapid handwriting using simple strokes, abbreviations, or symbols that designate letters, words, or phrases; and laptop was coined to name a portable, usually battery-powered microcomputer small enough to rest on the lap (Webster). Journalists and advertisers, for whom economy of space and time is extremely important, are masters of compounding, blending, clipping and abbreviating. Their often strangely coined phrases, exploited both for their space-saving value and for their effectiveness, are meant to convey a lot of meaning as succinctly as possible, e.g. celebutantes, dawks, etc. Thirdly, many neologisms have an image-building function, i.e. they improve the image of both the object described and of the person using the term. French loans, for instance, endow the product and their user with connotations of Frenchness and sophistication, e.g. a chic neglige, or gourmet cuisine, sound much more refined than a sexy dressing gown or good food. On the other hand, high-sounding compounds enhance the effectiveness of ones speech and improve the image of the referent, e.g. a breakthrough sounds more educated than a hit. In addition, with the rapid development of science and technology, new technical terms undergo a fast process of jargonization2, and knowledge of a domains jargon is essential to be viewed as a member of that specific group. This is the reason why, Romanian youngsters flaunt their knowledge of the computer jargon, preferring English terms even when there is a perfectly acceptable Romanian equivalent (e.g. bolduit, zipat, upgradare).
1 2
But synonyms can only provide approximate meaning equivalents. Jargon = the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon (Webster).
77
78
2.1.3.2
The process of lexicalization
Neologisms, whether borrowed from other languages or created through various techniques of word formation, are not accepted into the language at once, but undergo a slow process of lexicalization, which follows a well-defined path1. At first, the new word sounds rather strange and listeners/readers receive them with a surprised smile or frown. Journalists who use the new item generally put it in inverted commas and add a brief definition of the term, or a comment, such as what has been called. In speech, intonational cues are used to emphasize the new term. New words often cause heated debates: linguists may contest its etymological or semantic accuracy, readers may react to their supposed vulgarity, governments and individuals may object to loans and insist on translation, etc. But writers delight in shocking readers with their innovative capacity and novelty of diction. At this stage, the term is called a nonce formation. Subsequently, it may be accepted into the language (institutionalized), or it may die out as soon as the reality which it covers fades away. Many of the words coined by writers, journalists or advertisers are meant to be used only once, for the sake of fun or shock effect (e.g. Coca-Colas freshwards), or in one specific context (e.g. Swifts Houyhnhnms). Many nonce words, however, go on and acquire a stable position in the language. The new term begins its process of institutionalization when speakers start repeating a word they know they have already heard. Gradually, the new term is accepted by society as a label for a certain real-world entity or process. As time goes on, it is perceived as monomorphemic, i.e. unitary and unanalyzable. Take, for example, words such as gentleman or blackboard. A close look at the words tells us that they are compounds (gentle + man; black + board). Today, however, we no longer think of the individual elements, but perceive the words as unitary, i.e. designed to name a type of person, respectively, object; the meanings of the adjectives (gentle, respectively, black) are completely lost, assimilated into the new words (a gentleman need not be gentle, and a blackboard neednt be black). In addition, at this stage, the new terms become typespecific, i.e. conventionally and unambiguously accepted as labels for a specific type of real-world referent: on hearing the words, the
1
receiver visualizes directly the real-world objects thus named. For example, in principle, the term laptop could be used to designate any kind of object that one holds on top of ones lap (e.g. a book or a briefcase); but every technologically wise speaker knows that the term refers specifically to a certain type of computer. Similarly, the term walkie-talkie could designate a variety of items, or even activities, which bring together walking and talking: a mini cassette recorder, a special technique of learning or meditation which involves exchanging ideas while walking, etc.; nevertheless, the competent speaker knows that walkie-talkie is a device similar to the telephone that people (e.g. the police) use to communicate at a certain distance. Or, the verb to sky-dive could be associated with the flying of birds or airplanes; fans of extreme sports, however, know precisely that the term denotes the activity of jumping from an airplane and descending in free fall for a considerable distance before opening a parachute. The final stage in the assimilation of a new lexeme is that of lexicalization1: the new word is completely accepted by society, established and used as part of peoples standard mental equipment (Leech, 1981: 30). At this stage, the word is treated as a mere appropriate label for a given concept and behaves like any other lexeme: it can be pluralized: e.g. Aspirin > an aspirin two aspirins (initially a brand name, i.e. proper noun, it was converted into a countable common noun) converted, e.g. from Swifts Lilliput and Brobdingnag, the adjectives Lilliputian and Brobdingnagian were derived clipped, e.g. babysitter to babysit; or adapted freely (and often, erroneously) to the new language environment, e.g. sticksuri, chipsuri (doubly pluralized as Romanian loans). A new word is assimilated by the language if people begin to use it in various contexts. How fast and how completely a new word is lexicalized depends on several factors, such as: the status and circulation of the newspaper/TV channel that launched it: e.g. channels such as Euronews or MTV are watched by millions of people all around the world;
Leech (1981) refers to fully accepted lexical items as frozen or petrified; Lyons (1977) calls them fossilized.
After Bauer, 1983: Chapter 3.
79
80
the importance and longstanding effect of the event or discovery: e.g. Greenpeaces warning about the depletion of the ozone layer; words related to international terrorism or religious fundamentalism, e.g. Intifada, Taliban; the attitude of society towards the discovery: e.g. words related to communication (digital telephony, smartphone), to computers and television (mouse, laptop, VCR, DVD), are quickly accepted into many languages, as millions of people use the devices; the status of the person who coins, or helps to coin, the new term, e.g. Swifts Lilliputians; Orwells Newspeak; Spielbergs E.T.; Marxism; Stalinism; etc.; the urgency of the need for a new concept to cover the new reality, e.g. atom bomb, space flight, Euro, etc. Semantically, lexicalization is generally accompanied by a gradual loss of transparency1. Most new terms are transparent, i.e. the meaning of the new item is obvious and motivated. On hearing words, such as spaceflight, user-friendly or downsizing, the hearer can guess their meanings by computing the meanings of the words components. Gradually, by repeated usage, though, the elements become fused together, so that the receiver no longer perceives, or no longer thinks of, the individual elements of the compound. For him, words such as moonstruck, to overcome, skinhead, motherof-pearl, or state-of-the-art (= the latest and most sophisticated or advanced stage of a technology, art, or science, e.g. a camera considered the state of the art in design) are semi-transparent or semi-opaque. In some cases the fusion is so complete e.g. e.g. breakfast (break + fast), mistake (mis + take), etc. that the receiver no longer perceives the motivation behind the naming, but views the term as monomorphemic and completely opaque. Even newer terms can be (semi-)opaque: on hearing words such as camcorder or transceiver, the hearer will have to use his imagination to compute their meaning. But no imagination is sufficient to guess the meanings of words such as iPod or Bluetooth.
2.1.3.3.1
The lexicalization of loan words
Along their history, loan words may undergo considerable changes of meaning. An analysis of the French influence upon the English language can give us a hint of how extensive the effect of loans upon the vernacular can be. Under the influence of a superior culture, some Anglo-Saxon words were actually pushed out of the language: e.g. wlite was replaced with beauty, cam with uncle, bookhoard with library, etc. Others, however, continued to exist, but underwent significant changes of meaning due to the linguistic pressure exerted by the new loans. For example, in Old English, the word deer (< German Tier) meant any kind of animal; with the introduction of the French loan beast, and of the Latin animal, the meaning of the original word was restricted to a certain category of animal. The influx of French words also contributed to meaning differentiation and specialization. A language does not preserve two items which designate exactly the same thing; one of them is either pushed out of the language, or changes meaning. When the members of the synonymic pairs are of different origins (in this case, of Germanic and, respectively, French), there is not only considerable difference of meaning, but also some regularity concerning these differences. An obvious example of the kind is the coexistence of pairs of words, one for the live animal, and another for its meat, e.g. pig pork; sheep mutton; cow beef; calf veal. The old Germanic term designates the live animal, the newer French one names the meat of the same animal. This was mainly due as a popular joke of the time explains to the fact that tending for the animals was the responsibility of the local peasants (who spoke their old, Germanic, tongue), while the privilege of eating the slaughtered animals meat came to the ruling classes (at whose tables, French was being spoken). Specialization of meaning is visible in the case of other synonymic pairs, too. Consider the examples: to ask (G) to demand (F); to begin (G) to commence (F); bunch (of flowers) (G) a bouquet (of flowers) (F); to come in (G) to enter (F); to get out (G) to exit (F); to go away (G) to depart (F); home (G) residence (F); to put off (G) to postpone (L); etc. The Germanic words are short (mono- or disyllabic) and name objects and activities pertaining to everyday life. Conversely, French and Latin terms are longer and more abstract in meaning.
2.1.3.3
Neologisms and change of meaning
Lexical innovation whether by borrowing or by word formation is always accompanied by considerable change of meaning.
1
The issue of transparency will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2.3 Change of meaning and lexicalization.
81
82
As a result, Germanic words sound more intimate, while French loans sound more official. This characteristic has a direct effect upon the stylistic distribution of the members of synonymic pairs: informal speech favours the Germanic variant, while formal language gives preference to the French loan. Thus, for example, bunch (of flowers) is used to name an ordinary cluster of plucked plants; bouquet names a careful and costly arrangement produced for a sophisticated occasion or person. Semantically, loans are generally opaque to the great majority of users. For example, few Romanian users of the computer know (or think of) the original meaning of words such as mouse (or maus), net, web, print, motherboard, scan, etc. For them, the words are type-specific, i.e. they merely designate computer devices or techniques. The same thing is true for all languages. Thus, few speakers of English know that assassin comes from the Arabic hashshashin, meaning eaters of hashish; that fiasco and flask both come from the Italian word flasca (= bottle), or that bead originally meant prayer. The changes are so consistent that no similarity is retained between the original and the new meaning. The semantic change that accompanies borrowing sometimes follows a complex and intricate route. For example, the English adjective nice comes from the affixed Latin nescius (ne = not + scius < scire = to know); the word, borrowed through French, first lost its negative meaning, then underwent semantic and phonetic changes. Change of meaning can be induced by social attitudes or by the words connotations. For example, Old English ceorl (today, churl) meant peasant, farm-labourer or simply, a male human being; the word was replaced by the French villain (Fr. villein), also meaning farm labourer. As the upper classes looked down upon such people, the word churl underwent a gradual degradation of meaning, signifying successively, a man without rank (1000); a serf (1228); a base fellow, a villain (1300); and one who is rude in manners (today). In its turn, the word villain also changed its meaning, signifying successively, one who does not belong to the gentry; a low-born base-minded rustic (1303); an unprincipled or depraved scoundrel (today). Borrowing is often preferred to the vernacular for the connotations (hence, additional meanings) the loans carry. For example, French loans (e.g. a bouquet of flowers, a dbut in society; a dj-vu) carry connotations of chic, elegance and style;
German loans (diesel, quartz, etc.) of rigorous order and high technical achievement; Asian loans (bazaar, caravan, harem) convey a sense of romantic mystery; African loans (safari, taboo, voodoo) of primitive wilderness, etc. Connotations can be so powerful that they sometimes supersede negative semantic features. For example, the French negligee is used in English to name an elegant womens dressing gown, usually made of sheer, soft fabric. In fact, in French, the word means carelessness and neglect; but the connotations of elegance carried by the language itself have endowed the new term, with positive overtones.
2.1.3.3.2
Word formation and lexicalization
Change of meaning is even more obvious in the case of word formation. Let us analyse some categories. Words coined by affixation can become so well assimilated by the language that they are perceived as semantically opaque. In words such as, depart (de- + part), abuse (ab- + use), mistake (mis- + take), understand (under- + stand), etc., the prefix is so thoroughly incorporated into the form of the word that speakers perceive the affix as an intrinsic part of the word, not as a separate morpheme. And who would say today that the word disease is, in fact, a euphemism coined by affixation, i.e. dis- + ease = lack of ease. Such words are perceived as monomorphemic, so they can be pluralized (mistakes), inflected (departed), further affixed (misunderstandings), etc. They are also type-specific: e.g. a disease is a specific type of lack of ease, i.e. one resulting from an illness. The same lexical-semantic fusion, accompanied by a loss of transparency, can be detected in the case of compounds. Few people stop to think that words, such as butterfly (butter + fly), breakfast (break + fast) or understand (under + stand) are compounds. Such semantically opaque words are obviously perceived as unitary/monomorphemic and type specific. Most compounds, however, are semi-opaque/transparent (to bad-mouth, beat-up, brain-drain, flash memory, to hot-wire (a car), skinhead, touchscreen, to outdo, rundown, to withhold) or completely transparent (brain death, cross-modal, cut-throat, family planning, download, junk food, overcome, policeperson, spoilsport, to upgrade, user-friendly, water proof); and yet, we can identify the same conceptual fusion and type specificity.
83
84
For example, with some effort of imagination, the meaning of blackmail can be inferred by computing the meanings of the individual components: black + mail, i.e. letter coming with some sad (metaphorical interpretation of black) information. The word blackmail, however, does not designate any kind of sad letter, but has become type-specific, meaning payment extorted by intimidation; nor is the term strictly related to the mail. Furthermore, the speaker/hearer no longer perceives the individual words (black + mail) in the compound, but visualizes the word as semantically unitary. As a result, it can be inflected (blackmailing), converted (verb to noun), etc. Abbreviations, and especially acronyms, undergo an even more emphasized semantic detachment from the original: people often forget the individual elements of BBC or MBA, of laser, sonar or NATO, and use the abbreviated forms as if they were ordinary lexemes of the language, e.g. My DVD broke down, we say without thinking what the initial stand for. Such abbreviations can be pluralized like any common noun (PCs [pisi:z]; CDs [si:di:z]), converted into verbs and inflected (He OK-ed my application; He was taken to hospital because he OD-ed, i.e. over-dozed of drug abuse), etc. To show how intricately change of meaning develops, let us take a phrasal verb. Formally, phrasal verbs are compounds. Semantically, they can be transparent or opaque, as well as any shade in between the two extremes. Many phrasal verbs are polysemantic, which means that, from the basic meaning, one or several new meanings have evolved. Consider the following example (after Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs/Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2005): to lay off 1. to dismiss (an employee), esp. temporarily because of slack business 2. (Informal): to cease or quit 3. (Slang): to stop annoying or teasing 4. (Informal): to stop work 5. to stop or stop using: to lay off drinking 6. to mark off; measure; plot 7. to transfer (part of a wager) to other bookmakers, for protection against losses 8. to transfer (blame or responsibility) to another
The processes by which new meanings develop from a lexical items basic/previous meaning(s) will be discussed in the following sections.
2.2
Transfer of meaning: Figurative speech
It was demonstrated in the first part of this chapter that all lexical innovation is accompanied by certain change of meaning. But change of meaning or rather, transfer of meaning based on figurative usage represents in itself an extremely rich source of enrichment of the vocabulary, being perhaps the most interesting and productive type of lexical innovation. Words result from the speakers perception of and complex interaction with the world. But the meaning of lexemes is never fixed; it exists in the language users minds in a dynamic form. For example, the abstract notion of mouth was encapsulated for the English language in the word mouth; the abstraction then enabled the speaker to apply the lexical item to other, similar objects or experiences, e.g. the mouth of a river or another mouth to feed (= another child). Most words naming parts of the body have been used in this way to name parts of objects whose position or shape they recall: head to name the upper part of an object (headline); nose to name an item which sticks out (the nose of a ship); legs to designate the part which supports the whole system (the legs of the table); The new words thus obtained can also be converted, thus expanding the conceptual system of the language even further: foot: the foot of the hill (n.) to foot the bill (vb.) = to sign/pay the bill; shoulder: shoulder to shoulder (n.) = side by side to shoulder an expense (vb.) = to assume responsibility; etc. The transfer of meaning thus accomplished is figurative (or metaphoric1) in character. Rhetorical devices the metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, etc. are not restricted to the field of literature2; ordinary communication practically swarms with figurative usage of the language. Take the examples above: when
1
Linguists often use the term metaphor to refer generically to all types of figurative usage. While accepting the term in its generic sense, in this chapter we shall analyse types of figurative usage more thoroughly. See Annex 4, illustrating figurative speech.
85
86
we speak of the nose of a ship, or the foot of the hill, we hardly notice that we are using the words figuratively. There are also metaphorical phrases which are so completely lexicalized that we no longer perceive their figurative character, e.g. by the way, on the other hand, to change ones mind, to have a splitting headache, etc. It was shown earlier in this chapter that the world and society are in a continuous change and development, so that new words are permanently required to name those new realities. On the other hand, the relation between words and reality is not stable, but ceaselessly reinterpreted by the speaker in unexpected and creative ways: it is much easier to modify and adapt the meanings of already existing items, than to invent new ones. As a result, transfer of meaning is a highly efficient and economical way of expanding the vocabulary of a language.
Levichi (1970: 73-75) tells us that there are two main types of connection between the original and the new meanings of words: radiation and concatenation. radiation, i.e. the new meanings derive from the original one, like the rays of the sun: Meaning 2 Meaning 3 Meaning 1 Meaning 4 Meaning 5
2.2.1
Diachronic change of meaning
leg (n.) 1. one of the parts of the body by means of which men and animals stand and walk; 2. the part of the garment covering the leg; 3. a bar or pole used as a support or prop; 4. one of the supports of a piece of furniture; 5. one of the branches of a forked or jointed object. concatenation, i.e. the new meanings are successively added to one another: Meaning 1 Meaning 2 Meaning 3 Meaning 4 gold (n.) 1. (basic meaning) a precious metal; 2. gold coin; 3. money; 4. riches, wealth; etc. Combinations of radiation and concatenation are also common: board (n.): 1. a board, a plank; 2. an extended surface of wood; 3. a table; 4. the food served at a table; 5. meals provided regularly for pay; 6. a council table; 7. a council; 8. the side of a ship; etc. radiation: 1-2; 2-3, 2-8; 3-4, 3-6; concatenation: 1-2-8; 1-2-3-4-5; 1-2-3-6-7; Meaning 1 Meaning 2 Meaning 8 Meaning 3 Meaning 4 Meaning 6 Meaning 5 Meaning 7 The original meaning(s) of the term can coexist with the new ones, or they may die out. From another perspective, the directions in which change of meaning operates can be: o extension (or generalization) of meaning, i.e. the sense or senses of a word is/are enlarged or enriched, as in:
Lexemes can change their meaning unpredictably and more or less independently of one another: each word has a history of its own. This is because meaning is dynamic in character, subject to numerous language-internal, cultural, and purely accidental factors. Transfer of meaning may follow various directions: o from concrete to abstract, as in: to grasp: 1. to seize, to clutch; 2. to understand (e.g. to grasp the meaning) road: 1. a long, narrow stretch made for travelling, a street or highway; 2. a means to achieve something (e.g. the road to success) o from particular to general, as in: home: 1. the building where one lives; 2. ones country background: 1. the ground or scene situated in the rear; 2. ones origin, education, experience, etc. o from one domain to another: the development of a new domain induced borrowings from similar domains, as in: aviation from navigation: e.g. to sail, cockpit, pilot, steward(ess), etc. Change of meaning is often induced by the context in which the word appears; conversely, the context helps the receiver to pick out the correct reading for terms, e.g. in We know nothing about this persons background, the context indicates that background is used to refer to the persons origins and education.
87
88
person: in ancient times, the Latin word persona designated a mask worn by actors on stage; with time, the word came to be used to refer to the human being behind the mask then, by extension, to any human being place: the Latin word platea meant broad street; by gradual generalization, the word came to signify a particular portion of space, or space in general. o narrowing of meaning is the process by which a words sense is narrowed down and restricted to something less than its originally meaning, as in: room: in older times, the word room meant space (unrestricted); today it is used to name a strictly delimited kind of space, enclosed within four walls car: initially, the word was used with reference to any kind of vehicle, while a four-wheeled engine-driven vehicle was a motor-car; gradually the initial part of the compound was discarded, and today the word has become type-specific degradation of meaning is the process by which a neutral word becomes deprecating, as in: knave: in Old English, it meant boy (< German Knabe); due to the superior attitude of the upper classes, it became gradually a term of contempt; and today it means an unprincipled, untrustworthy or dishonest person gay: not so long ago, the term meant cheerful; at present, it is used almost exclusively to mean homosexual elevation of meaning is the reverse phenomenon: the new word is higher in status than its original meaning, as in: steward: the Old English word stign meant sty-warden, i.e. a person looking after the pigs in the sty; today, it names an employee in charge of the table, wine, servants, etc., in a club or restaurant, or on a ship, train, or airplane; a feminine noun was also derived (stewardess) to name a flight attendant minister: in olden times, it meant servant; today it is used to mean either a member of the clergy, or a member of the government villa: originally, the word meant shanty, crudely built hut; today it designates an imposing country or suburban home of wealthy persons.
2.2.2 Figurative transfer of meaning

Leech (1981: 37) describes transfer of meaning as tampering with the rules of the language and playing language games. Figurative usage of the language is a major source of linguistic creativity. Writers produce figures of speech to enhance the beauty and value of their work. Journalists and advertisers indulge in word-play for the sake of interestingness and memorability. Ordinary communicators often speak figuratively to make their speech more powerful or funny. Figures of speech represent an intrinsic (and consistent) component of ordinary communication. Some types of figurative usage are innovative and colourful. Others (e.g. figurative idioms) are so thoroughly lexicalized that the speaker doesnt even perceive their figurative character. Comprehensive dictionaries list a number of figurative meanings and idiomatic uses for most headwords. Let us analyse the meanings of the word chair as listed by Webster:
chair (chr) n., v. <chaired, chair-ing> n. 1. a seat, esp. for one person, usu. having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms 2. a seat of office or authority 3. a position of authority, as of a judge or professor 4. the person occupying a seat of office or authority, esp. the chairperson of a meeting 5. (in an orchestra) the position of a player, assigned by rank; desk 6. <the chair> Informal. ELECTRIC CHAIR 7. CHAIRLIFT 8. SEDAN CHAIR vbt. 9. to place or seat in a chair 10. to install in office 11. to preside over; act as chairperson of 12. Brit. to carry (a hero or victor) aloft in triumph v.i. 13. to preside over a meeting, committee, etc. Idiom: 14. <take the chair> to open or preside at a meeting; act as chairperson
Of the six meanings listed for chair as a noun, only meaning 1 defines its basic sense, of object used for sitting on. Meanings 2 to 5 diverge gradually by metaphoric or metonymic extension, referring to a certain location, a position/authority, the person occupying the position, or his place/rank among his peers. Meanings 6 to 8 illustrate narrowing of meaning: the term chair is used in type-specific senses, the headword standing metonymically for, or being part of, various compounds of the word. As a transitive or an intransitive verb, the dictionary lists five further meanings of the word chair. Of these, only the first is nonfigurative: meaning 9 defines the act of placing somebody in an
89
90
object as the one described by meaning 1. Meanings 10 to 13 are related to the figurative meanings of the noun. The idiomatic phrase provided i.e. to take the chair is also figurative. This shows that, by endowing old words with new meanings, figurative usage enriches the dictionary and enlarges its scope. In the following sections we shall survey the main types of figurative speech, grouped according to two basic criteria: the relations between the world and the dictionary; and the semantic relations that arise among lexical items.
2.2.2.1
Relations between signifier and signified
Some figures of speech (e.g. the simile, metaphor or personification) are based on a comparison the speaker establishes between two real-world entities. With others (e.g. the euphemism, hyperbole or litotes), the emphasis falls on vagueness or exaggeration.
2.2.2.1.1
Comparison
Not all comparisons are figurative: by comparing two notions that are similar (e.g. David is as tall as John, where both elements are [+HUMAN]), we merely make a comparison, which is not figurative. To produce a figure of speech, we need to compare items which are dissimilar.
explicit term of comparison (the comparative phrase as as is missing). Therefore, the metaphor is an implied simile. According to Cruse (1986: 42), the metaphor induces the hearer to view a thing or state of affairs as being like something else, by applying to the former linguistic expressions which are normally employed with reference to the latter. In other words, the metaphor compares in an implicit way two (or more) items/concepts which are essentially dissimilar. The metaphor does more than merely compare two dissimilar things: it achieves a transfer of meaning, from one real-world entity to another belonging to a different semantic field, on the basis of a certain similitude that exists between them, i.e. it identifies them by treating one as though it were the other (John is a mountain). Metaphor accounts for numerous cases of lexical incongruity that we encounter in ordinary language use. To decode them correctly, receivers must rely on their encyclopaedic knowledge. For example, a sentence such as She sweated blood is semantically incongruous (there is a conceptual clash between the verb to sweat and its object, blood). And yet, world-wise receivers know that in this case, blood stands metaphorically for great effort. Levinson (1983) distinguishes three main types of metaphor: nominal, predicative and sentential: o the nominal metaphor endows the person, object or phenomenon designated by a noun with the characteristics of something else, e.g. He is a pest (= a nuisance); Shes such a bee (= hardworking); a wolf in sheeps clothing (= a friendly person who is in fact dangerous); a couch potato (= a lazy person who prefers watching TV to being active); glass ceiling (= an upper limit to professional advancement, esp. as imposed upon women, that is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged); etc.
2.2.2.1.1.1
Simile and metaphor
By comparing two elements which do not belong to the same category, and linking them explicitly with a comparing phrase (e.g. as as or like), we produce a simile. For example, the sentence David is as tall as a mountain is a simile, because the items compared belong to different categories ([+HUMAN] and respectively [-HUMAN]), and there is also an explicit comparative phrase (as tall as). The simile is a highly popular figure of speech in English, especially in colloquial speech, and has given rise to numerous idioms, e.g. as busy as a bee, as poor as a church mouse, strong as a horse, shy as a rabbit, as pretty as a picture, etc. (see also section 3.1.3 Idioms and figures of speech). On the next level, the comparison is merely implied. For example, David is a mountain is a metaphor because the elements compared are dissimilar ([HUMAN]) and there is no
Nominal metaphor is often used to refer indirectly, perhaps poetically, to: famous persons: the Prince of Denmark (Hamlet); the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher); etc.; important historical periods: the Renaissance; the Age of Reason; etc.
91
92
persons/objects which recall strong feelings (either positive or negative): the joy of my life (with reference to ones child); the cross I have to wear (e.g. a severely handicapped child); dark-green (= a person holding radically green political beliefs); etc. brand names are often metaphoric (e.g. Opium, Spring Sensation for perfumes; Jaguar, Eagle, Safari for cars) for the positive connotations the words carry. o the predicative metaphor presents an action/state as if it were some other action/state: to be lost (= confused); to step into action; to take something for granted; She is floating/flying (= very happy); etc. many verbal collocations and phrases are metaphorical: to catch a cold; to step into action; to jump to conclusions; to run a risk; to take chances; to weigh the facts; to fall behind (with ones work); etc. the sentential metaphor transfers the meaning of a whole sentence on the figurative level, e.g. to kill a bottle of bourbon (= to drink up, to finish); to drown ones sorrows (= to drink so as to forget ones troubles); to twist somebodys arm; to burn ones boats; to make someones blood boil/freeze; to keep an ear to the ground; to have a narrow escape; etc. Sentential metaphors are generally: idioms: to be born with a silver spoon in ones mouth (= born to wealth and comfort); to stir up a hornets nest (= to produce trouble); to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs (= to destroy the source of ones future income); to cast pearls before swine (= to give something valuable to someone who does not appreciate it); to kill two birds with one stone (= to achieve two things with one act); etc.; proverbs: Dont count your chickens before they are hatched; Blood is thicker than water; Let sleeping dogs lie; Birds of a feather flock together; Still waters run deep; The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; His bark is worse than his bite (= He always threatens, but rarely punishes); etc. The metaphor is the most productive figure of speech. It expands the meaning of words and makes the ideas expressed more vivid. In addition, many other figures of speech rely on metaphoric principles, e.g. Hes a giant is a metaphoric hyperbole.
2.2.2.1.1.2
Zoosemy, antonomasia, personification
Zoosemy is a special type of nominal metaphor that draws on the animal world: it consists of using animal nouns for characterizing human beings. For example, a cunning person is called a fox; a silly young woman is a chicken (or a chick, in colloquial speech); a heavy, awkward person is a bear; a stupid one is an ass; a person who spends a lot of time reading is a bookworm; politicians are referred to as doves (the good ones) or hawks (the bad ones), etc. Antonomasia, i.e. the use of the name of a person/character noted for a particular trait to designate a person/class having the same characteristic, is also a type of nominal metaphor. For example, a rich person may be called a Croesus/a Rockefeller; a shrewd ruthless politician is a Machiavelli (hence, Machiavellian); a womanizer is a Casanova or a Don Juan; a dreamer is a Don Quixote; a jealous husband is an Othello; a woman dedicated to caring for others is a Florence Nightingale; young lovers are referred to as Romeo and Juliet; etc. Personification, i.e. the representation of a thing or abstraction in the form of a person, is a rhetorical device frequently employed by writers and often used in ordinary communication. We often say that My heart tells me that ; that My feet took me ; that Her eyes were begging me ; that The wind is raging; or that The forest is singing; etc. There are also numerous idiomatic phrases where objects, animals, or parts of the body are endowed with qualities characteristic of human beings, e.g. to get to the heart of something (an object has a heart); at deaths door (death has a house with a door, just like all humans); My heart went into my mouth/boots; Heaven knows!; etc. If zoosemy and antonomasia are forms of nominal metaphor, personification may be a verbal or sentential metaphor.
2.2.2.1.2
Vagueness and exaggeration
A number of other rhetorical devices rely on pragmatic synonymy and belong to the metaphoric family, in the sense that something is compared to something else. But in these cases, more important than the comparison is the vagueness or exaggeration of the expression.
93
94
Meaning and Communication (physical) handicap; a physically disabled/impaired person; a physically challenged person; etc. the lunatic asylum is called a psychiatric ward; terms referring to mental insanity are also elusive: insane (i.e. in+sane = not sane); demented (de+mentia = out of mind); mentally deranged/disturbed/impaired; unbalanced; not in ones right mind; out of ones senses; etc.
2.2.2.1.2.1
Euphemism and circumlocution
The euphemism, or wellspeaking (Gk < euphemos = of good sound or omen; euphemismos = to use a good or auspicious word for an evil or inauspicious one), is the practice of referring to something offensive or indelicate in terms that make it sound more pleasant or becoming than it really is (Leech, 1981: 45). Euphemistic ideas are often expressed by paraphrase (i.e. the same idea expressed in other words) or circumlocution (i.e. a roundabout/indirect way of speaking, using more words than are necessary to express an idea). Some factual realities e.g. those related to race, to disease and death, to physical or moral handicaps, to sex or the excretive processes of the body have a high potential of embarrassing or hurting feelings (both the speakers and the receivers). In their desire to purge the subject of its damaging affective associations and refer to the factual reality in a more tactful and delicate way, speakers often use euphemistic purr words whose aim is to minimize the unpleasant associations of the term, e.g. secondhand instead of used; senior citizens instead of old people, etc. Leech (1981: 45) compares euphemism to a linguistic disinfectant: a lexical item with unpleasant or offensive connotations is replaced with one that makes no reference to the unpleasant aspect of the subject. Thus, for example, the euphemism contributions (= taxes) avoids reference to the compulsory character of the payment; intoxicated (= drunk) makes no reference to alcohol, and seems to suggest some accident; etc. In other words, the euphemism is a pleasant metaphoric label for some real-world thing or situation which is perceived as unpleasant, likely to embarrass or hurt feelings. Among the most productive fields for euphemistic phrases are: o racial issues: e.g. the word Negro (which stirs dissatisfaction among the members of the race) is eluded by using phrases such as coloured people or Afro-Americans; in apartheid, i.e. the practice of racial discrimination formerly practiced in South Africa (< apart = separate, thus separatehood), there is no reference to the different colour of skin of those set apart, and thus discriminated; etc. terms denoting physical or mental ailments: the word cripple is replaced by circumlocutions, such as: a (physically) handicapped person; a person with a
death is something we do not like to discuss, so people have invented a wide choice of terms which help us to avoid any direct reference to the act of dying: demise (slightly archaic); to decease; to expire; to succumb; to pass away; to be gone; to be no more; to close ones eyes; to depart (this life); to give up the ghost; to go the way of all flesh; to join the majority; to meet ones Maker; to bite the dust; to push up the daisies; to put to sleep (an animal); etc.
the taboo-ridden subjects of bodily functions: the terms water closet is replaced by: bathroom; lavatory; loo; rest-room; cloak room; powder room; toilet; the ladies/gentlemens room; Ladies/Gents; public convenience; public bathroom; etc. scatological vocabulary (i.e. words denoting excremental processes) is skilfully eluded by indirect description of the act (e.g. to pass water for urinate), or by reference to the place where the process takes place (e.g. go to the loo; to wash ones hands; etc.). unemployment in their desire to disguise the unpleasant reality of firing employees, companies have invented an entire jargon meant to tone down the painful truth: people are not fired, they are dismissed (dis + miss); laid off or made redundant for reasons of negotiation (whatever that might mean), or of downsizing/rightsizing/smartsizing the company. Redeployment of staff; force shaping, workforce adjustment/optimization; etc. are other elegant labels for the same painful reality.
Many euphemisms have become part of the language and are presently shared by the great majority of users. Some are
95
96
lexicalized so thoroughly that they have become completely opaque, e.g. disease, demented, water closet. As the examples show, there is not one, but a whole range of euphemistic synonyms used to refer tactfully to a reality that is perceived as delicate or likely to embarrass. This has two basic causes. On the one hand, euphemisms have a very short life because they undergo a rapid process of degradation: the new term is soon contaminated by the unpleasant reality behind it. This is because what is perceived as shameful is not the word, but the reality behind it. For example, water closet may have sounded euphemistic and elegant in its early days; but as soon as the phrase became strictly associated with a specific place and kind of activity, the label got polluted, so that another positive misnomer had to be invented. And yet, whatever euphemism is imagined, however nicely it circumscribes the shameful reality, the term is continuously exposed to contamination by the very object of its description. Whether you talk of the water closet, bathroom, lavatory, ladys room, or restroom, the reality behind it is the same. As a result, if the speaker wants to speak delicately, he must find yet another indirect linguistic form to put his ideas into, e.g. a lady may excuse herself by saying that she wants to refresh herself, or to powder her nose. On the other hand, the speaker knows only too well the importance of keeping social relations in good repair. He knows that use of the wrong word in the wrong place may not only hurt the listeners feelings, but also affect his own social status1. To protect the receivers sensitivity, and at the same time, his own image, the speaker must find tactful ways to refer to things that may be embarrassing. This is also the reason why certain terms fall out of ordinary usage once they begin to be used euphemistically. To this category belong the terms describing sexual relations. For example, the basic meaning of intercourse is dealings/communication between individuals, groups, countries; interchange of thoughts, feelings. With the invention of the euphemism sexual intercourse (the first term of the collocation was gradually dropped), today intercourse is generally avoided in polite conversation. Words such as erection, ejaculation or cock underwent a similar process.
1
Thus, the main function of euphemisms is of down-toning or concealing the negative traits of the referent. But euphemisms also have an important positive, image-building function. It is generally acknowledged that figures of speech enhance the effectiveness of ones speech. For example, the comparison involved in the simile (e.g. as cross as nine highways), or the exaggeration contained in the hyperbole (e.g. I nearly froze to death) make the description more vivid. Metaphors are both suggestive and elusive, and endow the referent with a whole range of possible meanings, e.g. by calling a politician a hawk you suggest a number of specific features: bird of prey, voracious, dangerous, but also powerful and magnificent. In addition, with their indirect allusiveness, they invite the listener to contribute meaning and personal interpretation. In the same way, the euphemism is often employed to enhance the image of the referent. For example, by recalling discrimination, the word race has acquired negative connotations; conversely, the euphemism diversity connotes variety and freedom of choice. In some cases, the attempt to provide a positive misnomer for a disagreeable subject is so exaggerated that the euphemism is actually outrageous. For example, in the phrase concentration camp introduced by the Nazis, the item camp was meant to suggest a pleasant place to spend ones time; yet, the term proved to be in sharp contrast with reality. In everyday American English there are numerous imagebuilding euphemisms. Many modest positions or professions in the U.S.A. are compounds of: lady: a title of nobility in the UK, the term is used indiscriminately in the USA, in compounds such as: sales lady, lady doctor, lady inspector, etc. engineer: appearance engineer (Br. Hairdresser); exterminating engineer (Br. rat-catcher); etc. operative (= worker) or director: cleansing department operative (Br. garbage collector); funeral director (Br. undertaker); etc. academy: driving academy/a riding academy (Br. driving/riding school); etc. parlor: beauty parlor (Br. beauty salon/shop), pizza parlor; etc. artist/stylist: tonsorial artist/hair stylist (Br. barber); etc.
Strategies of politeness represent the subject of Chapter 8.
97
98
Meaning and Communication carefully some day, instead of I dont like it or Im not interested; etc. to improve their image by appearing educated, e.g. to render inoperable instead of to spoil/ruin; to lend assistance instead of to give help; etc. to make the message more interesting and alluring, e.g. in advertising, We see you floating in tender clouds, instead of We see you dressed in fine clothes.
This stands proof of the great sensitivity Americans manifest concerning their personal image1. Romanians also follow the American line, in many cases, by simply adopting the English/American term, e.g. manager, stilist, director de marketing, etc. The foreign language further improves the image of the referent. Euphemistic ideas can be expressed with the help of other devices, such as: circumlocution, e.g. to commit a nuisance (= a theft, a crime); a bad outcome (= any kind of tragic result); to take seniority status (= to retire); Its quite interesting (= I dont like it); etc. litotes (i.e. understatement), e.g. Hes had a glass (= He is quite drunk); Ive spent a buck or two (= Ive spent a lot of money); etc.; negative litotes (i.e. grammatical understatement), e.g. Its not too safe (= Its quite dangerous); etc. irony (= saying the opposite of what one means): a fine achievement/a great success (= a failure); a real giant (= quite small); etc. banter (i.e. good-natured raillery or fun): tired and overemotional (= drunk); laughing academy (= lunatic asylum); taken to the cleaners (= defrauded, robbed, cheated, conned); Excuse my French (= swearwords); etc. the use of grandiloquent or elegant terms: the Great Atom Smasher (= death); the countrys premier fashion designer; etc. the use of a foreign-language equivalent, e.g. a tour de force; en vogue (hence vogueing); world cuisine; It's too nouveau; etc. Paraphrase and circumlocution may originate in the speakers desire: o to avoid referring directly to an embarrassing fact/situation, e.g. a host may ask her guests whether they would like to refresh themselves; etc. to avoid saying something unpleasant (see also chapter 8), e.g. This is a very interesting X. Well have to analyse it more
2.2.2.1.2.2
Ellipsis and substitution1
Ellipsis is based on elision of certain linguistic items whose meaning can be retraced from some previous text. This way it suggests that something is so well known that repetition is unnecessary, e.g. the butchers (shop); St. Pauls (Cathedral); When in doubt (about something), leave (it) out; The sooner (you do something/something occurs), the better (it is). In figurative speech, though, the elided item is not always unambiguously clear: the intentional absence of some information induces a sense of mystery and innuendo, or of in-group membership (knowledge shared by a small group of initiates). This is often exploited in advertising, as for instance in: Aviva (insurance). This ad will be here tomorrow. Will you? The Independent (newspaper). It is . Are you ? The Aviva ad uses ellipsis to make receivers meditate: it points to the idea that life is transitory and that man (i.e. you) can die unexpectedly. In opposition with the durability of the non-animate world (the poster will be here), the ephemeral character of human life appears even more painful. The Independent ad is based not only on ellipsis, but also on pun and metonymy. In the context, it is unclear what/who is independent: the product or its user. Substitution of a lexical item accomplishes co-reference, i.e. various ways to refer to the same real-world referent (see also section 5.2). In most cases, the substitution is pronominal: personal (you, he, they), possessive (my, his, theirs), demonstrative (this, that), or it can be accomplished by using deictic words (here, now, there, then, the), comparatives (same, such, other, better, less, the same, ), etc. For example:
See also the discussion regarding face sensitivity in section 8.2 Face and face management.
See also section 4.5.1 Text and textness.
99
100
Boreal (sports shoes). Before you put your life in your hands, put your feet in ours Obviously, the pronoun ours substitutes the noun hands, so that its function is to avoid repetition. But the substitution also induces a certain degree of ambiguity ( put your feet in our hands?). On the pragmatic level, though, things become untangled: the pairing of the idiomatic-metaphoric phrase to put ones life in someones hands (= to entrust something valuable), with the type of product (shoes), triggers the reading entrust the comfort of your feet in us. In other cases, an item in the text is replaced by a pro-form term, as in: Aviva. Thinking ahead? So are we. The ad, which asks the receiver whether he is thinking ahead, asserts with the help of the pro-form so that the company is also thinking ahead, i.e. trying to find solutions for his problems.
Litotes (or understatement) is the opposite, in the sense that it diminishes the designated object or its qualities for reasons of o o modesty, e.g. a bit of luck, a bite to eat, I only want a moment of your time, etc. negative exaggeration, e.g. not to have an ounce of energy left, not to have had a wink of sleep, not to lay a finger on someone, etc. euphemistic circumlocution, e.g. to have had a glass (too many), etc. by
Negative litotes (i.e. expressing an affirmative grammatically negating its contrary) is often used to express: o o
modest understatement, e.g. Not too bad, is it?; Im not exactly a pauper; etc. irony or banter1, e.g. Not too successful, were you?; Not exactly what you expected, is it?, etc.
2.2.2.1.2.3
Hyperbole and litotes, irony and banter
The hyperbole, which relies on an intentional and obvious exaggeration for the sake of emphasis (not deception) holds a very important place in ordinary communication: exaggeration is a characteristic feature of human nature. Therefore, hyperbolic phrases, such as Im starving, Its freezing, It nearly killed me, or I nearly died, are common in ordinary speech. Many hyperbolic phrases have been assimilated by the language, becoming idiomatic, e.g. a thousand thanks, scared to death, to shed floods of tears, wet to the bone, full to the brim, frightened out of ones wits, etc. Diachronically, hyperbole accounts for the change of meaning of a number of lexical items by addition of modal connotations. Thus, shows Levichi (1970: 72), the prefixes e- or extra-, originally meant out of, and words thus prefixed were affectively neutral. Gradually, they took on hyperbolic dimensions, so that today they connote something so excessive that it excites our wonder, indignation, or contempt. For example, enormous (ex- + norma = norm, standard) initially meant out of norm, out of standard, e.g. an enormous appetite meant an appetite that was out of the norm; today it refers to something which greatly exceeds the common size, extent, amount, or degree. Extraordinary (extra + ordine) and extravagant (from extra + vagans = to wander) underwent a similar process.
In most cases, the difference between irony and banter resides not so much in the words used, as in the speakers paralanguage (tone of voice, smile, etc.). Leech (1983: 144) considers that banter bears a great weight in casual linguistic conversation, particularly among youngsters; in the black community of New York, for example, there is a ritualized form of banter, called sounding: it is a language-game consisting of a ceremonial exchange of insults recognized by both parties as untrue, therefore not to be taken for insults.
2.2.2.2
Sense relations
Figurative speech often exploits conceptual sense relations synonymy, hyponymy, opposition of meaning to accumulate weight. By enlarging and developing his ideas, the speaker enhances the effectiveness of his message.
2.2.2.2.1
Synonymy
It was shown in section 2.2.2.1.1.1 that the metaphor relies on an imagined/supposed similitude between the object named and the object referred to (fox for a cunning person). In other words, the metaphor relies on pragmatic synonymy. This kind of synonymy is deployed on the paradigmatic axis (i.e. one item instead of
1
Banter = a kind of mock-irony.
101
102
Meaning and Communication enumeration, i.e. the listing within same sentence of various elements of a certain whole: e.g. Nothing could please him, his clothes, his cars, his horses, his art collection, everything seemed to bore him after a while. climax (or gradation), i.e. an ascending succession, e.g. The more he read, the more he wanted to know, and soon he spent most of his waking hours reading.
another). On the syntagmatic axis there are also numerous figures of speech that exploit conceptual or pragmatic synonymy: tautology, repetition, ellipsis, etc.
2.2.2.2.1.1
Tautology
By the juxtaposition of two synonyms within the same sentence, the tautology is conceptually uninformative. However, on the pragmatic/figurative level, the very repetition of an item carries additional meaning, e.g. He is his fathers son suggests that he is, in certain respects, very much like his father. Tautologies are frequent in idiomatic and colloquial speech: e.g. Whats yours is yours (i.e. You have qualities that are quite remarkable); If you must, you must (i.e. Do it, although I think you are wrong); Whats done is done (= You cant change what happened); Business is business (= In business you must not allow your feelings to interfere); etc.
2.2.2.2.2
Hyponymy: the metonymy
With metonymy (Gk. meta = change + onoma = name), the name of an object is replaced by one of its significant attributes, by some function that it discharges, etc. (Levichi, 1970: 81-2) While the metaphor relies on a similitude between the signifier and the signified, with the metonymy the relationship is factual: the term used designates a real-world aspect, attribute, or instrument of the referent. For example: the material instead of the object that is made of it, as in: iron, i.e. the name of the metal used for the appliance gold (= money), i.e. the name of the metal instead of the product made of it; etc. the name of an instrument for the agent (i.e. the person to whom it is related): crown or throne for king; sword instead of army, e.g. The crown relied on the sword to win the battle. the name of a typical attribute of the referent: from the cradle to the grave (i.e. cradle = birth; grave = death); etc. bars instead of prison: to put someone behind bars the holder for the thing held: the police for the men in the police; the gallery for the men in the gallery, The gallery cheered their team. the church for clergy: The history of England witnessed many conflicts between the throne and the Church. the maker name used for the object made: Picasso for painting by Picasso, e.g. The Picasso was sold for $100,000. the producers name for the product range, e.g. a Versace (dress); an Armani (suit); a Dior (perfume); etc. the place of origin instead of a object coming from it:
2.2.2.2.1.2
Repetition, accumulation, gradation
Repetition, accumulation and gradation1 - which build up tension and enhance the impact of the message are of several types: incremental (or cumulative) repetition, e.g. Those days, those days, those wonderful days; etc. chain repetition, i.e. the symmetrical repetition of (groups of) words in initial and final positions: e.g. He decided he would wait for just a moment; the moment extended into an hour; the hour into a day, and the day turned into long-long weeks and months; etc. refrain (or chorus), i.e. a word/phrase is repeated several times, obsessively, e.g. Work, work, work, nothing but long, long days of hard work; etc. quantitative hendiadys, i.e. the association of two or more synonyms linked with the copulative conjunction and: e.g. one and only; each and every; my lord and master; far and away; dust and ashes; ashes to ashes; etc. balanced sentence, or syntactic parallelism, i.e. the repetition of a syntactic pattern, e.g. The more he read, the more he wanted to know. The balanced sentence is typically used in proverbs: e.g. The sooner, the better. The more, the merrier; Well begun is half done; etc.
1
Some of the examples are from Levichi, 1975.
103
104
champagne (< Champagne), holland (= a kind of linen < Holland); china (= porcelain < China); etc. a part for the whole, or the whole for a part: sail for ship, e.g. The sails left the harbour. a hand for a worker (a hired hand), or person (to give somebody a hand); finger for physical violence, e.g. to have a finger in every pie; etc. the special for the general, or the general for the special: a leaf of grass for nature, e.g. Every leaf of grass must be protected. nature for a limited surface, e.g. a park. The last two categories mentioned above belong to a subcategory of metonymy, i.e. synecdoche. However, most linguists include the synecdoche under the heading metonymy.
2.2.2.2.3.2
False homology: Ambiguity and paradox
False homology draws on the opposition between appearance and reality. There are two main types: o o ambiguity, which under the appearance of similarity conceals an actual difference; and paradox, which relies on the actual similarity of two apparently opposite notions or objects.
A. Ambiguity and the pun

Ambiguity is based on a breach of the rules of conceptual normality, the message allowing at least two readings. If, in ordinary speech, people sometimes produce unintentionally utterances that are less than clear, in figurative speech, the ambiguity is always intentional, strategically exploited for the linguistic effect. The pun (or conundrum), the most popular figure of speech based on ambiguity, is caused by polysemy or homonymy. Many jokes and advertisements derive their humour from the double meaning of polysemous words, or from the similar pronunciation of different words, as in: Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines It is estimated that there are ten million over-weight women. These of course are round figures The examples allow at least two readings: change means transformation, modification, but also money returned when the sum offered in payment is larger than the sum due (which should come from vending machines, but does not always come). Round figures can mean approximately with reference to the estimated number of over-weight women, but it can also refer to the rotund shapes of the fat ladies discussed. Homonymy is also the source of a joke that circulated shortly after the election of Barack Obama as President of the U.S.A.: They once said that a black man would be President when pigs flew. His first 100 days and wham!! Pig's flu! The nearly simultaneous occurrence of a disease that terrified the entire world (pigs flu) and the election of the first coloured president of the USA reminded the jokes creator of a popular idiom (when pigs fly = never); tragic moments are well known to produce examples of excellent (black) humour. Conversion can also trigger grammatical ambiguity, as in:
2.2.2.2.3 Opposition of meaning

Other figures of speech exploit lexical, grammatical or pragmatic opposition of meaning.
2.2.2.2.3.1 Antithesis
Antithesis is larger than antonymy in that involves a pragmatic opposition of ideas, as in: a tiny man with a huge appetite The harder we tried, the less successful we were By contrasting opposite ideas, antithesis conveys a powerful message. In strategic communication, such as advertising, it sometimes contains an added element of ambiguity based on double meaning (pun), as in: Phillips. Weve made the concept of small really big Volvo. Oceans away youre close to a great deal The conceptual contradiction inherent in the antonymous pairs of adjectives (small and big) and, respectively, adverbs (away and close) induces semantic anomaly. On the pragmatic level, however, the ads are funny and meaningful: to make something big can be interpreted as increasing the size of an object, or as great achievement in a certain field; and a great deal can mean a lot of things, but also a great business opportunity.
Chapter 2: Lexical innovation John Players Special (cigarettes): Players Please Lucky Strike (cigarettes): Get Lucky. (movie): Crossing Jordan
105
106
In the first example, please can function as an adverb, in which case the ad reads Please give me , or as a verb, which triggers the reading are satisfying. Get Lucky can be interpreted as Become lucky, in which case lucky is an adjective, or Obtain/Buy Lucky cigarettes, in which case it is a proper noun. The movie title exploits both lexical ambiguity (homonymy) and our knowledge of the world: from the Bible we know of the Jordan river, whose waters were crossed (= traversed) by the early Christians; but in the movie, Jordan is a young policewoman whose sharp mind and quick temper makes it unwise for people to cross (= irritate) her. Antanaclasis, which also relies on lexical and grammatical ambiguity and on double meaning, involves the repetition of a word, with changed meaning and sometimes of grammatical category: (a bank ad): Bank on a bank thats decisive (Insurance company): Derek died broke. And that broke his wife The ads rely on conversion and homonymy. In the first, bank is first a verb in the imperative (meaning here to choose), then a noun (= a financial institution). In the insurance ad, broke is first an adjective (to be broke = to be penniless) and then the preterit of the verb break, broke, broken (meaning here overwhelmed, destroyed).
At first sight, the sentences are illogical: they bring together words whose conceptual features exclude each other: life excludes the act of killing, truth conceptually contradicts the act of lying, and public-private form an antonymous pair. But pragmatically, the ideas make sense, although on different principles. In the first example, the phrase is killing me is used idiomatically, meaning to annoy, to wear out. The second summarizes in a sophisticated way the very essence of Art: in this elusive and illusive realm, truth and lies can not only coexist, but one is the very essence of the other. In the third example, the paradox is doubled by a pun/conundrum. Public and private have opposite meanings with reference to ownership (beaches can be both publicly and privately owned). But private is polysemous: it can also mean intimate or free from intrusion (an essential feature in the context of tourism), so that the contradiction is pragmatically annihilated. The oxymoron is a special type of paradox: it is based on the juxtaposition of two antonyms, as in: a poor rich (girl); to act naturally; almost exactly; I clearly misunderstood; cruel kindness; a definite maybe; found missing; a genuine imitation; living dead; a paid volunteer; passive aggression; peace force; pretty ugly; terribly pleased; a small crowd; a silent scream; a working vacation; sweet sorrow; etc. Although conceptually such phrases are dissonant, on the pragmatic level they are not anomalous: there are quite a few poor rich girls (very unhappy, in spite of their riches); a peace force is often required to stop the fights; working vacations are not really unusual; etc. There are also phrases which are considered to be pragmatically oxymoronic, although their components are not conceptual opposites, e.g. diet ice cream; temporary tax increase; truthful advertising; etc.
B. Paradox and oxymoron

Just like ambiguity, the paradox draws on the opposition between appearance and reality and on double meaning. But unlike ambiguity, which under the appearance of a similarity of form conceals an actual difference of meaning, paradox focuses on the actual similarity of two apparently opposite notions or objects. Furthermore, just like ambiguity, the paradox exploits not only the rules of the dictionary, but also those of nature: the lexical opposition is annihilated by the logic of the real world, so that the seemingly absurd assertion becomes truthful. Life is killing me Art tells the truth by lying (tourist agency ad): Some of our public beaches can be very private
2.2.2.2.4
Semantic anomaly: Zeugma and bathos
The paradox and the oxymoron have introduced a type of apparently dissonant construct which, on the pragmatic level, proves to be true. Dissonant utterances breach the laws of semantic well-formedness blatantly; and yet, they manage not only to convey logical meaning, but also to do so in a funny and attention-catching way.
107
108
This shows that semantic anomaly is often exploited by gifted communicators, or professional creators, to achieve humorous effects while conveying additional meaning. With the zeugma and the bathos, the utterances are even more dissonant; and yet, their message is clear, intelligent, and immensely funny. The zeugma (or syllepsis) draws on polysemy and on semantic incompatibility: it involves the simultaneous use of the same word with two senses (and sometimes with different grammatical functions) to modify or govern two or more words to which it is appropriate, but in a different way, as in: He caught a trout and a bad cold He took his hat and his leave and went out He was wearing a scarf and a look of embarrassment Paul and his driving license expiated last week Each of the examples contains two semantically well-formed collocative groups: you can catch a trout, and you can also catch a bad cold; you can take your hat, and you can take your leave; you can wear a scarf, and you can wear a look of embarrassment; etc. But these collocative groups are mutually incompatible: the [CONCRETE] feature of trout clashes with the [-CONCRETE] feature of cold; the [CONCRETE] feature of hat clashes with the [CONCRETE] feature of leave; etc. A [CONCRETE] and a [CONCRETE] object cannot modify the same verb in the same context. In the same way, the verb expiate in the last example collocates correctly both with Paul and with driving licence: a person can expiate (= die), and so can a driving license (= cease to be valid). The clash between the [ANIMATE] feature of Paul and the [-ANIMATE] feature of driving licence makes the sentence dissonant but funny. That is why the zeugma is highly appreciated in jokes. The bathos (or anticlimax) relies on a similarly unexpected second part in the sentence. It is based on a ludicrous descent from the exalted or lofty to the commonplace (Webster), as in the following two 19th century ads (quoted by Dyer, 1982: 30):
display with the first part of the sentence written above the second and in bigger letters contributes to the shock effect.
2.2.3
Change of meaning and lexicalization
A Beautiful Young Girl Strangled

a cry of admiration when she saw our new blouses.
The Duke of Wellington Shot

a glance of admiration at our hats. By the sudden descent from the tragic into the common-place, the bathos is a source of great fun. Obviously, the inventive
Figurative speech can also undergo a process of lexicalization: certain figurative usages have been assimilated so thoroughly by the language that they are now part of the dictionary. According to their degree of assimilation by the language, figures of speech can be described as live, degraded or dead. Figures of speech which are perceived as fresh and poetic, are referred to as live, e.g. live metaphors or live similes. To illustrate live metaphors1, we should leaf through the writings of great poets, whose figures of speech have remained fresh in spite of their age. To give just one example, take Kiplings lines, If you can fill the unforgiving minute/With sixty seconds worth of distance run (fill the minute verbal metaphor; unforgiving minute epithet and personification). The life of live figures of speech is, however, short. Some are produced specifically for one occasion (e.g. advertising metaphors) and die out as soon as the text is no longer valid. Others remain restricted to a certain domain (e.g. those of literature). Still others are institutionalized, becoming part of the language. Institutionalized figures of speech are degraded: they are still perceived as figurative, but they are so well known and so frequently used that they are conventionally accepted by the entire language community. Degraded figures of speech thus assimilated are listed in the dictionary in the form of idioms, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Thus, many currently used idiomatic phrases are, in fact, degraded metaphors: e.g. to make head or tail of something; to fall in love; a broken heart; a splitting headache; butterflies in ones stomach; to jump out of ones skin; to wear ones heart on ones sleeve; etc. Many euphemisms have undergone the same process and are now institutionalized, e.g. African-American; to close one's eyes; to pass water; to use the bathroom; to downsize staff; etc. Similes can also be fresh and poetic (i.e. live), e.g. as bright as a day of spring; as dull as a cloudy day; but many have been degraded, becoming idiomatic phrases frequently repeated by
1
See also the texts in Annex 4.
109
110
English speakers: as fresh as a daisy; as dark as pitch; to drink like a fish; as drunk as a lord; (as) green as grass; like a cat on hot bricks; as poor as a church mouse; as plump as a partridge; (as) red as a lobster; thick as thieves; etc. Degraded hyperboles are also common, e.g. to freeze to death; to shed floods of tears; frightened out of ones wits; to be in the seventh heaven; wet to the bone; etc. The choice of the figurative images is quite arbitrary: there is often no logical explanation why certain figurative images have been assimilated by the language the way they have. For example, shows Leech (1981: 227), the fox has been conventionally accepted as metaphor for the cunning person, although it could be used as well to name one who is red-haired, or one who has a pointed face. In the same way, the hard-working person is called a bee, although the donkey is also a hard-working animal; but donkey is used to name the stubborn person. And nobody can reasonably explain why the lord is the measure for drunkenness. The conventional character of figurative images becomes obvious if we compare languages. Different languages have conventionalized the same idea by using different figurative images: Romanians name the person who reads a lot library mouse (oarece de bibliotec); the English compare him to a worm (bookworm). Or, there is no logical explanation why the measure for blindness in English is the bat (i.e. as blind as a bat), while in Romanian it is the mole (i.e. orb ca o crti). Some popular metaphors produced by great writers have also undergone certain degradation. Shakespeares famous All the worlds a stage, for instance, has been repeated so often that, if one person begins the phrase, another will continue it. To achieve special effects, advertisers often indulge in revitalizing degraded metaphors, e.g. you can actually see a persons eyes popping out, money flowing down the drain, people flying (of happiness), etc. On the third level of assimilation, figures of speech are viewed as figuratively dead1, i.e. their present form and meaning no longer recalls their figurative origin.
1
In every language there are words and phrases whose figurative character is lost to the ordinary speaker. Few people today know, for example, that window, daisy and husband were originally metaphorical compounds: they come, respectively, from Old English windes eage (= the winds eye), daeges eage (= the days eye), and hus bonda (= house master). With some dead metaphors, the figurative usage has pushed out the original (concrete) meaning, e.g. to thrill originally meant to bore holes; today it means to delight. With others, the original meaning is preserved, but the figurative usage is so well established that people no longer perceive the link, e.g. the crane (i.e. the machine used for lifting and moving heavy weights) got its name from the delicate long-necked bird which bears the same name. The same thing happened in the case of words transferred from one domain to another: the nose of a ship; the airplane pilot navigates/sails his vehicle; we navigate on the Internet and use search engines; the web (Internet) has world wide dimensions; etc. The analysis points to the fact that, just like in the case of word formation, lexicalization of figurative speech is accompanied by loss of transparency. Most live figures of speech which are not lexicalized at all are transparent: the speaker/writer/poet may want to make his text more interesting, but he wants his message to get through. Conversely, dead metaphors which have been completely lexicalized are opaque: neither the speaker nor the receiver knows where the words/phrases come from, so they cannot retrace their original meanings. Between the two extremes, transparency comes by degrees. The dictionary provides hosts of semi-transparent or semi-opaque phrases: a hard nut to crack; to swallow the bitter pill; to be knocked up (= to become pregnant); etc. When the lexicalization of newly coined words was discussed (see section 2.1.2.3.2) it was mentioned that new words may be more of less opaque (e.g. Bluetooth). In the same way, it would be a mistake to say that the opacity of a word/phrase is a direct consequence of its advance in age or its degree of assimilation. In the case of figurative speech, the criterion according to which a phrase is labelled as transparent, semi-transparent, semi-opaque or opaque is the semantic link the speaker perceives between the metaphorical expression and its literal equivalent.
According to some linguists (e.g. Levichi, 1970), dead metaphors are those whose figurative character can no longer be retraced by the ordinary speaker, as in the examples quoted here. Other linguists (e.g. Leech, 1981) call dead all those figures of speech that have been completely assimilated by the language.
111
112
Thus, if the relation is obvious and the language user can get the meaning of the phrase by computing the meanings of its components, then the phrase is considered transparent and wellmotivated, e.g. as soft as silk; to get to the heart of something; etc. Conversely, if the link is perceived as non-existent and the language user cannot decode the meaning of the phrase by computing the meanings of its components, the phrase is labelled as opaque, i.e. not motivated, e.g. to be yellow bellied (= extremely timid or cowardly); the apple of ones eyes (= a much beloved child); blowing smoke (= boasting without being able to back it up); etc. In between is the great mass of semi-transparent or semiopaque phrases. Naturally, what may appear as obvious and motivated (i.e. semi-transparent) to one receiver may appear as vague and non-motivated (i.e. semi-opaque) to another. Lexicalized metaphors cover all degrees of transparency. They can be transparent, e.g. to earn ones keep; to keep in touch; to give someone the green light; etc. Most similes are transparent, as the equivalence they are based on is explicit, e.g. as fresh as a rose; as pretty as a picture; etc. A great number of metaphors are semi-transparent or semiopaque, allowing the receiver to infer their meaning by effort of imagination and knowledge of the world, e.g. to bring home the bacon; to cry over spilt milk; to turn a deaf ear; to give a hand; to take something for granted; to give somebody a dirty look; to cut ones nose to spite ones face; etc. Numerous metaphors are completely opaque, e.g. to chew the fat (= to talk about unimportant things); to put on the dog (= to act as if one were rich); to be green about the gills (= looking as though one is about to be sick); red tape (= bureaucratic routine required before official action can be taken); as thick as two short planks (= very stupid); etc. With opaque metaphors, the receivers knowledge of the world and imagination are useless: the individual elements provide no clue regarding the meaning of the phrase. Lexicalization has turned them into complex dictionary entries, which have to be learned as such. In conclusion, language and meanings are continuously on the move. New words are borrowed and/or coined every day, to cover the new realities of the world. But change of meaning is by far the
most productive word formation technique: new contexts endow existing terms with meanings that they did not possess before, and figurative transfer offers a valuable instrument to the creative speaker. To become part of the conceptual system of the language, though, the new words must undergo a process of lexicalization.
114
Meaning and Communication something (= to be good at); to have ones head screwed the right way (= to be sensible); to bury ones head in the sand (= to refuse to face a difficult situation); to have something hanging over ones head (= to be in constant danger); etc.
Chapter 3
Idiom and style
3.1
Idiomatic speech
Idiomatic speech is characteristic to the native speakers instincts of the language. Idioms combine existing words in ways which often upset the rules of logic and grammar to create new phrases whose meaning is often puzzling, being partially or completely opaque. The English language is particularly rich in idioms there are thousands of long-lived groups of words whose meaning has little or nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words. A large number of idioms are associated with informal or colloquial speech, and many sound slangy and playful. Some have become popular because of their euphony, e.g. they are based on rhyme (snug as a bug in a rug) or alliteration (spick and span). Others are well-known proverbs or maxims that express basic practical truths, or folksy sayings used in particular regions or local dialects. Sports terms, technical jargon, legal words, business vocabulary, military slang, nautical expressions, and practically every facet of human activity, have found their way into idiomatic English. This is because idioms, more than individual words, mirror and embody the life and soul of the people who speak the language. Without idioms English would lose much of its variety and humour, both in speech and writing. All dialects of English have different sets of idioms; some idioms, however, belong to world-wide English. There is practically no aspect of human life that should not have produced its plethora of idioms. For example, every part of the human body has triggered numerous idiomatic phrases: the head: pig-headed (= stubborn); to lose ones head; to fall head over heels in love; to take something into ones head (= to insist); to be/pass above ones head (= to be beyond ones ability to understand); to have a (good) head for
eyes: not to see eye to eye about something (= to disagree); to be up to the eyes in work (= very busy); to open someones eyes (= to make someone become aware of something); to keep an eye on someone/something (= to watch); to catch someones eye (= to attract someones attention); to have an eye for something (= to have good appreciation for things of value); to turn a blind eye (= to ignore behaviour which is against the rules or illegal); in the public eye (= well known, often appearing in public); to have eyes only for someone; to make eyes at someone (= to show overtly ones liking for a person of the opposite sex); etc. nose: to poke ones nose into other peoples business (= to interfere); to turn up ones nose at something (= to scorn/reject something); to keep ones nose to the grindstone (= to keep working); cant see beyond/further than the end of ones nose (= to be incapable of predicting obvious consequences); to look down ones nose at someone (= to disrespect); with ones nose in the air (= conceited); to follow ones nose (= to follow ones instinct); etc. shoulder: shoulder to shoulder (= together, side by side); a shoulder to cry on (= someone sympathetic, who will listen to you when you are in trouble); to take the burned off ones shoulders (= to help someone out); to put ones shoulder to the wheel (= to help, to contribute to the effort); to give someone the cold shoulder (= to reject, especially a member of the opposite sex); to rub shoulders with (= to be overfriendly with, to meet socially); etc. tongue: to hold ones tongue (= to keep silent); to have a sharp tongue (= to speak harshly and offensively); a slip of the tongue (= something said/revealed by mistake, when something else was intended); to find ones tongue (= to begin to talk after a long silence); its on the tip of my tongue (= I know it, but I cant remember its name); to speak with ones tongue in ones cheek (= said in a way which is not meant to be taken seriously); etc.
Chapter 3: Idiom and style
115
116
Meaning and Communication dangerous situation); to go through/put someone through the mill (= to experience/make someone experience something); easier said than done (= giving advice is easy, doing things is quite difficult); the chief stumbling block (= the main difficulty); teething troubles (= difficulties arising at the beginning of activity); the fly in the ointment (= something unpleasant); a hard/tough nut (to crack) (= a difficult problem); etc. ease: a piece of cake/childs play (= very easy); a soft job (= easy); to take the line of least resistance (= to take the easiest way of doing something); to make a short work of something (= to finish something quickly); a sitting duck (= an easy target); to be able to do something standing on ones head/with one hand/arm (tied) behind ones back (= able to do something easily); to win hands down (= to do something without difficulty); to cruise (home) to victory (= to win easily); to go/run like a clock (= to go/run smoothly); to take to something like a duck to water (= to do something easily and naturally); Easy come, easy go (= easily earned or obtained, and easily spent or lost); And Bobs your uncle! (= Thats it used as a comment at the end of a simple, practical task); etc.
Animal idiom is also extremely rich, as the examples below for horse and dog show: horse: horse sense (= common sense); to horse around (= to play or joke in a rough or noisy way); to work like a horse (= to work very hard); to ride ones horse to death (= to overwork, e.g. a servant); to ride the high horse (= to be proud and arrogant); to look a gift horse in the mouth (= to criticize a gift); to get something straight from the horses mouth (= to get information directly from the source); to change horses midstream (e.g. to change a minister when he had barely started his reforms); to put the cart before the horse (= to do things in the wrong order, e.g. to get pregnant before getting married); to lock the stable door after the horse is stolen (= to take safety measures when it is too late); You can lead a horse to the water, but you cant make it drink (= you cannot force people do things); to die in harness (= to be active till the end of ones days); etc. dog: to be dog-tired (= very tired); to work like a horse/dog/slave (= to work very much); to lead a dogs life (= a hard life); (the) top dog (= a VIP; the boss); to lead a cat and dog life (= about a married couple who are always fighting); to give a dog a bad name (= to be very bad, worse than dogs); to help lame dogs over stiles (= to look after unhappy or unlucky people); to go to the dogs (= to be ruined through ones own fault); never had a dogs chance (= was always unlucky); misfortune has always dogged his footsteps (= has always been unlucky); his bark is worse than his bite (= he always threatens, but rarely punishes); Let sleeping dogs lie (= Dont stir up trouble); You cant teach an old dog new tricks (= it is difficult for old people to develop new abilities); etc. Idioms can also be grouped by the notions and functions they express, as in: difficulty: takes a lot of doing (= difficult); to learn/find out/discover something the hard way (= to learn from ones own experience and mistakes); to get (oneself) into a fix/in a tight squeeze (= to get in a difficult situation); to have ones hands full (= to be very busy); to take the bull by the horns (= to deal with a difficult situation in a bold and direct manner); to have ones back to/against the wall (= to be in a difficult or
3.1.1
Defining idiom
To understand what idiomatic language means, we must first define the notion of idiom. Oxford Concise Dictionary (2002) defines idiom as: 1. a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words, e.g. over the moon; 2. a form of expression natural to a language, person, or group. In Hornbys Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (1958), the definition is only slightly different: 1. a group or succession of words that must be learnt as a whole because it is difficult or impossible to understand the meaning from a knowledge of words considered separately, e.g. to give way, in order to; 2. a form of expression peculiar to a people, country, district, group of people, or to one individual, as the French idiom (the language) or Shakespeares idiom (the method of expression used by him and which is peculiar to him).
117
118
Thus, both dictionaries as most others view the notion of idiom from two basic perspectives: on the one hand, the term idiom is used to name a linguistic expression (phrase) commonly used by a certain group of people, whose meaning is different from the meaning of the individual items; on the other hand, idiom refers to the manner of speaking of a nation, an ethnic or social group, a person of great fame or status, etc. While the second sense of the term pertains to socio-linguistics or stylistics, it is the first sense which represents the object of semantics and of the present chapter. However, defining the term idiom even in this restricted sense is not easy, and linguists have various, often conflicting, views. For example, Cruse (1986: 38) defines the term idiom as a lexical complex which is semantically simplex. According to this extremely simple but highly suggestive definition, idioms have two basic characteristics: structurally, idioms are complex, i.e. they are composed of more than one lexical item; semantically, they are simplex, i.e. they function as a single lexeme because they have a unitary meaning.
In accordance with this definition, many compounds could be included within the category of idiom. For instance, compound nouns, such as merry-go-round, mother-of-pearl, skinhead, or breakthrough, are made up of several lexemes, but have a unitary meaning. Similarly, phrasal verbs (e.g. to bring about; to drop off; to fall behind; to see through) or verbal phrases (e.g. to break free, to give way, to turn sour) have a complex structure and a unitary meaning. Such compounds also abide by the condition imposed by the Oxford and Hornby definitions: the meaning of the word group (or phrase) is different from the meaning of the constituent items. Compounds, however, are not idioms. Most linguists agree that an idiom is a familiar, ready-made phrase or commonplace expression thus established by long-term usage. This definition brings us close to the notion of collocation, i.e. to traditional co-occurrences of lexical items. Many phrases rely on collocation: if the expression is heard often, the words become glued together in our minds, e.g. crystal clear, bread and
butter, to take a holiday, to pay a visit, etc. However, with collocations, each element of the group preserves its own meaning; conversely, the idiom has by definition a unitary meaning which involves an actual phraseological fusion. Thus, for example, the collocation How are you? is a question concerning the interlocutors personal health (i.e. the speaker is asking the listener how he is/feels, and the latter is expected to answer, Very well, thank you, or Not so well, Im afraid). The idiom How do you do!, on the other hand, is no longer a question about how the receiver is/feels, but has become a formulaic expression, a mere greeting (similar to Good morning! or Good afternoon!); the expected answer is How do you do!, which shows that the meaning of the individual items has been lost altogether. Linguists also agree that idioms are stable phrases with a fixed lexical and grammatical content and structure. They are indivisible and indecomposable units of language, characterized by internal cohesion. Idioms resist interruption, e.g. to fit like a glove is an idiom (meaning to fit perfectly); but to fit like a leather glove may be grammatically and semantically correct, but is not an idiom. Nor do idioms accept reordering, e.g. to be black and blue = to be bruised; to be blue and black is again grammatically and semantically well-formed, but it is not idiomatic. The meaning of such phrases depends on the context. It is often difficult to say whether we are dealing with a collocation or an idiom. For example, the phrase to hit the high spots sounds highly idiomatic. However, the verb to hit often collocates with place names to convey a meaning of speedy and hurried visit (e.g. to hit the road, to hit the town, to hit London/Paris), so that it preserves its own meaning. This contradicts the requirement of unitary meaning, basic for the idiom. On the other hand, the phrase to hit the high spots has a figurative sense that is unitary (= to get into high society), so that it cannot be denied the status of idiom. Therefore, we must acknowledge the fact that there are numerous borderline cases, of phrases which do not enjoy the status of pure idioms, but still must be included in the category of idioms. The idea of a strictly fixed form of idioms must be reconsidered, too. Some idioms have two or three variants (pairs or triplets), e.g. to spread/stretch ones wings (= to try out ones abilities); to bury the tomahawk/hatchet (= to make peace); to never/rarely/seldom miss a trick (= to be alert); etc.
119
120
Such variants, determined by differences of register, dialectal usage, etc. seem to upset the requirement for a fixed form; but in terms of meaning, they are all simplex and the variants carry the same unitary meaning. Elision is another phenomenon that affects the fixedness of form of idioms. Some phrases are so well known and widely circulated that one part of the phrase is often dropped. For example, the phrase with no strings attached is often abbreviated to no strings; to swallow the bitter pill becomes to swallow the pill, or just a bitter pill; a hard nut to crack is often shortened to a hard nut; The last straw that broke the camels back becomes the last straw; A bird in the hand is worth two in a bush becomes A bird in the hand or, in shorthand variant, bird in hand; instead of to draw a red herring across the track (= to distract and confuse) people may simply say a red herring; etc.
3.1.2
The origins of idioms
The origins of idioms are most diverse and it is often hard to establish the true history of a particular expression. Linguists who study the sources of idiomatic expressions do not always agree. Some idioms, however, have a fairly well known origin. Idioms come from all kinds of sources: from the Bible to the world of business, from ancient fables to modern slang. Some were coined by famous authors (e.g. Homer, Aesop, Chaucer, or Shakespeare); the popularity of their works made the expressions popular, too. Some go back in time to ancient Greece and Rome; others are more recent. For example, the Bible has inspired or originated idioms such as: a thorn in the flesh (Corinthians, 12:7) = a persistent difficulty; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Luke, 24:44) = to pay for ones deeds; to bite the dust (Psalms, 122:6) = to die or to be humiliated; blind leading blind (Matthew, 15:14) = an unprepared person gives advice to another just like him; the writing is on the wall (Daniel, 5:5) = an unavoidable disaster is foretold; etc. Shakespeare also produced a great number of idioms, such as: All that glisters is not gold (The Merchant of Venice); for ever and a day (As You Like It) = always; flesh and blood (Hamlet) = the relatives; neither here nor there (Hamlet) = nowhere; etc. Some idioms recall historical or literary figures of antiquity, e.g. to cross the Rubicon (= to take a decisive and irrevocable step)
reminds us of Julius Caesar; to eat ones heart out (= to make oneself sick with grief and worry) was first used by Homer in the Odyssey. Sour grapes comes from Aesops fable The Fox and the Grapes, in which the fox, who cannot jump high enough to reach a bunch of grapes she yearns for, gives up saying they were sour anyway. Other idioms are related to certain specialized domains, e.g. The exception proves the rule has been shortened from the legal maxim The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted. Numerous idioms have been borrowed as translation loans from other languages. For example, the idiom blue blood (= of high or noble birth) has been translated from Spanish, where aristocrats used to boast that their skin was light (the veins show through a fair skin and are blue in colour) because they had not intermarried with the darker-skinned Moors. Or, from an old German saying we have Blood is thicker than water, meaning family ties cannot be denied, i.e. since water can evaporate without leaving a trace, whereas blood leaves a stain, the saying suggests that relatives (blood) are more important (thicker) than people who are not related (water). Many English idioms come from the old traditions of various peoples who speak it. A great number are originally British, e.g. to carry coals to Newcastle (= to do something useless); to kick the bucket (= to die) comes from Norfolk, England, where the bucket was a beam from which they hanged by its hind feet a pig about to be killed (the nervous reflexes of the dying pig caused it to kick the bucket); dressed to a tea (= well dressed, with attention to details) appeared in Victorian times, when the custom of having high tea was a formal affair and people dressed with great care for it. Some idioms are related to real persons, e.g. to be in the crapper (= to be soiled or hopelessly irretrievable) comes from the name of Sir John Crapper, the designer and implementer of modern indoor plumbing (public bathrooms in England are still referred to as the john or the crapper). The number of idioms coming form America is also large, e.g. to bury the hatchet (= to stop the war) originates from the customs of the American Indians for whom the undigging of the hatched signified a declaration of war and the act of burying it meant making peace; a happy hunting ground (= a place where one goes to obtain something or to make money) derives from the term used by American Indians for paradise; to bark up the wrong tree (= to do something in the wrong way or from the wrong
121
122
Meaning and Communication to chew the fat (= to talk about unimportant things) derives form the Inuit1, who used to chew on pieces of whale blubber (almost like chewing gum) while doing other things. to bust someones chops (= to harass): At the turn of the century the fashion was to wear very long sideburns, called mutton chops or lamb chops, so that a bust in the chops meant a hit in the face. a cat bird seat (= a highly advantageous position) comes from the mocking bird, also called cat bird, which typically sits at the top of a tree; hence a cat bird seat is a position at the top. to have a clean bill of health (= to be found healthy) has its origins in the Bill of Health, a document issued to a ship, showing that the port it sailed from suffered from no epidemic or infection at the time of departure. Close, but no cigar (= nearly achieving success, but not quite): Carnival games of skill, particularly shooting games, once gave out cigars as a prize. A contestant who did not quite hit the target did not get a cigar, no matter how close he was to it. dead as a door nail (= dead, with no chance for recovery). Nails were once hand-made and expensive, so that when an old cabin or barn was pulled down, the nails were salvaged to be reused. When building a door, however, carpenters often drove the nail through, then bent it over, so that it could not be salvaged and was considered dead. to put something down the hatch (= to drink or eat): The expression probably originates from the practice of loading sea freighters, where the cargoes are lowered into the hatch for transport below deck; the freight thus lowered seems to be actually gobbled up by the ship. dressed to the nines (= dressed elegantly and expensively): They say that the best suits are made from nine yards of fabric more than is ordinarily required because a good suit has all the fabric cut in the same direction (with the long strands parallel with the vertical line of the suit). There is a lot of waste, but the clothes made in this way are of top quality. raining cats and dogs (= raining very hard): It seems that in olden times people, especially sailors, thought that cats had an influence over storms, and that dogs were symbols of storms. When a particularly violent tempest occurred, people
direction) originates from the practice of raccoon-hunting, in which dogs were used to locate raccoons up in trees; to paddle ones own canoe (= to do ones own work, to be independent) is an American idiom of the late 18th/early 19th century. Some idioms are related to or created by famous people. For example, to have an axe to grind (= to have a personal, often selfish, reason for being involved in something) allegedly comes from a story told by Benjamin Franklin about a man who, having an axe to sharpen, asked him to demonstrate how his fathers grindstone worked. Like the entire vocabulary, idioms are dynamic and subject to rapid change: new idioms are continuously created, old ones fade away as rapidly, and numerous idioms change their meaning. For example, the phrase Eat, drink, and be merry comes from the Bible (Luke 12:19): Jesus tells a parable about a man who stores up food for the years to come and tells himself, Soul, you have many goods laid up for years to come; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry. In the parable, Jesus presents the man as a fool (his life ends that very day, and he cannot take with him to the grave the food he has stored up); but today, the phrase is used in a positive sense. The phrase There is no love lost between them underwent a similar change of meaning: in the original version, the persons liked each other very much; todays version is ironic: the words convey the opposite meaning. Numerous idioms are opaque and baffling, as there is no perceivable relationship between the meaning of individual words and the overall meaning of the phrase. A glimpse into their history (or story), however, can often explain things. Consider the following random list of examples: blowing smoke (= boasting without being able to back it up) comes from the practice of magicians, who use smoke in their performance to conceal a bit of trickery. Break a leg! (= a wish of good luck) is rooted in the old belief in Sprites and a kind of medieval reverse psychology. Sprites were spirits or ghosts believed to enjoy wreaking havoc and causing trouble. If the Sprites heard you ask for something, they were reputed to try to make happen the exact opposite. Telling someone to break a leg was, therefore, an attempt to outsmart the Sprites and bring about a good outcome.
1
A people related to the Eskimos.
123
124
Meaning and Communication as plump as a partridge = fat as fit as a fiddle = in perfect health as like as two peas = very much alike mad as a hornet = very angry, in a fighting mood mad as a hatter/nutty as a fruitcake = crazy to drink like a fish = to drink a lot to feel like a million dollars/bucks = to feel wonderful as cross as nine highways = very angry to look like the cat that swallowed the canary = to look guilty to act like a cat on a hot tin roof = to be fidgety snug as a bug in the rug = cosy, comfortable as lazy as Ludlams dog, that leaned his head against the wall to bark = very lazy
said it was caused by cats (bringing the rain) and dogs (the wind). In spite of its popularity among learners, the phrase has fallen out of use in England today. In earlier centuries, when Britain was the greatest world power, British English represented the major source of idioms. Today, most new idioms are born in the U.S.A. and become rapidly popular and established in world-wide English. In the old days, the main source from which idioms originated was the written language (the Bible, novels, poems, plays). Today, there is a significant turn towards an oral influence.
3.1.3
Idioms and figures of speech
Most idioms are basically figurative. Generically called metaphorical, they are based on various figures of speech: metaphorical idioms: an eager beaver = a person who is always eager to work or do something extra a hard nut to crack = something or someone difficult to understand or do a wolf in sheeps clothing = a person who pretends to be good but really is bad a sacred cow = a person/thing that is never criticized/ replaced even though he/it should be a white elephant = something extremely valuable but useless a cold fish = person who is unfriendly or doesnt mix with others to cry wolf = to give a false alarm, to warn of a danger that is not there to kill two birds with one stone = to achieve two aims with one effort/action to have a heavy heart = to be unhappy to have a change of heart = a change in the way someone feels about something to open ones heart = to confide in someone to put ones foot in ones mouth = to say something that is the wrong in a situation to wear ones heart on ones sleeve = to show ones feelings openly idioms based on simile: like a bull in a china shop = an awkward or tactless person to fit like a glove = to fit perfectly
idioms based on metonymy: to go under the knife = to be operated on in surgery not lay a finger on someone = not touch or bother someone to have sticky fingers = to be a thief to have burned ones fingers = to have learned caution through an unpleasant experience to have an itching palm = to be greedy, to wish for money to save ones neck = to save oneself from danger or trouble to give a hand = to help someone with something to keep ones nose out of something = to keep out of or away from something to lead someone by the nose = to make/persuade someone to do anything you want to turn a deaf ear to something = to pretend not to hear, not pay attention to have eyes bigger than ones stomach = to wish more food than one can eat to have one foot in the grave = to be nearing death penny-wise and pound foolish = careful about small things and careless about important ones
idioms based on euphemisms: It fell off the back of the lorry = it was stolen to feel under the weather = not feeling well to throw up = to vomit to take a turn for the worse = to become sicker one of those days = a bad day where nothing goes right
Chapter 3: Idiom and style six feet under = dead and buried to breathe ones last (breath) = to die birds and bees = facts about sex and birth in ones birthday suit = completely naked idioms based on hyperbole:
125
126
Meaning and Communication not to make head or tail of something = not to understand, to find no meaning in something from head to toe = entirely from stem to stern = thoroughly, completely neither here nor there = nowhere; etc.
to make a mountain out of a molehill = to exaggerate to feel on top of the world/to be on cloud number nine/in the seventh heaven = to be very happy dressed to kill = to wear very fine and sexy clothes chilled to the bone = to be very cold to jump out of ones skin = to be badly frightened, very surprised, or very happy Many hyperbolic idioms are basically similes, metaphors, or metonymies: o o o simile: e.g. as black as coal; as white as snow; to eat like a horse; etc. metaphor: to have a splitting headache; to freeze to the bones; to be dying of hunger; etc. metonymy: to give ones right arm (to give something of great value); to pay an arm and a leg for something (to pay a very high price); to lose ones shirt (to lose all or most of ones money); to bet ones bottom dollar; etc. safe and sound = healthy in body and mind soft and tender = careful each and every = all of it, everyone one and only = the only person or thing on and off = intermittently at sixes and sevens = in a state of confusion through thick and thin = through all types of situations, good and bad ashes to ashes and dust to dust = everything turns back where it came from idioms based on opposition of meaning: not to know chalk from cheese = unable to recognize common things the short and the long of it = the summary for better or for worse = in good times and in bad times in black and white = in writing
3.1.4 The transparency and lexicalization of idioms

Oxford Concise Dictionary insists that the meaning of idioms is not deducible from those of the individual expressions, i.e. that all idioms are opaque. True, many idioms (or pure idioms) are semantically unmotivated (i.e. opaque), the meaning of the individual words providing no clue for the overall meaning of the idiom, e.g. to spill the beans (= to reveal a secret); to pull someones leg (= to make gentle fun of someone); to give somebody the needle (= to annoy somebody); to smell a rat (= to perceive treachery or treason); etc. But dictionaries also list under the heading idiom phrases that are completely transparent1: the meanings of as soft as silk; to fit like a glove; to keep in touch; for better or for worse; at deaths door; to do ones best; to earn ones bread/keep; to fall in love; to give/teach somebody a lesson; etc. can be easily inferred by computing the meanings of their components. Obviously, transparency is a graded phenomenon: between the two extremes is the mass of more or less semi-transparent and semi-opaque idioms2: semi-transparent: to add fuel to the fire; to lose ones head; to skate on thin ice; to go downhill; to live a dogs life; to give somebody a dirty look; to kill two birds with one stone; to have a finger in every pie (= to intrude in other peoples affairs); etc. semi-opaque: to cry over spilt milk (= to grieve over something that cannot be undone); to throw pearls before swine (= wasting money, time or energy on somebody who does not appreciate it); to put a spoke in somebodys wheel (= to try to stop somebody
idioms based on quantitative hendiadys:
Transparent phrases are also called Dah! an interjection used by native speakers to show that something said is obvious. 2 Naturally, what is perceived as semi-transparent by one person may be viewed as semi-opaque by another, so that you may disagree regarding the category in which one or another of the idioms was included.
127
128
from achieving something); to take a toll on (a persons energy) (toll = a payment or fee exacted for some right or privilege, as for passage along a road or over a bridge); etc. Idioms often take the form of proverbs or sayings. Since their specific function is to teach a lesson, even the more indirect proverbs preserve a certain degree of transparency, as the examples below show: transparent: Better safe than sorry; Never put off till tomorrow what may be done today; If at first you dont succeed, try, try, try again; Haste makes waste; If you wish good advice, consult an old man; Beware the little expenses; Clothes make the man; Let bygones be bygones; etc. semi-transparent: Easy come, easy go; Actions speak louder than words; Practise what you preach; He who laughs last, laughs longest; In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king; There are none so deaf as those who wont hear; Who chatters to you will chatter of you; etc. semi-opaque and opaque: Every cloud has a silver lining; You can lead a horse to the water, but you cant make it drink; Dont count your chickens until theyre hatched; He who pays the piper calls the tune; The pot calling the kettle black (= Youre criticising me, but youre no better than I am); etc. This triggers the conclusion that Oxford Dictionarys insistence on the opacity of idioms cannot be taken so strictly. Hornbys definition, on the other hand, admits that idioms can be partially opaque: it is difficult or impossible to understand the meaning from a knowledge of words consisted separately. It was discussed in the previous chapter (section 2.2.3) that the criterion according to which a phrase is labelled as transparent, semi-transparent, semi-opaque or opaque is the distance perceived between the literal reading of the phrase (obtained by computing the meanings of the individual components) and its idiomatic reading. If this relation is obvious, then the phrase is considered (semi-)transparent and (well-)motivated. If the link is vague or non-existent, the phrase is labelled as (semi-)opaque, i.e. little or not-at-all motivated. For example, an idiom such as to give someone the green light (= to allow someone to start an action) is quite transparent to any hearer who knows about traffic lights. Similarly, the link between the real-world image and the metaphorical meanings of phrases
such as to go downhill (= to deteriorate), or in the same boat (= in the same situation), is fairly obvious. But on hearing a phrase, such as to give somebody the needle, the receiver may not even understand that the phrase is metaphorical; and even if he perceives its metaphorical character, he will have no way of guessing its meaning. The phrase appears as completely unjustified: there is no obvious logical relationship between the object needle and the act of annoying somebody. Opaque idioms e.g. to paint the town red (= to go out and have great fun); to give ones eye-teeth for smth. (= to want smth. very much); to spill the beans; as thick as two short planks; etc. have lost all apparent relationship between the literal meaning of the phrase and the meaning of the idiom, which is perceived as totally unmotivated and semantically undecodable. The idiomatic character of a phrase results from its conventionalization due to its frequent and long-standing use by a social group, and its subsequent lexicalization. For example, at the beginning, a phrase such as to chew the fat was a live metaphor, used by a small language community (the Inuit). As the phrase was taken up and used regularly by other categories of speakers, it was gradually assimilated by the language. Today people know neither the story that generated the phrase nor its initial meaning, but use it under its conventionally accepted meaning. Through overuse, some idiomatic phrases have been so completely assimilated by the language that communicators no longer perceive their metaphorical character or the link with the original expression. When uttering a phrase, such as by the way, on and off or on the other hand, for instance, the speaker does not think of them as metaphoric. The examples suggest that the lexicalization of idioms is accompanied by two types of losses: of figurative perception and/or of transparency. For example, on uttering the phrase by the way, the speaker uses it as a mere monolexemic clich, unaware of its metaphorical character. But if someone tells him specifically that the phrase is a metaphor, he will be able to perceive the parallelism (= the utterance that follows the phrase is not related to the subject under discussion, it is not on the road the conversation is following, it is by the main road/way). This shows that, although the phrase is completely lexicalized, it still preserves some degree of transparency.
129
130
Conversely, a phrase such as to chew the fat was obviously metaphorical in the early days (chewing whale blubber is an insignificant activity, and so is the act of talking about unimportant things). Today, no effort of imagination can tell us what the phrase means, but we still know that it is metaphorical (at least because nobody around us actually chews fat). In other words, the phrase is a dead metaphor, it is perceived as figurative and opaque. Many opaque idioms allow two types of reading, a literal one and a figurative one, i.e. they can be used and interpreted at face value in certain contexts, and figuratively in others. Take, for example, the phrase to kick the bucket. In the sentence, She kicked the bucket and spilled all the milk, the words must be interpreted at face value (= a female person hit an object called bucket with her foot), while in, John kicked the bucket and they buried him next day, the context (buried) prompts a figurative reading (= he died). Sometimes, when the context is insufficient, ambiguity may arise. For example, to spill the beans induces a literal (non-idiomatic) reading in the context, She spilled the beans all over the table (= a female person scattered some actual beans all over the table), while in She spilled the beans all over the town, the idiomatic interpretation is the correct one (= she revealed secrets to people everywhere in town). However, the sentence, She spilled the beans all over the room is ambiguous, allowing both a literal and a figurative interpretation. Further context is required to point to the correct reading. The opacity of idioms is often motivated by historical or social circumstances: images which are clear at one historical stage, or in a certain geographic area, may be obscure and opaque at some later moment, or in a distant region, when/where those circumstances do not exist. For instance, the image to skate on thin ice (= to court danger) is transparent for a person who lives in a temperate climate and knows the dangers involved in the act, but it may be obscure to a person living in the tropical climate. Or, the phrase the penny dropped (= s/he suddenly understood; Romanian equivalent: i-a picat fisa) was clear in the times when pay phones in England charged a penny, but it may no longer be transparent in the age of magnetic cards. With many old idioms, the link between the literal and the metaphoric usage has been broken because the things they were related to have disappeared altogether from common usage. In the early days, the phrase may have been used literally, but as
the realities behind the phrase faded away, it underwent a gradual metaphoric transfer. For example, the phrase to pull someones leg (= to make gentle fun of someone) is believed to come from the old practice of pulling the legs of a man in the process of being hanged, so as to speed his death and reduce his agony. Or, the phrase to take someone for a ride means today to trick, cheat or deceive someone; in the 1920s when the phrase appeared, its meaning was quite literal (even if strategically elliptic and indirect): it was the period of the American Prohibition, of Al Capones gangsters and their organized crime. The idiom appeared as gangster slang (there was also the variant take someone for a one-way ride) to describe the common practice of killing undesirable people in a moving car. Similarly, the phrase to be on the breadline appeared in the period of the Great American Depression of 1929-1936, when unemployment reached 13 million people (one fourth of the labour force). To help thousands of poor people survive, soup kitchens were opened by organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army, and the poorest people queued in breadlines, waiting for free food from soup-kitchens. As breadlines began to disappear, the phrase gradually took on a figurative meaning, i.e. with barely enough money to live on. Idiomatic speech is an essential component of the fluent speakers linguistic competence. Natural for the native speaker, it represents one of the great challenges the learner has to cope with. This is not only because idioms are hard to learn (much harder than single words); the great difficulty consists in the fact that idioms have a very powerful social component. This aspect of idiomatic speech brings it close to the subject of the next section, which focuses on register and style.
3.2
Register and style
The vocabulary we use and the intricacy of our utterances are greatly influenced by the situational context in which the utterance is produced. The situational context (see also section 5.1 Language in context) includes features such as the speakers own social status, that of the person addressed, the activity type, etc. When addressing his interlocutor, the speaker assesses the main features of the context (e.g. the social relationship between
131
132
himself and his addressee) and formulates his address more or less carefully in terms of word choice and grammatical complexity. The speakers deference, or lack of it, is most obvious in direct address. In languages which have the T/V pronominal distinction1, selection of the pronoun of address (tu or vous) grammaticalizes the speakers social considerations in the most evident way: the singular form (tu) is restricted to familiar address, while the plural (vous in French and dumneavoastr in Romanian) marks the speakers deference. Romanian also has a medium-deference term, dumneata. In the same way, when addressing a person whom he views as his social superior, the speaker selects his vocabulary carefully (e.g. using neologisms and educated words), and he also uses markers of deference, e.g. titles of address and honorifics: Sir and Madam, Professor, Doctor, etc. Vocative terms (e.g. pal, man, love) or greetings (Hi! vs. How do you do!) also convey a lot of information regarding the social distance between the communicators. Such words/phrases carry intrinsic social meaning2. Grammatical complexity also mirrors the speakers deference: e.g. Give me that! familiar; Could you hand me that book? neutral; Would you be so kind as to hand me that book? deferential. A familiar direct imperative may also be accompanied by familiar paralanguage (a nervous gesture and an upset tone of voice); with deferential addresses, the paralinguistic message is minimal, educated social behaviour urging for strictly controlled body language. And yet, the general rule, according to which the speaker uses deferential language to address persons who are socially superior, and vice-versa, is often upset by the conventions of certain discourse types. Advertising, for example, addresses perfect strangers informally, and Internet communication, even among total strangers, is typically informal too. Conversely, the speaker/writer may use the language strategically, e.g. employ a formal style to address a close friend or a child, to obtain special effects, such as irony or rejection. How the speaker uses language
to build up his own position and obtain real-world advantages will be discussed in Chapters 6 to 8.
3.2.1
The formality scale
Register, i.e. the style of language grammar and words used for particular situations (Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary), names the speakers range of formality. Just like in music, where register refers to all the notes a voice or a musical instrument can produce, from the highest to the lowest, stylistic register distinguishes various degrees of formality, from deference at its highest point, to familiarity at its lowest. For most communicative purposes (oral or written), we distinguish three degrees of formality in the speakers register: formal, neutral and informal. Formal terms are those used in polite or official situations; informal ones are used to convey a casual, friendly attitude; neutral terms complete the spectrum and find their place both in informal and formal situations. For example, the terms human being and individual are formal; man and person are neutral; guy and chap are informal. The neutral terms are acceptable both in formal and informal situations. These three levels of formality, however, give a rather limited view of social relations, which should be viewed in terms of moreor-less (in)formal, rather than either/or. The dictionary provides a wide spectrum of synonymic variants, which can be placed at different levels of a scale, as they express various degrees of formality, ranging from literary and archaic at the top of the scale, to taboo and slang at the lower end. It is not always easy to choose the most appropriate word. Take, for example, the following synonymic ranges: criminal, law-breaker, convict, crook, culprit, delinquent, felon, outlaw, etc. to steal, to rob, to thieve, to filch, to loot, to pilfer, to swindle, to plunder, to dilapidate, etc. loot, booty, prize, plunder, pillage, spoils, seizure, etc. The first range designates the person who has committed a crime and provides several variants for each level of formality: criminal and convict are neutral; crook is informal; law-breaker
From the French tu (2nd pers. sg.) vous (2nd pers. pl. or sg. polite); see also section 5.2.1 Person deixis. 2 See also sections 2.2.1 Social meaning, and 5.2.2 Social deixis.
133
134
and delinquent are formal; culprit and felon are legalese; outlaw1 sounds archaic and is used especially in literature. The second range names the act committed and is equally rich in choices for all stylistic levels: to steal, to rob, to swindle and to plunder are neutral (they name different types of stealing) and can also be used in formal situations; to filch, to loot and to pilfer are informal and slangy; to dilapidate is formal; to thieve sounds slightly archaic and literary. The third range, designating the goods stolen, is also colourful; it is your turn to determine the level of formality of the terms included. Comprehensive dictionaries provide suggestions concerning the formality of lexical entries. While neutral is understood by default (i.e. need not be mentioned), other stylistic levels may be described as: o o o o archaic (or arch.), e.g. perchance (= perhaps); thou [au] (= you); etc. poetic (or literary), e.g. foe (= enemy); winged [wingid], e.g. E.A. Poe speaks of the winged seraphs of heaven; etc. euphemisms (or euph.), e.g. senior citizens (= old people); intoxicated (= drunk); workforce adjustment (= firing people); etc. informal (or Infml.), e.g. kid (= child); chum (= close companion or friend); to hang out with (= to associate in casual companionship); etc. slang (or Sl.), e.g. creepy (of a person) (= obnoxious, weird); fuzz (= the police, police officers collectively, a police officer or detective); etc. taboo (or vulgar), e.g. piss (= urine); to piss off (= to get lost); etc.
wide choice of neutral words, through informal and colloquial vocabulary, to slang and taboo words at the bottom of the scale.
3.2.1.1
Formal and beyond formal
Further explanation may also be provided, e.g. crony (Infml., often derogatory) = a close friend or companion; scuzz (also scuzz-ball) = a dirty or sordid person or thing; etc. Certain polysemantic words can have both formal and informal usages, change of style bringing about change of meaning, which the dictionary points out, e.g. criminal = involving crime, guilty of crime; Infml. = exorbitant, outrageous: e.g. criminal prices. Thus, the stylistic choices the dictionary provides range from elevated, beyond formal (e.g. poetic, archaic) at the top of the scale, through formal terms (e.g. euphemism, officialese), via a
At the peak of the formality scale stand those words and phrases which are viewed as beyond-formal. To this category belong the archaic and poetic/literary terms. Such words are restricted in usage we encounter expressions such as fair maiden (= young unmarried woman), or grammatical forms such as quoth he (= he said) in the Bible, in ballads, in historical novels, or in poems whose elevated atmosphere takes us closer to the heavens than to the earth. If the writing is contemporary, the writer is probably trying to recreate the atmosphere of older times. In ordinary contexts, archaic or poetic terms may be used in irony or banter, e.g. ones overweight middle-aged bullying female boss may be described as the fair maiden who haunts the office. Formal style is generally used for serious communication among strangers. Formal vocabulary is generally neutral, but preference may be given to longer, Latinate words, which sound more elevated or sophisticated, pointing to the speakers/writers education (e.g. to depart instead of leave or go away; education instead of school, to operate/perform instead of to do, etc.). Even within formal vocabulary we can distinguish several layers of above-formal style, i.e. words which sound extremely formal or specialized in some way. To the former category belong the euphemisms; the latter is the domain of the professional jargons (officialese). Use of euphemisms or of officialese depends on the social situation in which the exchange occurs, on the activity type, the type of discourse, etc. It was shown in chapter 2 (section 2.2.2.1.2.1) that the role of euphemism is to obscure the negative traits of the referent and to enhance its positive traits. Consequently, the speaker uses euphemistic speech so as to purge his address of any possible offensive overtones and, at the same time, to improve the image of the referent, as well as his own image. However, when using euphemistic terms (to operate instead of to do), the speaker runs the risk of sounding pompous and misplaced. The other category of elevated vocabulary, the so-called officialese, consists of bureaucratic terms, or terms related strictly to a certain profession (e.g. legal or medical vocabulary). Such words are more appropriate in writing and are rarely used in
The derived terms, felony and to outlaw, are currently used in formal and, respectively, legal discourse.
135
136
ordinary communication. In legal vocabulary (legalese), for instance, husband/wife are referred to as spouse, a relative is a kin (as in next of kin), a child may be called offspring, etc. Some jargons, however, are quite widespread, because the activity they are related to is quite popular among ordinary users. Such is the jargon of computer technology, whose terms are on the lips of many people, e.g. motherboard, to download, search engine, etc. Naturally, different social contexts deal with the same linguistic situation differently. For example, a word such as piss, viewed as taboo and avoided in polite conversation, is replaced by a euphemism in social environment (e.g. to use the bathroom) and by jargon in a medical context (e.g. to urinate); in a mixed environment (e.g. a doctor-patient conversation), an amalgamated form a euphemistic kind of jargon may be used: to pass water. Leech (1981: 35) shows that great writers have waged a valiant war against jargon and clich. George Orwell, for example, warned of the dangers of doublespeak, i.e. the practice of using evasive, ambiguous, or high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse. In his essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell compares the direct language and simple style of the Bible with the degenerate language of modern times. The excerpt below is from Ecclesiastes: I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet the bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happened to all. In Orwells parody, this becomes: Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
enough to be used in formal exchanges, and they can be used in informal situations, too, because they do not sound chosen or sophisticated. Nor do they carry extra connotations that can affect the exchange either positively or negatively. Informal address is used in casual conversation among friends or intimates and, since such exchanges represent a wide section of human relationships, informal terms have a high frequency. Use of informal words is often essential to make the conversation sound friendly, to create a casual atmosphere, to enhance the feeling of closeness among the interactants. For example, my folks is friendlier than my parents; my kids is more affectionate than my children. Furthermore, informal terms also contribute to the economy of the conversation, as they often cover a wide range of referents. Thus, boss can stand for employer, manager, superior, etc.; my ex can mean my former girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife. But just like the degree of intimacy among people, informal vocabulary is also graded, from merely casual (i.e. informal), to intimate (i.e. colloquial or familiar). The term friend, for example, is perceived as neutral, pal as informal, while chum is colloquial. Or, to save ones skin is perceived as neutral, to save ones neck as informal, and to save ones bacon as familiar. Many of the terms generally considered slang, are listed in the dictionary as informal, but their use is restricted to the lower level of informality. Slangy terms, such as guy, bloke or chap (for the neutral term man); crooks (for criminals); booze and broads (for drink and women); blockhead, dunce or ass (for fool or idiot); cops or coppers (for policemen); etc. are frequently used to make colloquial conversation friendlier.
3.2.1.3
Colloquial speech and slang
3.2.1.2
Neutral and informal
Further down the scale of formality come the words which are viewed as stylistically neutral. Neutral words represent a large section of the vocabulary and can be used in a wide range of communicative contexts. Exchanges among chance acquaintances are generally viewed as neutral, but neutral terms are also appropriate for other types of situations: words such as friend, wife, house, to eat, to go, to learn, good, nice, etc. are elegant
English has always been a rather informal language, and colloquial speech is richly sprinkled with slangy terms. Colloquial speech is based on vocabulary situated in the lower range of the formality scale. Grammatically, colloquial utterances are quite simple, there are numerous elliptical sentences, reformulation, false starts, etc. The (more or less numerous) slangy terms make the conversation sound relaxed and cosy. Use of slang is generally restricted to certain communicative circumstances and to certain categories of partners. Typically, people use slang in informal environments and avoid it in formal
137
138
settings, because use of slang in formal circumstances could result in the speaker being evaluated negatively. In terms of partner, slang is most often spoken among friends and close social peers; excessive use of slang in addressing a mere acquaintance or a stranger is almost always viewed unfavourably and disapproved. As a result, speakers assess the situation and the person(s) they are addressing, and choose to use slang or not to do so. Furthermore, slang is not a complete language: it does not contain terms for everything the members of the group may want to discuss, so that slang terms appear in conversation among standard and informal ones. There is a lot of disagreement among linguists when it comes to defining slang. In practice, there are many borderline cases, as well as examples of terms which are (in)formal in one context, and slangy in another. That is why, it is necessary to analyse the main characteristics of slang. Slang is a kind of language (more common in speech than in writing) that is not only very informal, but also typically restricted to a particular context or group. Use of slang terms endows communication among the members of a group with extra meaning and emotional charge. Slang words and phrases are novel-sounding synonyms for standard English terms, and are characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language (Webster). The term slang is basically a noun naming non-standard terms, or non-standard usages of standard terms. Slang terms may be invented (e.g. groaty or grotty = unkempt, slovenly), but in most cases they follow the more popular patterns of lexical innovation. Metaphorical transfer of meaning is especially productive: e.g. buck (= dollar); kid (= child); dog (= friend); etc. There are also different types of slang: euphemistic (a pleasant name for something unpleasant); pejorative (insulting); clique (used by a small exclusive group of people); media (propagated by the media); technological (related to the world of technology); workplace jargon (created to add some fun to the workplace); imported (e.g. from the U.S.A., via television); absorbed (used also by other groups than the one who initiated it); etc. But slang or slanguage is more than just a noun; it is also a verb, as well as an entire process. The process of slanging involves both the use and the creation of slang. Slanging involves the use of both verbal and nonverbal cues, e.g. the intonation with
which a term (e.g. trip, wasted) is uttered can transfer it from standard English to slang. Slanging is enjoyable and amusing to both the speaker and the listener: it is a form of play, it is creative, often humorous, and thus highly entertaining. Slang entails an important social dimension: it is a kind of code invented by the members of a particular group, who enjoy using their own special vocabulary. Slang also has an important affective component: it bonds people together as a group, while baffling outsiders and keeping them at a distance. There are as many different types of slang as social categories, e.g. college slang, artists slang, gangster slang, etc. Slang reflects the experiences, beliefs and values of its creators and users: slang terms are invented to name things that are especially important to the life of their creators. Convicts, for example, have many slang terms to name the police, weapons, and fighting. College slang reflects school life and the youngsters interest in eating, drinking, and sex1. Teenagers have a great number of terms used to express approval, to evaluate a person positively or negatively, to say that something is good or bad, that a performance is effective or ineffective. Terms, such as cool, brill, heavy, ace, triff, def, wicked, awesome, tight, dope, fun, sick, or da bomb etc. were in great fashion in the late 1990s. Slang also has the merit of making communication among peers efficient. Drawing upon mutual social and emotional background experiences (which need not be spelled out), slang terms are a kind of shorthand used to conceptualize things and convey emotions (A: How's going, Yo?/B: Just chillin' around). Consequently, slang not only makes communication more effective, but also reinforces the feeling of closeness and intimacy by sending out the unstated message that the speaker considers his addressee to be a peer. Slang often involves a rebellious kind of attitude against the establishment2. That is why, slangy terms are described as words with an attitude3.
Among the slang terms for sex, few can be quoted in civilized communication, e.g. cave exploring; the horizontal tango; the wild monkey dance; gettin some hay for your donkey; the Woo Hoo, etc. The verb to slang is defined by Oxford Dictionary as to attack (someone) using abusive language. Read, for example, the introductory lines of Salingers The Catcher in the Rye (see section 4.5.2.2 Oral texts): the slangy terms Holden Caulfield uses give voice to his feelings of frustration, anger and dissatisfaction.
139
140
Meaning and Communication an outrage or raging: e.g. He tripped when I told him the concert was gonna be two hundred bucks. someone acting out of character: e.g. Hes always on time but today he was trippin. not making sense: e.g. I know Im going to fail the test because I was trippin when I was writing the essays. disagreement: e.g. Why are you trippin about my idea? being overwhelmed: Ive got 4 midterms this week and Im trippin. a state of excitement and craziness: e.g. She always trips out when she sees him. being intoxicated (on drugs or alcohol): e.g. Everybody at the party was trippin.
Slang also allows the speaker to be in tune with the times and his social group. A slangy utterance carries not only information and emotion, but also a message concerning the speakers identity. Slang is subject to fashion and extremely ephemeral: what yesterday was new and fresh, may be off today. Using outdated slang1 will backfire, bringing about social sanctions: it shows that the speaker is no longer in touch with the group (the young addressee will probably raise an amused eyebrow at the oldie who is trying to put on a show of being still young and knowledgeable). In other words, the slang scene is extremely dynamic: terms come and go at great speed, because speakers feel the need for innovation and change, and because new, attention-grabbing, expressions improve the speakers image. Linguistics Professors Pamela Munro and Connie Eble, who study college slang at UCLA and, respectively, at the University of North Carolina, show that many terms that were popular in the early 1990s (e.g. gimme five, hows it hanging, whatever blows your hair back, pestilence, woman of the 80s, Baberaham Lincoln, etc.) were old skool by the end of the 20th century. Other slang words of the 90s, though, were still popular and had the same meaning among college students: e.g. ace, all-nighter, barney, blow away, bogus, check it out, chick, cool, dude, freak, funds, geek, gross, grub, hang out, ho, jam, munchies, nerd, piss off, psycho, split, tits, toasted, trip, twisted, wasted, whats up, yack, zone out, etc. The status of a slang word is estimated according to its frequency of use and the number of meanings and uses it takes on. According to these criteria, trip and dog stand out as the hardest working terms in college slang. Thus, the term trip was used: in the 1960s, to mean an LSD (= drug) experience: e.g. Hes on a trip. in 1972, to mean a very good/very bad experience, We had a trip at school yesterday. Today, the word is used to mean: something unusual, strange or extreme: e.g. That dudes a trip. to overreact: e.g. My rents started to trip when I said I needed more k to get that book.
1
Along the decades, the word dog was used with both positive and negative connotations: around the turn of 20th the century, young people used it to mean careful dressing. in the 1920s, it was used to mean feet. in 1972, it meant an unattractive female. Today, college students use the word dog to mean: feet: My dogs are barking (= hurting). friend: Hes my dog. to stand someone up: She dogged me last night. a woman user: Dont date him; hes a dog. a liar: Shes such a dog; she said she got an A on that test. to criticize someone sharply: My boss dogged me for being 10 minutes late. an unattractive person: Did you see his date? Shes a dog! a bad thing: That exam was a dog. to tease: They were dogging me about my ride. According to Munroe and Eble, at the turn of the 21st century, da bomb was the most popular college slang term, used to show ones appreciation of something. Surveys show that the longeststanding slang word on campuses is cool: the term originated in the 1930s in New York jazz clubs, and has been popular on campuses ever since the 1940s. Many terms come back in fashion after a while, and they may disappear again as fast. For example, groovy was popular in the 1960s, made a comeback in the 90s, and is out again today.
Due to the transient nature of slang, some of the terms listed here may have hit the skids by the time this book, or any dictionary of slang, is published.
141
142
In their early days, slang expressions are generally restricted in usage to a small group or community, whose members use them conventionally, to identify themselves as members of that specific group. Gradually, though, they may spread over to other groups and achieve regional, national, or even global recognition. College slang, for instance, may spread from one campus to another through e-mail, telephone conversations or direct contact, gain popularity and become part of the pop culture. Other terms, however, never leave the group that originated them. Each ethnic group has its own specific slang. In the U.S.A., for example, Black-slang has probably produced the largest number of slang terms. This is largely due to the degree of social awareness and dissatisfaction of coloured people and to their rebellious attitude. The vehicle that has made Black slang so widely popular is music, especially rap music. Black slang includes a great number of blues terms, but also a lot of radical vocabulary which dates back to the 1960s. Italian slang is also rich (e.g. terms describing the mob = Mafia), and so is Jewish slang (e.g. terms naming foods), and recently there is an upsurge of Hispanic slang. Today, a great amount of slang comes from generally accessible entertainment media, from popular music, movies or television. Movies, for example, have had a major role in disseminating and popularizing slang: e.g. from The Flintstones we have betty (= a good-looking female) and barney (= a person who tries to be like someone else); Hawaii Five-O gave the term Five-O (= policemen); The Dukes of Hazzard produced daisy dukes (= short-shorts, as worn by the character named Daisy); etc. Words heard repeatedly, in movies, on TV, or in songs, get adopted (especially by youngsters), receive a wide circulation and, in due course, may be adopted into the vernacular. Movies and song are also the reason why the volume of American slang used by European youngsters is vast. With media-originated slang, it is often hard to tell which social group they belong to. As shown before, slang words and phrases remain slang only for a very short time. A significant amount is assimilated by the informal vocabulary, probably because the terms are economical and sound colloquial (e.g. the large number of slangy words termed informal by dictionaries). Some may even be accepted as standard terms, because there is no other word to name the new reality. For example, terms belonging to the financial jargon may sound rather slangy at first (e.g. megabucks = a lot of money) but, as they represent an easy and economical way to refer to a given reality, they are gradually accepted into the basic vocabulary.
3.2.1.4
Slang, argot and taboo
Slang is not stylistically unitary, but covers a wide register, from colloquial and friendly, to derogatory and abusive. For instance, bad-mouthing the police and everything they stand for is a major source of slang. Of the rich variety of slang created over the years in the U.K. and the U.S.A. to name police officers or special groups of the police, here are a few: bobby, buttons, dick, hawkshaw, pigs, scuffer, bogey, filth, mingra, plod, shamus, busy, gum-shoe, fuzz, house peeper, mug, sweeney, copper, grog, peeler, rozzer, the law, hammer and saws (rhyming slang for laws); etc. Some of these terms are merely informal, e.g. bobby, buttons, hawkshaw, shamus, copper; others e.g. dick, pigs, filth, fuzzy, sweeney (< German Schweine = pigs) carry strong derogatory connotations. The lower level of the slang vocabulary merges into argot. It was suggested in the previous section that slang is a type of coded communication; in most cases, slangy/argotic terms are in fact standard terms (words, phrases, or even mathematical figures) to which some new meaning has been attributed, e.g. buck = dollar; dog = friend; 6 = Attention!. Slang symbols, therefore, represent a kind of parallel lexicon, carrying coded meanings, as well as connotations of informality and in-group membership. The coded character of slang is most obvious at the lower end of the scale (argot), where their function is to communicate secret messages and keep outsiders at bay: take, for example, the terms used by gangsters or prisoners to convey hidden messages: a clubhouse = a police station; the can = the jail; bracelets = handcuffs; to be grilled = to be questioned; to be in stir = to be in jail; a bean-shooter = a gun; droppers or hatchetmen = hired killers or gunmen; 911 = a warning that a correctional officer is coming; a long ride = doing life; a chester = a child molester; berries = dollars; a C or a C-note = $100 (also called a century); a pair of C's = $200; etc. Slang is traditionally associated with the male sex, the lower classes, and the young categories of age. This is because the activity types which have produced the greatest number of slang terms (e.g. sex, alcoholism, drinking, sports, physical violence and fighting) are typically associated with men of those classes, who indulge in and brag openly about their exploits. Conversely, women use and produce smaller amounts of slang, since heavy indulgence in slang triggers social stigma.
143
144
At present, a large proportion of slang and argot originate from the areas of the gay world, the drug scene, and the world of music all dominated by teenagers and the younger generations. For example, the gay scene has produced terms such as: yeomanette (= a young homosexual in the Navy, age 17 to 22; source: [mid 1960's]); F2M (= transsexual; a person, who is preparing to undergo or has undergone female to male sexual reassignment surgery); forty-four (= a male prostitute [state of Texas]); to fool around (= to have gay sex1); etc. As any coded language, the gay vocabulary was conceived as a mark of identification and exclusion: the long-standing persecutions against homosexuality made the gays invent their own, special, language to communicate freely. Today, however, many prejudices have fallen, and social or sexual minorities are viewed with greater tolerance. As a result, subjects that were formerly viewed as taboo are openly discussed. Taboo terms stand at the bottom of the formality scale; they are avoided in polite, and often even in informal, conversation. Among the generally acknowledged taboo areas, sexual activity and excretion hold first place: the four-letter words which populate these areas have been downgraded to coarse and bear social stigma. And yet, in earlier times (in the Middle Ages), almost all the four-letter words of the sexual and scatological vocabulary (e.g. fuck, shit, balls, etc.) were Standard English: they were the only terms the language provided. As people began to invent euphemistic synonyms for them, the former Standard English words came to be regarded as vulgar, and were gradually pushed into the field of taboo. Death and disease are also taboo areas. To avoid direct reference to such unpleasant subjects, educated speakers have learned to use euphemistic terms and indirect reference.
idioms bind the members of a group together, and at the same time keep out intruders by their opacity. Idiomatic speech is not restricted to one or another level of formality: there are idioms, or idiomatic variants, for all levels, as the examples below show: formal and beyond formal/poetic by the skin of ones teeth = barely, with great effort the apple of ones eye = a cherished person/object to cast pearls before swine = to waste something on someone who wont be thankful to handle something with kid gloves = to treat gently and carefully once in a blue moon = rarely, not very often to take ones hat off to someone = to admire/respect/praise someone to earn hardly enough money to keep body and soul together = to earn very little money neutral to do something behind someone elses back = secretly, without ones knowledge to bail someone out = to help or rescue so. with financial problems to be back on ones feet = recovered from sickness or trouble to cut ones losses = to do something to stop losing money or something else to catch someone red-handed = to catch someone while doing something wrong to be back to square one = to be back where one started not to lift/raise a finger = to do nothing to help; not to do ones share to live from hand to mouth = to live on very little money to put two and two together = to make a correct guess in short supply = not enough, in less than the amount needed to be in two minds about something = to be uncertain or undecided about something noise that sets one's teeth on edge = very unpleasant noise informal to let the cat out of the bag = to reveal something that is supposed to be a secret off the wall = eccentric or non-traditional to get cold feet = to lose courage or nerve
3.3
The formality of idioms
Idioms, with their figurative character and degrees of opacity, provide a valuable tool for speakers to make their communication more interesting and allusive. On the other hand, just like slang, idioms function as a powerful cohesive tie among the members of a speech community. Like any coded language, idioms are both shared and secretive: a manifestation of their social identity,
1
The gay slang meaning of the phrase may induce a process of degradation, causing its traditional meaning (= to pass ones time idly) to die out.
145
146
Meaning and Communication When pigs get wings/can fly! = never taken to the cleaners = defrauded, robbed, cheated, conned to drink like a fish = to drink heavily
to knock one off ones feet = to surprise someone so much that they dont know what to do to keep ones fingers crossed for someone/something = to wish for good luck to turn ones back on someone = to refuse to help someone in trouble or need to get something off ones chest = to tell something to someone so it doesnt bother one anymore to get someone off ones back = to stop someone from bothering one a pain in the neck = an obnoxious or bothersome person/event to deliver the goods = to succeed in doing what is expected to roll up ones sleeves = to get ready for a hard job, to prepare to work hard to pull something out of a hat = to get smth. as if by magic, to invent or imagine a card up ones sleeve = another plan/argument kept back and produced if needed to die with ones boots on = to die while still active in ones work to fill so. elses shoes = to take the place of another and do as well stick ones neck out = to do something dangerous or risky for so. to be blue in the face = very angry or upset, excited, very emotional Put your money where your mouth is! = Back your statements with some money colloquial a cash cow = a good way to make money a dumb bunny = a stupid or gullible person; to go ape = to become highly excited or angry to cut off one's nose to spite one's face = to do a foolish thing Cat got your tongue! = cant speak because of shyness to sell like hotcakes = to sell very quickly to keep ones shirt on = to calm down, to keep calm to kick up ones heels = to have a good time, to celebrate to nose about/around = to look for something private or secret, to pry to run around like a chicken with its head cut off = confused, not knowing what to do to tell someone where to get off = to speak angrily to someone because of his bad behaviour or rudeness to have a bone to pick with someone = to have a reason to complain about or argue with someone Shake a leg! = Get going! with a hand caught in the cookie jar = caught in the act
slang a big gun/cheese = an important person, a leader a high pillow = a person at the top, in charge duck soup = easy, a piece of cake the butter and egg man = the man with the bankroll to horse around = rough or noisy play to be on the nut = to be broke to be round the bend/twist/to have a screw missing = crazy to have the bees = to be rich to kick up a fuss/a row = to complain noisily to pay through the nose = to pay at a very high price/too much not to have/stand a cat in hells chance = to have/stand no chance to succeed to hang around bars = to spend a lot of time in bars to grease palms = to give a tip or a bribe for a special favour 459 = burglary or intrusive behavior1, e.g. Don't 459 my convo. Your barn doors open = Your fly is open. taboo a pain in the ass = an obnoxious or bothersome person or event to have shit for brains = to be very stupid to shack up with some girl = to start a relationship and live together without being married to screw things up = to make a mess of things; etc.
For further illustration of idiomatic speech and of formality levels, see Annexes 6 and 7. The first three chapters of this book have pointed to the various ways by which lexical items create and convey meaning. But meaning is not carried by isolated lexical items: just as language comes in a continuous flow of sounds/words/utterances/etc., meaning results from the paradigmatic choices and syntagmatic combinations produced in longer stretcher of language, e.g. clauses, utterances, and texts.
From California's Penal Code section 459.
148
Meaning and communication
Chapter 4
The text
It was discussed in the Introduction that de Saussure presents communication as a three-level process of encoding-decoding (meaning-structure-form for the speaker; form-structure-meaning for the hearer), that, according to him, form and structure bear no meaning. This view, however, is only partly correct. Take, for example, the minimal signs, i.e. the individual phonemes and graphemes. It is well known that graphologists can tell us a lot of things about the writer of a letter or a document by the shape, regularity and disposition of his letters. In the same way, the quality of the speakers allophones carries a lot of information about his regional and educational background, or about the social situation in which the exchange takes place. In addition, phoneme clusters may have onomatopoeic qualities, often exploited for their suggestiveness, e.g. ping-pong, swish, bang. In writing, display is sometimes manipulated to convey special effects, e.g. Lewis Carroll wrote The Mouses Tale in the form of a mouses tail (thus humorously exploiting the homophony of tale and tail), and Apollinaires Caligrammes take the shape of rain drops, of the Eiffel Tower, etc. according to the title of the poem; advertising also exploits display to convey additional meanings. Furthermore, meaning is also carried by the linguistic structure, e.g. by the grammatical organization of the sentence. Take, for example, voice opposition (active vs. passive), as in: They built the house in 1885 The house was built in 1885 Although the meaning of the two sentences is similar, the main information is different: while the first puts emphasis on the doers of the action, the second foregrounds its object. To get a closer insight into the way individual items and structures are handled by the sender of the message to convey specific
meanings, let us adopt the Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP1), or functional grammar. While the Saussurian view starts from the form of a word or sentence to get to its meaning, the FSP analysis goes from meaning to form: it surveys the way information (meaning) is distributed in the sentence and the way it is carried by its meaningful elements. Taking the clause as central unit, the FSP analyzes the way the levels below, above, around and beyond the clause affect the meaning of the te xt. Below the clause are the basic constituents (phonemes/graphemes) and the grammatical groups (nominal, verbal, etc.); above it are the clause complexes (sentences2); around it are the cohesive devices that turn isolated lexical items into coherent texts (discourses); and beside and beyond the clause are the intonational patterns and metaphorical modes that affect the meaning of the text (language in use). Thus, with functional grammar, forms represent a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves (Halliday, 1994: xiv). In other words, language is interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the meanings can be realized. The task of the analyst is to establish how these meanings are expressed. Moreover, the FSP views communication as dynamic: a change even a slight one in the nature of one element can bring about significant changes of meaning: imagine a scientific speech uttered in dialectal pronunciation. According to FSP, each element in the language performs a certain function in the larger unit. In addition, the speaker uses one specific element instead of all the others available to him, or manipulates the structure of his sentences, so as to convey a certain meaning, to enhance that meaning, and ultimately, to obtain the realworld effect he is aiming at. The next sections present3 briefly the way various levels of the language carry meaning.
FSP was first explored by the Prague linguists, in the 1930s, but the most influential work is M.A.K. Hallidays An Introduction to Functional Grammar, first published in 1985, with a second revised edition in 1994. For simplification, I shall use the term clause to refer specifically to the structure that has one predicate, either expressed or elided. The term sentence will be used both to refer to compound and complex sentences (or clause complexes, in Hallidays terminology), and in a generic sense. After Halliday (1994), with my own examples.
Chapter 4: The text
149
150
4.1
Constituents: Minimal groups
The basic constituents of the language are the phonemes (for oral language) and the graphemes (for writing). The number of phonemes/graphemes is limited; but in actual usage, they function as an infinite number of variants of the same basic signs. For example, the actual shape of the letters we write (by hand or by computer) is infinite: e.g. the letter a can be written as capital A, it can be italic or bold, imitate handwriting a, different typefaces can be used, a, a or a, etc. In the same way, in speech we pronounce an infinite variety of allophones of the same phonemes. They may come as regional variants (e.g. /r/ is lateralized in England, but it is trilled in Scotland), there are numerous personal differences (e.g. a child may pronounce /r/ as a lippy /w/), differences induced by the condition of the speaker (slurred speech, if the person is drunk), etc. Such variants do not prevent communication, but may influence the meaning of the message. For example, variants of // or /r/ can suggest both the geographical and the social background of the speaker: British or American, educated or not, etc. In their desire to improve their social status, class-conscious speakers often embrace very careful pronunciation. Consider the following excerpt, from Kurt Vonneguts Bluebeard (1987: 175): My accent was as synthetic as [] Marilees. [] Marilee and I, a coal miners daughter and an American shoemakers son, [] had sense enough not to pretend to be upper class British. We obscured our humble origins in vocal tones and inflections which are known as trans-Atlantic cultivated, pleasant to the ear, and neither British nor American. Marilee and I were brother and sister in that regard: we sounded the same. Choice of allophones also depends on the discourse type: standard allophones are used in formal speech; group-specific allophones or clipped forms, are typical for colloquial conversation. In writing, the situation is similar: careful handwriting suggests formal address (e.g. a letter of congratulation); typed messages belong to official relationships (e.g. a letter of application for a job); the aspect of a piece of writing can tell us a lot of things about the type of person who has done it, male or female, child or adult, tidy of messy, etc. Larger units are also included among constituents. The phonemes/ graphemes are organized into higher-level signs, words, which are the meaningful units of the language. In writing, word
boundaries are marked off with a space. From the perspective of their meaning, though, it often happens that a number of words are fused together into larger units (e.g. idioms, see section 3.1.1), even though there is no formal mark of their unity. In speech, there is no word boundary: speech comes in a continuous, but rhythmic and melodic, flow. The rhythm of speech is provided by the unit above the phoneme, i.e. the syllable, and that above the syllable, i.e. the foot, which is defined as the structural unit formed by one strong/salient syllable + the weak syllable(s) depending on it (Halliday, 1994: Chapter 8). As the succession of salient/stressed syllables occurs at roughly regular intervals, the rhythm of speech endows the text with a certain musicality, as in: // see that old / house// ^ it / looks so / fine // Above the foot is the tone group, which is the melodic unit of the language. The notation used for separating the feet is the single slash (/), while tone groups are separated by a double slash (//). The tonic (salient) syllables are emboldened; the silent beat before the syllable is market with a caret (^). The tone group is not only a phonological constituent; it also functions as unit of information in the discourse. Grammatically, the tone group often corresponds to the clause, so that it will be discussed again in the section dedicated to the clause as message (see section 4.2.1). Words combine to form word groups (phrases), the combination of which produces clauses and sentences. Again, it would be a mistake to assert that the minimal element of grammar, the morpheme, carries no meaning: -s shows plurality or 3rd person singular speaker; -ed carries the meaning of preterity, etc. But the full meaning of morphemes results from the paradigmatic choices and syntagmatic combinations the speaker makes. The three main categories of word classes nominals (the noun, the adjective, the numeral and the pronoun), verbals (the verb and the preposition) and adverbials (the adverb and the conjunction) combine to produce word groups/word complexes or phrases1.
1
Halliday insists on the term word group/complex, and not phrase, because the phrase is the contraction of a clause, while the word group/complex is the expansion of a word. He admits, though, that they achieve roughly the same status on the rank scale, i.e. intermediate
Chapter 4: The text
151
152
Word groups can be labelled according to the class they belong to: the nominal group (noun phrase), the verbal group (verb phrase), the adverbial group (adverbial phrase), the conjunction group (conjunction phrase) and the prepositional phrase. Or, they can be classified according to the function they perform1, i.e. Subject, Object, Complement, Modifier, Auxiliary, etc. The development of words into word groups is basically a process of modification, by which the Head is semantically expanded by the addition of premodifying and/or post-modifying elements. 1. The nominal group (noun phrase) is built around a Head word (referred to as Thing), preceded and/or followed by other words that modify it, as in: those two splendid old sports cars with broken headlights Deictic Numerative Epithet1 Epithet2 Classifier Thing Qualifier Modifier Head Postmodifier The Deictic element which can be a demonstrative (this, these, which[ever]), a possessive (my, his, whose, Johns) or a non-specific element (each, both, neither) relates the group to the speaker and environment. The Numerative indicates some numerical feature, e.g. one, two, the first, the preceding, etc. The Epithet indicates some quality of the subject, e.g. good, old, cool, etc. The Classifier indicates a particular subclass of the Thing in question, e.g. toy train, shaving cream, etc. The Qualifier, which comes after the Head, further expands the information; it can be a clause (which has ) or a prepositional phrase (with), etc. 2. The verbal group (verb phrase) consists of a Finite element, which carries the tense and modality of the message, and thus relates the process to the speaker and speech event, and an Event, which expresses the type of process/action performed. The Finite can be an auxiliary or a modal verb.
The Event is a lexical verb in a non-finite form, either perfective (e.g. sleep, to sleep) or imperfective (sleeping, slept). For example: couldnt Finite have aux1 been aux2 sleeping Event
Finites mark contrastive tense (present vs. past) and/or modality (real vs. possible) by a set of three systems: System I (am/is/are, have/has, do/does, can/could, etc.) vs. System II (was/were, had, did, could have, etc.), and System III (non-finite and modalized forms, e.g. Having arrived ; must have arrived). Finites can also mark polarity, i.e. opposition between negative and positive forms (has, hasnt). The Finite and the Event are fused in the case of the present and past tense simple, e.g. went is both Finite (carries the function past) and Event (lexical verb/Predicator: go). 3. The adverbial group (adverbial phrase) has an adverb as Head; it may be preceded and/or followed by elements which premodify/post-modify it. For example: much Modifier better Head than you think Postmodifier
4. Conjunctions and prepositions can also form groups by modification: e.g. by the time (Modifier + Head), as soon as (Modifier + Head + Postmodifier), right behind (Modifier + Head), immediately in front of (Modifier + Head + Postmodifier), etc. In addition, the prepositional phrase may consist of a preposition + a noun phrase, as in the Complement element below: the car Subject rolled Finite: past Predicator : roll along the highway Complement
4.2
The clause
From the perspective of the FSP, the clause is analysed as three sets of functions1, namely: o o Participants, i.e. the human or non-human elements that take part in the action generally expressed by noun phrases Processes, i.e. the action performed generally realized by verb phrases
between clause and word. Still, the term phrase has gained a quasi general usage in grammatical analyses. In practice, the same unit can perform various functions, or several functions at the same time.
After Halliday, 1994, Chapters 3-5.
Chapter 4: The text o
153
154
Meaning and communication Mood structures, i.e. what the clause is doing: giving or demanding (goods/services, information) Transitivity structures, i.e. what the clause is about: processes, participants and circumstances.
Circumstances, i.e. the situational conditions in which the participants interact generally expressed by adverbial or prepositional phrases.
In their turn, the Participants can take on three types of functions, which trigger three types of subjects: a Psychological Subject, called THEME, i.e. that which is the concern of the message a Grammatical Subject, called SUBJECT, i.e. that of which something is predicated a Logical Subject, called ACTOR, i.e. the doer of the action. Take, for example: The teacher told my son a story My son was told a story by the teacher The story was told my son by the teacher In the first sentence, the teacher takes on all three subject functions; in the second, the grammatical subject and the Theme are my son while the Actor is the teacher; in the third, the Theme is the story, the Actor is the teacher, and the Subject is my son. These subjects have distinctive functions in the clause, namely: o o o The Theme functions as MESSAGE of the clause, as point of departure The Subject represents an EXCHANGE; it is responsible for the validity of the act, its degree of realism The Actor i.e. the active participant functions as its REPRESENTATION.
4.2.1
Clause as message
Halliday (1994: Chapter 3) presents the Thematic structure of the clause as consisting of a Theme and a Rheme. The Theme is the Topic, the main character of the clause; the Rheme is the remainder of the message, the part in which the Theme is developed. For example: The teacher The teacher My son The story Theme told my son a story told a story to my son was told a story by his teacher was told my son by the teacher Rheme
The Theme generally occupies first position in the clause: the speaker begins his sentence with what he considers to be the most important. But initial position is not the only thing that makes it Theme: by bringing a certain item forward, grammar foregrounds that element as starting point. Thematic structure goes hand in hand with the phonological organization of the clause, which roughly corresponds to the tone group. The tone group, the melodic unit of the language, also functions as unit of information. // its great / to build / a house // Each information unit has two constituents: the Given (i.e. the old information, what we already know) and the New (the information freshly introduced). The Given is in initial position (where the Theme is also located), while the New is towards the end of the clause (in the Rheme); the tonic foot in the Rheme marks the culmination of the New. For example, in the first example above, the teacher is the Theme and the Given, the New is a story (i.e. a story, not something else). In the second, the Theme and Given element is the teacher, the New is my son (to my son, not to someone else). In the third example, my son is the Theme and Given, the New is the teacher (by the teacher, not by someone else). Etc.
In accordance with these functions, the clause develops three different kinds of meanings: o clause as message, i.e. how the clause relates to the surrounding discourse and to the context of situation in which it is produced clause as exchange, i.e. the clause organized as an interactive event, a verbal exchange between speaker and audience clause as representation, i.e. what the clause is about: type of process, participants and circumstances.
o o
These lines of meaning correspond to three largely independent sets of semantic structures, each with a very specific function: Theme structures, i.e. how the message is organized, how the speaker foregrounds his main character
Chapter 4: The text
155
156
4.2.2
Clause as exchange
Since language is the main instrument for human communication, the clause is organized as an interactive event, too. In the act of communication, the speaker adopts for himself a particular speech role and, in doing so, assigns to the listener a complementary role which he wishes him to adopt (Halliday, 1994: Chapter 4). Halliday argues that there are two fundamental speech functions: giving and demanding. In what concerns the items that are given or demanded, they can be grouped under two heading: goods/services and information (see also 6.4.2.3 Size of imposition). For example, asking for the price of a commodity represents a demand for information. Conversely, by warning someone that it will rain, we are providing (giving) a service. The clause as exchange can also be divided into two parts: the Mood and the Residue, as in: Margaret Mood Subject will Finite buy Residue Predicator a house Complement for her daughter Adjunct
We must also mention here cases of ellipsis: the fact that the speaker drops the Subject, Predicator, or some other element in the clause does not prevent the message from being meaningful. Minor sentences (without a predicate, e.g. You OK?) and non-finite constructions (with the subject elided, e.g. Bought it cheaply) are in abundance in colloquial oral communication.
4.2.3
Clause as representation
Man perceives experience as a set of process types material, mental, relational, etc. which he communicates linguistically by the grammatical system of transitivity. A process consists of three elements, associated with typical grammatical classes: the process itself a verbal group the participants that take part in the process a nominal group the circumstances associated with the process an adverbial or a prepositional phrase For example: the man warmly congratulated Participant Circumst. Process nominal group adv. group verbal group his friend for his success Participant Circumstance nominal group prep. phrase
a. The Mood element consists of o o a Subject usually a nominal group, and a Finite operator, i.e. a verbal element which expresses: tense, i.e. past, present or future at the moment of speaking - verbal operators: did(nt), was, had, used to, does, is, will modality, i.e. the speakers judgement of the probabilities, or the obligations, involved in what he is saying - modal operators: can(t), may, could, polarity: negative vs. positive; etc.
Among the main types of processes Halliday describes (1994: Chapter 5), let us mention: a. Material processes, or processes of doing. The two participants are the Actor (the doer of the action) and the Goal (the participant the action is directed at/extended to), as in: the teacher my brother Actor explained has bought Process : material the lesson a new car Goal
b. The Residue may consist of: o Predicator a verbal element in a non-finite form o Complement generally a noun phrase, a Participant in the clause that could be the Subject but is not o Adjunct an adverbial or prepositional phrase showing circumstance (in spring, at home), modality (probably, actually, occasionally), etc. The Finite elements can be fused with the Predicator, e.g. buys or bought, in which case the notation is Predicator: buy.
Grammatically, material process clauses can be active (above) or passive (below), which points to their transitivity: the lesson a new car Goal was explained has been bought Process : material by the teacher by my brother Actor
Chapter 4: The text
157
158
b. Mental processes are processes of cognition or affection, i.e. of sensing (knowing, thinking, feeling, seeing, etc.). The Participants in a mental process are the Senser (the conscious participant) and the Phenomenon (the participant that is thought, seen or felt), as in: they I Senser they it Senser we I Senser know believe Process : cognition didnt like hurts Process : affection felt could hear Process : perceptive (that) you (Phenomenon) their new school (my eyes) (Phenomenon) the cold the noise Phenomenon
With attributive processes, the participants are the Carrier (the main participant) and the Attribute (the features/items that describe it), as in: Mary is/looks beautiful the day seems cold Carrier Process : intensive Attribute the show is on Sunday my paper concerns/is about the Tudor dynasty Carrier Process : circumstantial Attribute that man owns this building the house has beautiful windows Carrier/Possessor Process : possessive Attribute/Possessed the house belongs to that man Carrier/Possessed Process : possessive Attribute/Possessor With identifying processes, the participants are the Identified (the main participant) and the Identifier (the items/features that stand at the basis of the identification), as in: the man he Identified she sorrow Identified the car the decision Identified is plays Process : intensive resembles followed Process : circumstantial is is Process : possessive an engineer Othello Identifier her mother the joy Identifier Peters theirs Identifier
In most cases, utterances carry intricate embeddings, as in: it Pheor Can Proyou Senser see cess: perception that man Phenomenon puzzles Pr: affection me Senser how strange everything is -nomenon: fact
3. Relational processes are processes of being. The English grammar provides three types of relational processes, namely: a. b. c. intensive, which present one of the participants as though it were the other, i.e. x is a; circumstantial, which describe the circumstances of the main participant, i.e. x is at/on/for/with a; possessive, which show what the main participant has, i.e. x has a. attributive: intensive: John is clever. circumstantial: The car is over there. possessive: Peter has got a new car. identifying: intensive: John is the boss. circumstantial: Tomorrows Tuesday. possessive: The pet is Peters.
Relational processes can be active (as in the examples above), or passive (as those below), which points to their transitivity: the engineer Othello Identified the joy Identified Johns the car Identified is is played by Process : intensive was followed Process : circumstantial is is owned Process : possessive that man him Identifier by sorrow Identifier that car by him Identifier
Each of these categories can function in two variants, namely: o
Chapter 4: The text
159
160
d. Existential processes are also processes of being, but unlike relational processes, they are impersonal in character, as in: was a fire there Process Existent: event Circumstance there s a picture on the wall What happened there Process Existent: entity circumstance e. Behavioural processes show how a human participant behaves, i.e. they present physiological or psychological processes, e.g. crying, laughing, dreaming, etc., as in she she Behaver behaved was dreaming Process very badly at the party about her future Circumstance Circumstance there
f. Verbal processes are processes of saying. The Participants are the Sayer (the participant who is quoting or reporting) and the quoted or reported Process, as in: he Sayer he Sayer said Process urged Process Do it at once! Quoted us to do it at once Receiver/Target Reported
The relations established among the elements of the clause can be: o o ideational (external), linking processes or interpersonal (internal), setting up relations between the participants. Mike works hard but he doesnt always succeed I can help you with your lessons In the first example, the relation is established between the two material processes (work and succeed). In the second, the relation links the participants (I and you).
For example:
The tone group is carried by intonation (or tone), realized with the help of the pitch contour i.e. the direction of the voice: falling, rising, level, or mixed (falling-rising, rising-falling). Each tonic group carries a pitch contour, which generally corresponds to the type of sentence: declarative sentences are uttered with a falling tone, interrogatives with a rising one, etc. But the speaker can manipulate his tone to convey various attitudes: doubt, irritation, encouragement, etc. Thus, apart from their textual function, tone groups also have an interpersonal function. The key of the speakers address (i.e. his tone choice or intonation) carries a lot of meaning a meaning that is closely related to the system of Mood. Halliday (1994: 302) enumerates five basic tones: Tone 1: falling pitch; Tone 2: rising pitch; Tone 3: level tone; Tone 4: falling-rising; and Tone 5: rising-falling. Compound tones are also frequent, e.g. Tone 13 (one three): fall-level; or Tone 53 (five three): rise-fall-level, etc. Some of the tones can be further subdivided, e.g. Tone 1 may be uttered with a low fall (Tone 1) or high fall (Tone 1+, where the + indicates emphatic fall, depending on the initial pitch level of the voice); similarly, Tone 2 can be pronounced as (Tone 2+, with + indicating high/emphatic rise). In their basic usage, the tones are unmarked: e.g. a yes-no question is generally uttered with Tone 1, a WH- question is pronounced with Tone 2. Conversely, use of an emphatic or a contrastive tone is viewed as marked and carries additional meanings. For example, a declarative sentence is generally uttered with a low-fall Tone 1 (unmarked); a high fall of the voice (Tone 1+) shows emotional involvement, irritation, impatience (marked). High fall is unmarked (i.e. typical) for imperative sentences; uttering an imperative with a low fall Tone 1 (marked) conveys indifference, noninvolvement. Or, using Tone 2 after a declarative sentence (marked) conveys the speakers uncertainty. For example: Nothing of the kind This is not so Do you know me? The first example, a declarative sentence, should be uttered with Tone 1 (unmarked); but if the speaker is upset and wants to negate emphatically, he will use a high-falling pitch (Tone 1+). The second utterance is also a declarative (unmarked with Tone 1); but if the speaker is not certain whether it is so or not, he may use a Tone 2, or a compound Tone 4 (both viewed as marked, but each conveying a slightly different meaning/attitude).
4.3 Intonation and key

It was shown in section 4.2.1 that the Thematic organization of the clause (into Theme and Rheme) is doubled by the phonological organization of the tone group (into Given and New information), and that the tone group also functions as unit of information in discourse.
Chapter 4: The text
161
162
The third example, a yes-no question, is unmarked if pronounced with low-rising Tone 2; but if the speakers attitude is tentative (he is not sure who his interlocutor is), he may use a marked rise-fall-level Tone 53.
Both expansion and projection can be realized either by parataxis or by hypotaxis, as in: a. Expansion: elaboration (notation =), i.e. rephrasing, clarifying: in other words, i.e., that is, to be precise, viz., a non-definite relative clause, etc. parataxis: He hadnt seen the car (1); he didnt know how beautiful it was (=2) hypotaxis: He didnt like the car ( ); which surprised everybody (= ) extension (notation +), i.e. adding to: and, or, e.g., in addition, but, whereas, instead of, etc. parataxis: He saw the car (1) and liked it very much (+2) hypotaxis: I liked the dress ( ), whereas my husband hated it (+ ) enhancement (notation x), i.e. enlarging the idea by making reference to time, place, manner, cause, condition: so, yet, then, for, but, yet, still, meanwhile, otherwise, therefore, however, etc. parataxis: He liked the car, so he took it for a test drive. (x 2) hypotaxis: He took the car for a test drive ( ) because he liked it (x ) Explicit connective are not essential to signal expansion; what is important is the underlying semantic relation, as in: Having seen the car (after I had seen), I was eager to try it out The dependant expanding clause can also be embedded in the main clause, as in: The company (that was) advertising the car claimed that b. Projection: locution, i.e. the speakers words are reproduced exactly; it is signalled with the notation (double quotation mark): parataxis: He said: I like that car (2) hypotaxis: I promise ( ) Ill do it ( )
4.4 Clause complexes and sentences

The development of clauses into clause complexes and sentences is basically a process of modification similar to that which occurs in the case of word complexes, where the Head is semantically expanded by addition of premodifying and/or post-modifying elements. But with clause complexes, the connection between the clauses gains two further dimensions: of interdependency (or taxis), and of logical-semantic relation. I. There are two type of interdependency between clauses: a. Parataxis (or coordination), which arises between elements of equal status notation: 1 2 3 4 b. Hypotaxis (or subordination), i.e. the relation between the dominant (or primary) clause and a dependant (or secondary) one notation: . (the letters of the Greek alphabet). Parataxis is o symmetrical, i.e. the elements are interchangeable: I ate a sandwich and drank a coke means the same thing as I drank a coke and ate a sandwich; and o transitive: I needed something to read and I bought a book imply together that I needed a book. Hypotaxis is o non-symmetrical: I go shopping when I need a dress does not imply I need a dress when I go shopping; and o non-transitive: I love fast cars and I bought a car do not imply together I bought a fast car. II. The logical-semantic relations between a primary and a secondary clause are also of two types, namely: a. Expansion, i.e. the secondary clause develops the idea expresses in the primary clause by elaborating, extending or enhancing it Projection, i.e. the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause as a locution (what the speaker says) or as an idea (what the speaker thinks).
b.
Chapter 4: The text
163
164
idea, i.e. the speakers unuttered words are quoted; the notation is (simple quotation mark): parataxis: He though to himself: I like that car (2) hypotaxis: He decided he would buy that car ( ) Thus, grammatically, projection is done by: o by direct speech for parataxis; signalled in oral communication with intonational clues, e.g. an audible pause between the two clauses, the projecting clause is less salient than the projected clause; and o by indirect speech for hypotaxis; pronounced without specific intonational clues. A third, intermediary category can be added, that of free indirect speech, as in: He could do it, he thought/said to himself Locutions or ideas can be embedded in the sentence, too, e.g. projected by verbal/mental process nouns, as in: The claim that he is the best is highly exaggerated Groups/phrases can also develop by expansion and projection: Expansion parataxis: o nominal groups: either you or him; a beautiful and shiny car; etc. o verbal group: (he) hoped, dreamed of it; neither liked nor disliked; tried but failed; etc. o adverbial/prepositional phrase: alone, without friends; calmly, although not without ; etc. Expansion hypotaxis: o nominal group: the car with the smashed windshield; etc. o verbal group: perfective: tried to sleep; would like to sing; managed to do; imperfective: tried relaxing; likes singing; succeeded in doing, etc. Projection hypotaxis: o verbal group with want: she wants to do it (offer); she wants him to do it (demand); etc. with decide: she decided to go there; etc.
4.5 The text

The development of clauses into sentences gives us an idea about the way stretches of language combine to produce larger meaningful units. Analysis of full texts takes these factors into consideration. But such relations alone cannot account for the unity of meaning of full texts.
4.5.1 Text and textness

When reading a piece of literature or an article in the newspaper, the term text comes as a natural label: a text is traditionally viewed as a continuous sequence of sentences that covers a certain physical location (e.g. a sheet of paper) or time span (e.g. the text of a song). But we may wonder whether sequences of apparently non-related successions of words, such as: Chivas Regal. When you know Citizen Vagary. Aquadiver. I play it my way. Surprising till the bottom Wella. Shockwaves. Power Hold Spray. Summer proof. Heat proof. Still totally hot should be called texts or not. They consist of orthographic sentences (separated by full stops), but few among them have a predicate, while others are mere noun phrases, and there are absolutely no explicit connective devices. And yet, the receiver views them as unitary1 not only because they are placed on the same sheet of paper and in sequential order, but because such texts are typical for the discourse of advertising. To explain how and why such pieces of language are viewed as unitary and meaningful, functional grammar surveys what goes on around the clause, focusing on notions such as cohesion and discourse. The text, i.e. the verbal record of a communicative event, relies on principles of connectivity [which] bind a text together and force cointerpretation (Brown & Yule, 1983: 190). Analysis of ordinary linguistic interactions i.e. of the texts2 produced by native speakers in their everyday communication have made discourse analysts realize that the texts normally encountered show a minimal amount of formal cohesion, assume massive amounts of existing background knowledge and normally require the
1
In fact, receivers generally refuse to accept the idea that they are facing a meaningless succession of words, so that they make efforts to discover their unitary meaning, whenever possible. Texts can be oral or written.
Chapter 4: The text
165
166
reader to make whatever inferences he feels willing to work for in order to reach an understanding of what is being conveyed (Brown & Yule, 1983: 269-270). Communication represents knowledge transfer, i.e. transmission and reception of information. But much of the information to be transmitted is not expressed in words. In the texts produced by competent communicators, especially in oral communication, there are numerous missing links, i.e. factual gaps that must be filled in by the receiver of the message (see also section 1.2.3 Pragmatic meaning). Factual gaps can be based on the communicators shared background knowledge, or on their knowledge of the world. For example, when the speaker says, We went to Tonys last night, he does not need to mention that Tonys is a restaurant or a mutual friend; he simply expects the receiver to know it. In other cases, the missing links are induced by the very nature of communication. For instance, in face-to-face conversation there are many cases where two adjoining utterances seem to be unrelated, as in: A: Lets go for a walk B: Im expecting a call In the exchange, the two interlocutors seem to be talking about different things: A about a walk, B about a call. Still, A understands that Bs utterance is related to his invitation, that it represents a refusal and that it also provides a reason for the refusal. Linguists refer to such pairs of utterances (where the first represents a question or an invitation, and the second and answer to it) as the adjacent pair formula. In non-dialogic texts, too, adjoining sentences are interpreted as belonging to the same text. For example, in: What a fine weather. I dont feel like working the speaker does not have to say that he does not feel like working because the weather is fine: no formal marker is needed to indicate that the two sentences are meaningfully related. The ability to fill in such missing links belongs to the speakers linguistic competence. Their density is manipulated by the sender according to his audience and to his linguistic aims. In other cases, the missing links are induced by the nature of the discourse they belong to. The discourse of advertising, for example, is typically fragmented into elliptical orthographic sentences (e.g. see
the ads quoted above). But our previous encounter with similar texts tells us that they belong together, as forming meaningful texts. As a general rule, Brown & Yule (1983: 190) suggest that in sequential utterances relevance holds unless clearly specified. In other words, they are meaningfully related to one another, forming together a text. A text has texture, i.e. it is perceived as unitary (coherent) and connected (cohesive). The coherence of a text is its overall quality of unity and meaning. Its cohesion (or continuity) is provided by the relations that bind together the apparently isolated chunks of language. Coherence and cohesion are the two key factors that turn a random succession of lexical strings into a meaningful text. In written language, many sentences are linked by explicit cohesive ties, e.g. conjunctions. The coherence and cohesion of a text is supported by such connectives, but is not created by them: the connectedness of a piece of language is semantic and discoursal, not grammatical. Halliday (1994: Chapter 9) suggests that the cohesion of a text is based on four factors: reference, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical organization. I. With reference (or co-reference1), a participant or circumstantial element introduced at one place in the text [is] taken as reference point for something that follows (Halliday, 1994: 309). Co-reference can be achieved by: pronominal substitution of a lexical item o personal: he, she, they, o possessive: mine, his, theirs, o demonstrative: this, that, those, deictic words: here/now, there/then, the comparatives: same, such, other, better, less, the same, a pro-form term: o for the nominal group: so, one, any, etc. o for the verbal group a Finite operator: can, do, have, ... We visited London and were impressed by its beautiful sights We visited London and we impressed by the sights we saw there I am tired and so are you
For example:
For reference and ellipsis, see also section 2.2.2.1.2.2 Ellipsis and substitution.
Chapter 4: The text
167
168
In most cases, co-reference works anaphorically, the word referring back to something that has already been mentioned as in the examples above. In other cases, it is used cataphorically, i.e. looking forward, as in: Is it new, that car? The actual form of the referring expression depends on its referential function, i.e. on the speakers intention on the particular occasion of use. II. With ellipsis, or zero substitution1, a clause, or a part of a clause, or a part [] of a verbal or nominal group [is] presupposed at a subsequent place in the text by the device of positive omission, that is, by saying nothing where something is required to make up the sense (Halliday, 1994: 309). Ellipsis (notation ) is based on the formal absence of something, rather than on its presence; and yet, it constitutes a powerful cohesive device. For example: Is it OK? It is I couldnt go to university when I was your age, so I worked hard to make sure you can Written discourses make little use of ellipsis the sentences are complex and fully articulated. Conversely, face-to-face interaction makes extensive use of it: in direct conversation there is no need to express things that are mutually perceived by the participants in the discourse. Ellipsis also implies shared knowledge, so that it connotes closeness and intimacy. III. In the case of conjunction, a clause or clause complex, or some longer stretch of text, [is] related to what follows it by one or other of a specific set of semantic relations (Halliday, 1994: 309). Conjunction involves contiguous elements and, in the absence of structural relations, it accounts for the logical relations between clauses, sentences or paragraphs. Of the two types of logical-semantic relations analyzed in section 4.4, expansion is by far the more productive. Explicit formal markers of conjunctive relations link the new information to what has already been said. They can be: o o o o
1
There is, however, no one-to-one relationship between markers and relations: e.g. and can be used for all types. Markers of cohesive relations are among the most frequent missing links in oral communication. In a sentence, such as: Buy it, its worth the money the causal connective because is missing; and yet, the message is clear enough to all rational communicators. On the other hand, the opposite phenomenon is equally productive in oral communication: the speaker may begin an independent clause with a connective, thus suggesting that he is continuing an idea. For example: As I was telling you, .. Because thats what I think Conjunction can link: Processes, in which case, we have an ideational conjunction (e.g. They tried but failed.); or Participants, in which case the conjunction is interpersonal (e.g. I know that you want it).
IV. Lexical cohesion establishes continuity by choice of words. Lexical cohesion can be based on substitution or ellipsis, on repetition of a lexical item or pattern, on collocation, on sense relations, etc. The lexical chains which result carry the idea forward. For example, in: One of the trickier aspects of speaking a foreign language is knowing how to choose the most appropriate word when there are several which seem to have the same meaning. In casual conversation, for example, we may talk about crooks instead of criminals. Instead of a man we might say guy, bloke or chap or an older person might say fellow.
(Donald Watson, Ladies and Gents...)
additive: and, similarly, in addition, etc. adversative: but, on the other hand, nevertheless, etc. causal: so, consequently, for this reason, etc. temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally, etc.
Halliday includes ellipsis in the category of substitution.
we encounter: the lexical chain foreign languages word meaning conversation say talk about a case of ellipsis (when there are several ) repetition of instead of chains of synonyms used to illustrate the idea (crook criminal; man guy bloke chap fellow) hyponymy (the most appropriate word several which ) Cohesion is also supported by other structural relations, such as: consistency of tense in this case, the present consistency of mood in this case, lowered modality, due to may and might
Chapter 4: The text
169
170
consistency of stylistic choice in this example, formal style, due to the academic character of the writing; etc.
4.5.2 Written and spoken discourses

Traditionally, the term text is viewed as a written piece of language. However, oral exchanges also display the typical characteristics of textness. There are significant differences between spoken and written texts1. Written texts are highly organised. The writer has the time to plan his message thoroughly, to go back, review and reformulate what he already said. Consequently, the structure of the written discourse is well organised, the vocabulary is rich, and the information is highly concentrated. Heavy premodification (e.g. with noun phrases) is typical and the structure of the sentences is complex, with intricate subordination. As a consequence, written texts display numerous metalingual markers (e.g. that complementisers), temporal markers (when, while), logical connectors (besides, moreover, in spite of, etc.). The rhetorical organization of written texts and, as a result their impact, depends on the writers intentions, talent and inventiveness. Spoken texts, on the other hand, display a much looser organization and the information is less densely packed. Syntactically, the structure of oral texts is much simpler, there is little subordination, metalingual markers and connectors are often dropped (e.g. Come here. Dont argue.), and there are few passive constructions. Spoken texts are organised by the speaker as the conversation goes on, so that there is little time to plan ahead. The message is formulated according to the receivers reaction and meaning is negotiated among the interactants. Moreover, in the case of oral communication, the speaker may rely heavily on objects from his environment and on paralinguistic clues to convey his meaning. As a result, oral texts contain all kind of interactive markers and planning fillers (err, I mean ), many sentences are incomplete (elliptical, minor, or simply unfinished), there are frequent interruptions (even of major syntactic units), pauses, tongue slips, repetitions and reformulation, etc. In intimate circumstances, speakers exploit dialectal and accent features to reduce social distance and convey a sense of in-group membership.
Informal written texts (letters to friends), or strategic ones (advertisements or literature), often display characteristics of the spoken discourse: short (often elliptical) sentences, few connectives, repetitions, dialectal features, etc. With strategic communication, the semblance of orality is a trick aimed at creating an intimate atmosphere. Analysis of the (shorter or longer) texts quoted so far in this chapter has revealed the fact that the sense of textness a piece of language conveys relies to a great extent on the explicit or implicit cohesive ties. But to provide a thorough analysis of a text, and see what meanings it actually conveys, we must go beyond cohesive devices. Halliday (1994) argues that the textness and the overall meaning of a text result from the interplay of six factors: theme, focus (of information), cohesion, mood, key and transitivity.
4.5.2.1 Written texts

Let us analyze the following text along these lines: Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.
(Orwell George, Nineteen Eighty-Four)
After Brown & Yule, 1983: 15-17.
Cohesion: Since it is a highly elaborate piece of writing, the text has a complex structure. Its consistency of style (formal) is supported by careful word choice (formal lexis, long words of Latin/French origin: devised, purpose, provide, devotees), by educated sequence of tenses (anteriority: was had been), as well as by complex clause and sentence structure. Conjunction (both paratactic and hypotactic) is accomplished by elaboration (Ingsoc, or English Socialism), by extension ( was not anyone who could) and enhancement (was not only to provide, but to make), and there are formal markers of conjunction (additive: and; who; alternative: or; adversative: not only to, but to), etc. Co-reference by pronominal substitution ( anyone who), ellipsis (Newspeak was and had been), lexical chains (Newspeak language communication medium of expression; ideological needs Ingsoc English Socialism modes of thought), and sense relations (synonymy: Ingsoc English Socialism; hyponymy: language Newspeak), carry the ideas smoothly forward and ensure the logical connectedness of the sentences.
Chapter 4: The text
171
172
Theme and Focus: The Theme and main character of the first sentence and of the entire paragraph/text1 is Newspeak; by elision, it functions as Theme for the second clause, too. But Newspeak is treated as Given (i.e. old information), while the New (and thus, the Focus of the utterances) are Oceania and, respectively, Ingsoc, which bear the main intonational weight. In the third unit of the sentence, the apposition which reformulates (elaborates on) the grammatical subject, English Socialism is both its Theme and Focus. The second sentence foregrounds the date as Theme, treating anyone (negated) and communication as Focus. The first tone group in sentence 3 highlights purpose as Theme, and as Focus it offers the word devotees; the second emphatically foregrounds the words all other and focuses on impossible, thus pointing to the all-annihilating effect of the language. Key: The first orthographic sentence contains three tone groups corresponding to two coordinated clauses and an apposition. The clauses are declarative and pronounced with an unmarked falling pitch (Tone 1) because the speakers attitude is neutral (he is merely conveying some information). Sentence 2 introduces an important piece of information (the date), so that it begins with a rise, to continue with a fall on the second part of the tone unit. The tone is unmarked (Tone 5) because the negation renders the information of little significance. It is only in sentence 3 that we feel the speakers emotional involvement: the Tones are emphatic and marked. Of the two tone groups, the first (The purpose English Socialism) introduces the problem; it is uttered with an emphatic compound Tone 53+ (high rise-fall-level); the second (but to thought impossible) gives the solution: it is uttered with a marked Tone 5+ (high rise-fall). Mood and transitivity: The function of the text is to provide (give) expert information regarding Newspeak, the imaginary language of an equally imaginary Oceania. To render his fiction believable, Orwell places the modality of the text in the field of the real but distal2. The Subject of the very first Mood element (Newspeak) imposes an impersonal attitude (non-human protagonist) and the Past Tense of
1
its Finite + Predicator element (was Past) puts a distance between the story and the reader. Impersonal there was in the next sentence, and further tense contrasts by System I (was, used, had been devised) sustain the sense of objective distancing. Most processes in the text are relational intensive identifying (e.g. Newspeak = Identified, the language of Oceania = Identifier) or existential ( there was not as yet anyone Existent: entity), which convey a sense of inflexible status quo. The few material processes, which could induce some sense of closeness and dynamism, are either passive ( had been devised) or of negative polarity ( not yet anyone who used). The last sentence conveys the same sense of cold detachment: impersonal Subjects (purpose), tense contrast by System III (perfective to provide, to make); negative polarity ( was not only, to make impossible). Thus, by skilfully manipulating the six factors of textness, Orwell managed to produce a highly powerful and persuasive text. No single element could have accomplished the same overwhelming effect.
4.5.2.2 Oral texts

With oral texts, especially those produced in face-to-face conversation, there are few connective ties and utterances seem to be unrelated. And yet, they are perceived as unitary thanks to the underlying semantic relations, and their cohesion is also supported by other textual factors. Let us consider the following text: Chris: Hey Yo son, What's up man? Tommy: It's all good. See the game last night? It's sweet Yo. Chris: Hell yeah, that joint tight. Tommy: See that dude number 19? That's my dog. Chris: That dude's cool, man. Tommy: So, How's going, Yo? Chris: Just chillin' around, not much.
(College slang: By Bryan Elie, Knight-Ridder Tribune, 08.27.2001)
These are the first lines of Orwells Appendix to his novel 1984. A larger excerpt from the same Appendix is reproduced in Annex 3. Published in 1949, the novel 1984 describes a dreadful communist England. The action of the novel is presented as taking place in 1984; and yet, the tense Orwell uses is the past, not the present. In this way, he strategically distances himself (lowers the modality) from the subject and object of his description.
Cohesion: The text is full of missing links, but they are easily retrieved by the competent communicator. The first thing that must be considered is the sequential nature of the utterances and the type of discourse, i.e. a dialogue, where a question is generally followed by an answer. In this way, seemingly isolated utterances (e.g. Whats up, man? Its all good.) are viewed as related. Co-reference if accomplished by substitution (the game it; that dude that; son/man-Yo), by pragmatic or contextual synonymy (son-man; dudedog; game-joint; Whats up Hows going), and by lexical chains (son
Chapter 4: The text
173
174
man dude dog dude man; game joint), which carry on the interlocutors ideas. The text is also consistent in terms of tense (present), of grammatical structure (simple sentences) and, most importantly, of style: slangy words (dude, joint, dog, chillin around), elliptical utterances ([Did you] see the game?, That joint tight.), group specific pronunciation (Yo, chillin). Theme and Focus: Unlike the previous text, this one does not have a unitary Theme. This is because the interlocutors do not have one unitary subject, but several successive ones as it often happens in face-to-face conversation. After the group-specific greeting, there comes a question-answer exchange, both with fused and marked Theme and Focus: Whats, and respectively, all. By marking (emphasizing and foregrounding) them, the speakers want to show that they are emotionally involved (i.e. they are interested, they care) in the ongoing dialogue. The next subject discussed regards a certain game, so that the word game is treated as Theme, with a Focus on last night the New information. The Focus of information of the following two utterances falls on the adjectives used to characterize the game (sweet and tight); this way, the speakers give voice to their opinions and feelings concerning the game. In the first clause (Its sweet), the adjective represents jointly the Theme and Focus of the utterance. In the second (That dudes) the Theme (and Given) is the demonstrative that, deictically pointing to one specific item of the category. Etc. Key: To show their affective involvement in the conversation, the two youngsters use emphatic tones. In opposition with the written text discussed earlier, in this case the utterances, and therefore, the tone groups are very short, and numerous tone groups correspond to interjections/vocative terms and appositions (Hey Yo, Yo, man). This attests to the highly emotional and vociferous character of the exchange. The first two utterances Chriss greeting and his yes/no question are uttered with an emphatic Tone 4+ (high fall-rise). Tommys answer is equally emphatic: Tone 5+ (high rise-fall). The affective involvement is slightly reduced in his yes/no question regarding the game (pronounced with an unmarked Tone 2), but then again we get several highly emotional utterances three tone units pronounced with: Tone 4+ (high fall-rise) for Tommys identification of his friend); emphatic Tone 53 (rise-high fall-level) and Tone 1+ (for Chriss words of admiration and his apposition). Etc. The rhythm and music induced by brevity of the tone groups, the alternation of falls and rises, of marked and unmarked Tones, endow the text with a sense of vigorous interaction and strong emotions.
Mood and transitivity: the clauses provide a variety of process types: material (chillin around), mental perceptive (See the game?, See that dude?), existential (Whats up? Hows going?), relational intensive identifying (Thats my dog), relational intensive attributive (Its all good; Its sweet; that joint tight; That dudes cool), whose interplay endows the text with a sense of variety and dynamism. Attributive processes are by far the most numerous, which suggests that the youngsters are keen to express their feelings and attitudes; second come the existential and relational identifying processes which shows that they are eager to establish their social status and group membership; thirdly come the processes of perception by which they present their experiences; and only last come the material processes (in fact only one, and even that with negative polarity Just chillin around, not much) which suggests that doing (i.e. action) is not in the centre of such youngsters attention. In terms of Mood, it is interesting to note that any Subject that should make direct reference to the sender (the I of conversation) is elided, as though the speaker would want to make himself less conspicuous. Most subjects are impersonal (it, that), which also attests to the speakers strategy of non-involvement. Reference to the other participant in the conversation is more intricate, but similarly evasive: Yo, man, son, never first name address. The Finite element (Whats up ?) conveys a sense of immediacy (here and now), but even that is often by default (e.g. elided: [I] [am] just), pointing again to the speakers preference for vagueness and indeterminacy. The absence of the Mood element and of deictic terms brings the text close to what Halliday calls little texts (see section 4.5.2.4). The last utterance shows clearly how the interplay of textual factors helps to bring forth the emotions and attitudes of the interactants: [I] Mood Subject Actor [am] just chill in[g] Theme Rheme Residue Adjunct Predicator Circumstance material around
Finite Process:
Adjunct Circumstance
The cohesive ties which link the utterance to the previous ones in the text are co-reference by elision: elided Subject I consistency of tense: the present a rather loose lexical chain: going chillin the adjacent pair formula, where a question is followed by an answer consistency of style
Chapter 4: The text
175
176
Consistency of style also disambiguates the meaning of the utterance: Webster gives as first meaning for the noun chill an uncomfortably penetrating coldness; as an intransitive verb, we get the definition to become cold, and as an transitive verb, to affect with cold. In the context of slangy speech, we accept the definition for chill out, i.e. to calm down; relax and infer that the meaning of to chill around is spend time leisurely, with friends. In the absence of the Mood element, the utterance is vague and indeterminate: there is no explicit Subject, and there is no word to tell us the exact circumstances of the action: its when (am/was/will be chilling) or how (must be/could be/should be chilling). Furthermore, the Actor of this material process is elided, and its Goal1 is altogether absent. The highlighted terms are just (foregrounded as Theme), whose function is to reduce/minimize the meaning/effect of the following words), and chill (the phonologically emphasized/tonic syllable and the Focus of the utterance), whose negative connotations2 convey a sense of detachment. The intonation Tone 53 (rise-fall-level) support the sense of vagueness and detachment.
4.5.2.3 Speech in writing

Strategic texts, such as those of literature or advertising, often upset the standards of the discourse to which they belong. One such frequently used trick is to endow the written text with a sense of orality. Take, for example, the following text: 'If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They're quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They're nice and all I'm not saying that but they are also touchy as hell. Besides, I'm not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything. I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy.
(J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye)
1 2
The term is very appropriate for these youngsters lack of purpose. Cold is perceived as negative (e.g. degrees -), vs. warm, viewed as positive (e.g. degrees +).
Cohesion: The first sentence of this text is in fact the first sentence of Salingers famous novel, The Catcher in the Rye. But conditional if which marks its beginning (a connective used to begin a sentence) suggests that the writer is continuing an idea discussed previously, and the adverb really emphasizes this idea. In addition, the words hear ( want to hear), say (I'm not saying that) and tell (Im not going to tell you) suggest that we are faced with a text spoken to us, listeners. A sense of orality is also conveyed by the slangy words and phrases (lousy, goddam, that stuff, kind of crap, madman stuff), by words and phrases typical for face-to-face interaction (if you want to know the truth, and all, etc.), used singly or repeatedly. They suggest young speaker, intimate social distance and casual conversation about personal problems. Deictic terms (my parents, before I got , last Christmas) anchor the conversation in place and time, i.e. around the speaker and the events he is preparing to talk about. The structure of the sentences is also typical for oral interactions: there are numerous cases of coordination (paratactic extension: independent sentences connected by and or but; paratactic enhancement: Besides) and few cases of subordination (e.g. hypotactic enhancement: before they had me), etc. Consistency of style, of tense, co-reference and lexical chains, account for the sense of cohesion and unity of meaning the text conveys. Hand in hand with the orality of the text goes the key, which also simulates oral interaction. We can practically hear Holden Caulfield begin with an unmarked Tone 2 (low rise) for the first clause/tone group (If you), followed by an unmarked Tone 1 (low fall) for the second (youll probably). The tentative beginning is however followed by a succession of six emphatic Tone 2+ (low fall) utterances: the first four (where I was; what my lousy; how my parents; all that) enumerate the things the receiver would probably expect to hear about; the last two (but I; if you) point to the speakers emotional dislike of discussing such matters. The next sentence (In the first place , which presents the reasons for the speakers objections) consists of two tone groups, each uttered with a marked Tone 5+ (rise-high fall), pointing to the strength of the speakers emotional attitude. Etc. The Themes and Focuses of the utterances are skillfully manipulated to foreground (and respectively, background) various pieces of information. Initial position in the sentence/paragraph/ text turns if into its Theme, thus lowering the modality of the entire text (it is conditioned by the readers willingness to listen), and the Focus of the tone group is a vague and unclear it, which in fact stands for the whole story. Furthermore, unlike traditional autobiographic
Chapter 4: The text
177
178 o
Meaning and communication absence of deictic elements for the nominal group: Paciotti. Style 4 US Alcott. Good life. Space for your style
stories, which begin with I was born , i.e. with the writer (I) as its Theme and main character, in this case the protagonist is completely absent from the first clause, but the receiver (you) is invited to participate. The protagonist himself shows up in the next sentences, but indirectly (Genitive my, not Nominative I), under various guises: the place of his birth, his childhood, his parents. The first clause in which he appears as Theme/Subject of the clause is where he expresses his feelings (I dont feel like), but by the negative polarity of the verb, the protagonist is pushed back, rather than foregrounded. Nor does the writer feature himself/his story as Focus of his utterances. By all the items he suggests as Focus (born, childhood, parents, etc.), and then rejects, he is in fact postponing the moment of tackling the actual Focus of the story: that madman stuff that happened to him. Salinger exploits Mood and Transitivity with similar skill. The story-teller is offering to give us some information, but the modality of his utterances is lowered by the modal operators (would have) and adjuncts of modality and condition (probably, if), by the negative polarity (dont feel like, Im not going to), by the past tense used in the initial sentences, etc. And yet, the conversation unfolds in the present and is looking towards the future, so that the second part of the paragraph takes on a slightly more realistic modality. Still, the speaker uses the Future (youll want, Ill tell you), not the Present, the actual time of the real. The same opposition (of lowered modality for the first part of the paragraph, and of more realistic modality for the second) is carried by the types of processes: while those based on the past tense are mostly mental processes (want, feel like, bores me) and relational ones (was, would have), those looking forward belong to the category of material processes (Im going to tell you, Ill tell you). The oral tone is also justified by texts focus on interpersonal relations (on a dialogue between I and you), rather than on ideational ones (between processes).
absence of the Finite element of verbal groups: Nightology by J&B Toyota. Moving forward
absence of the Mood component; since there is no Subject and no Finite, such cases simply evade choice of mood: Tissot. More than a watch G-STAR RAW. Just the product
unattached nominals: Givenchy. Hot couture Miss Sixty. Elixir. The fragrance potion
From the perspective of traditional grammar, such little texts are obviously non-wellformed. And yet, they make up coherent and meaningful texts because their cohesion runs at a deeper level than that of the lexical-grammatical structure. In some cases, we can easily fill in the missing links, as in: Toyota [is]. Moving forward Nightology [is made] by J&B But even in such cases, the meaning conveyed is much more complex. For example, it is only natural that Toyota (a car) should be moving forward; but since cars also move backwards, we understand that the phrase must be interpreted metaphorically. In addition, since we have two orthographic sentences, not one, the second can be viewed as an independent clause with no Mood component. As a result, the Subject is unclear (who is moving forward, the car, the company, the reader?), and the absence of the Finite element also allows for some temporal shifts (is/was/will be moving?). In the J&B example, elision of the Finite and of the Predicator induces a significant stylistic change: made recalls industrial production; conversely, by connotes artistic achievement1. The artistic perception the clause conveys, however, clashes with the scientific sonority of the Subject induced by the Greek suffix ology (as in graphology, etc.). Considering the type of product (a whiskey), the mix suggests a high (scientific) standard of having fun.
4.5.2.4
The grammar of little texts
Telegrams, headlines and titles, product labels, signboards, short advertising texts, etc. belong to the category which Halliday calls little texts. Their shortness is induced by their function in the specific situational and discoursal context: they must provide as much information as possible, they must save space and money, they must attract attention, etc. As a result, such texts retain all the lexical words and leave out all the grammatical ones (Halliday, 1994: 392). Short advertising texts illustrate most of the basic features of little texts. For example:
The by phrase often collocates with the creator of a work of art, as in Hamlet, by W. Shakespeare.
Chapter 4: The text
179
180
In terms of effect, the funny juxtaposition of the opposing types of connotation produces a humorously memorable text. It is precisely the non-wellformedness of such texts which communicates a more subtle and a more complex meaning: it conveys a sense of orality, of face-to-face conversation, of intimacy and sensuality, of dynamism and aspiration, etc. Let us analyse the following ad along the six dimensions that work together to ensure its textness: Eighth Sin. Denim from the Hell. Eden can wait Cohesion: The first two orthographic sentences are mere noun phrases: in the first, the Head (Sin) is premodified with a Numerative (Eighth); in the second, the Head (Denim) is postmodified with a prepositional phrase (consisting, in its turn, of a premodified noun, Hell). The third clause is a full sentence, with Subject and Predicate. The lexical chain sin Hell Eden links together the three apparently independent units. Our knowledge of advertising texts tells us that, of the first two units, the former names the product, the latter describes it, so that Eighth Sin and denim (from the Hell) function as pragmatic synonyms. Sentences 2 and 3 are connected by the antonymic pair Hell and Eden, which ensures some continuity and unity of meaning, but not sufficient. To understand the texts message, we must rely on our knowledge of the world: the Bible tells us of seven capital sins; the eighth offered here exceeds those seven (i.e. hyperbole). That is, the jeans are presented as so exceptional and rewarding that they make us even forget for some time the greatest promise a man can get: that of Eden. Theme, Focus and Key: The three clauses correspond to three tone units. In the first, the word Eighth functions as displaced Focus (it bears the main stress), while Sin is the displaced Theme/main character, thus conveying the idea that a New (enhanced, more attractive) way of sinning is being offered. The second clause offers Denim as Theme, but the word comes as Given (old, known information), the Focus of the utterance falling on Hell, whose dark connotations are strangely attractive. The Theme of the third tone group (Eden) is again treated as Given, the Focus being placed on wait, i.e. the ad urges receivers to stay young and enjoy life. In terms of intonation, the three tone units are pronounced with an unmarked Tone 1, which suggests that their function is basically informational; the emotional charge is carried paralinguistically, by the speakers husky and sensual (probably female) voice, by her languorous look and facial expression, her sensuous movements, etc.
Mood and transitivity: In the absence of a Mood component, the first two clauses simply evade choice of Mood. But this absence only enhances the semantic charge of the text by allowing several possible interpretations: Eighth Sin is/are , or Buy Eighth Sin because , etc. The modality of the text is low, due to the metaphorical character of the brand name, as well as of the other two utterances. The present tense form of the modal operator (can) softens to a certain degree this sense of unreality. By filling in missing links, the text can be turned into a complex sentence Eden can wait [because] Eighth Sin [products are] denim from Heaven. The elements are in a relation of subordination and of intransitivity (Because Eden can wait, Eighth Sin products are has a different meaning). In numerous cases, it is practically impossible to fill in the missing links of advertising texts. For example: Paciotti. Style 4 US Miss Sixty. Elixir. The fragrance potion Unless the reader has some additional information regarding the nonlinguistic context in which the utterance occurs (e.g. the type of product), the text does not make any sense. This shows that, in order to analyse the meaning of texts, we must also take into considerations features that do not pertain to language, but to the non-linguistic context in which the utterance occurs. The role and effect of the context of utterance, as well as that of other pragmatic factors, will be discussed in the following chapters.
182
Chapter 5
Context and reference
The analyses of texts undertaken in the previous chapters tell us that the Saussurian view regarding communication as a matter of encoding and decoding is too narrow. Developments in the field of linguistics lead to the same conclusion. In the traditional view, meaning was perceived as a separate component of lexical items, while form and structure carried no meaning. But the FSP has demonstrated that meaning is carried by every level of the language constituents, minimal groups, intonational patterns, etc. and that the speaker builds up the meaning he wants to convey by manipulating not only his linguistic choices, but also the form and organization of his utterances. The following scheme (after Crystal, 1987: 83) can give us a general idea of the linguistic levels required for a more complex analysis of language and communication: LANGUAGE (linguistics) organization use
Matching de Saussures encoding-decoding view with the scheme above, we can see that it covers only the organizational part of language. The scheme, however, tells us that there are two basic levels of meaning: word meaning, and discoursal meaning. Furthermore, we are shown that, to study discoursal meaning, we must take into account pragmatic factors, which can be cognitive, psychological, social, affective or interpersonal. Discoursal meaning depends on the complex interplay of various features of the situational context in which the utterance takes place. It is the task of pragmatics to analyse the way the situational context affects the meaning of an utterance. The present chapter will try to explain how various features of the context of utterance affect the meaning of those utterances, and how the speaker anchors his utterance in the real-world context in which the interaction takes place.
5.1
Language in context
form (oral)
structure (grammar)
meaning
pragmatics
phonetics morphology syntax semantics discourse analysis phonology Obviously, the linguistic levels thus presented are organically connected; for reasons of analysis, though, language is broken down into artificially isolated components, and each level is surveyed separately.
It was discussed in the previous chapters that semiotic systems, and consequently language also, make meaning by paradigmatic choice and syntagmatic combination. Selection of one lexical item instead of another influences the meaning of what the speaker says, e.g. He is not here, She is not here, It is not here. On the other hand, it is only in combination with other words that individual items acquire their full meaning. Take, for instance, the English word get: it means one thing in I got the car from my father, another in We got it cheaply, another in He got up late, etc. In other words, the meaning of words depends on the context. But the term context is not simple, either: it functions on two levels. First of all, there is a linguistic context, consisting of the words, sentences or paragraphs that precede and/or follow a certain linguistic item and together with which it conveys a coherent message. With the help of the linguistic context, the competent speaker can disambiguate ambiguous constructs. Consider the following joke: A panda bear goes into a fast food, orders a hamburger, eats it, shoots several people and leaves the place. A man who happened to see it all, asks in surprise, Why did you do that? Look up panda in the dictionary, replies the bear. The man goes home, looks up panda in the dictionary and reads: panda = animal that eats shoots and leaves.
Chapter 5: Context and reference
183
184
The panda bear in the joke is obviously not a competent speaker of English. He is unable to handle the ambiguity that results from: lexical homonymy: shoot (1. to hit/wound with a missile; 2. young plant); leaves (1. pl. of leaf, i.e. expanded organ of plants; 2. departs). grammatical homonymy: shoots (verb, present, 3rd pers. sg.; or noun, plural); leaves (i.e. noun, meaning part of a plant; leaves: verb, meaning to depart, present, 3rd pers. sg.). Those who enjoy the joke are obviously better speakers of English than he is. But to enjoy the joke, the receiver must also rely on his knowledge of the world and of society: panda bears do not speak, they are unlikely to go into a fast food or to have a gun, etc. In ordinary face-to-face communication, the linguistic context is essential to help the hearer to make sense of individual utterances. As Corder (1981) shows, well-formed sentences produced by native speakers are mostly ambiguous when taken out of context. To illustrate this idea, read again the college slang text reproduced in section 4.5.2.2. Within the linguistic context, each lexical item functions as element of the context to which it belongs; together they build up the text, giving it coherence and cohesion, i.e. textness (see section 4.5.1.). At discoursal level, however, the linguistic context is generally insufficient. Linguists are careful to point out that language is always in context and there are no acts of communication without participants, intertext, situation, paralanguage and substance (Cook, 1992: 2). As a result, discourse is text and context together, interacting in a way which is perceived as meaningful and unified by the participants (who are both part of the context and observers of it) (Cook, 1992: 2, my emphasis). This triggers the conclusion that, for an analysis of discourse and of discoursal meaning, we must employ pragmatic tools. Take, for example, the first two texts analysed in section 4.5.2. In the case of the text about Newspeak, we can tell that it was written by an educated man, with the purpose of providing information for an equally educated reader; even if we cannot actually see them, we can visualise a highly formal setting and a rigorous activity type (e.g. the writer, sitting at his desk and writing an article, or as a speaker in a conference room,
addressing an educated audience); we can practically see the speakers strict clothes, we can hear his educated pronunciation, his serious tone of voice, the silence in the room, etc. Conversely, the college slang text gives us a completely different picture: highly informal setting (in the street), young speakers (typical slang, characteristic pronunciation), intimate social distance (in-group markers), etc., and we can easily visualize the youngsters clothes, their posture, gestures, etc. Such information comes as real-world background to the text. It often happens that, without such background information, we can understand neither the meaning of the individual elements, nor that of the whole text. Take, for example, the two ads reproduced at the end of the previous chapter: Paciotti. Style 4 US Miss Sixty. Elixir. The fragrance potion To make head or tail of the texts, the receiver needs additional information, such as: the type of discourse1; the function of the text; the meaning/referent of the Subject; etc. Knowledge of these elements can help him to get to the texts actual meaning. For example, if he is told that the texts belong to the discourse of advertising, the receiver will understand that their function is to promote a product. As a result, he will interpret the proper noun Subjects as the names of certain products, while the words style, elixir and fragrance help him to disambiguate the text by telling him what types of products they are (an item of clothing, respectively, a perfume). Knowledge of the discourse type and product will also help the receiver to deal with the grammatical ambiguity of style (verb in the imperative or noun) and to interpret the connotations of elixir and potion (magical). Etc. Thus, discoursal meaning is contextual meaning: the (linguistic) text is embedded in its situational (non-linguistic) context. As a result, correct interpretation of a text depends on the real-world environment in which it is produced. The pragmatic features of that context affect its meaning and interpretation.
People produce countless discourse types and genres, from political speech to telephone conversation, from sermons to newspaper articles, etc., and each may come in several varieties.
185
186
Meaning and communication the receiver of the message (listener or reader), who interprets the message according to his own capacity and willingness to understand the speakers intended meaning the social distance between the interlocutors: i.e. the receivers social status (equal or superior) and his role relative to his own (e.g. adviserconfident, doctorpatient) make the speaker formulate his message in a more or less formal way the social constraints that make the sender formulate his message in a particular way: setting, activity type, discourse type, etc. the situation/setting, i.e. the time and place where the exchange occurs, e.g. during a meeting (in which case the language is formal) or after it (informal register) the activity type, e.g. shopping, teaching, bargaining, etc. the type of discourse/genre, e.g. political speech, highbrow or tabloid article, formal or casual conversation, a joke, etc. the function of the message, i.e. the senders intention: to praise or to criticise, to inform or to persuade, etc. the senders paralanguage, i.e. the speakers meaningful behaviour; paralanguage can support or contradict the linguistic message, e.g. the sender can say Thank you! with a cheerful, or a mocking voice; etc.
In linguistics, the non-linguistic (pragmatic) context is referred to as situational context, or context of utterance1. To summarize in a user-friendly way the main features of the situational context which are grammaticalized in the language and which are likely to bring about change of meaning, Hymes (1974) proposes the S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G model2 an acronym for: Setting and Scene, i.e. the physical or psychological/cultural location of the interaction: at home or in an official place; at a joyful anniversary or a commemorative event; etc. Participants, i.e. the sender of the message (the speaker/writer), the addressee (the person the message is produced for), the receiver (who may not be the addressee, but an overhearer) Ends, i.e. the purposes, goals and outcomes of the exchange, e.g. to inform, to amuse, to criticize, etc. Act Sequence, i.e. the form of the utterances and the order of the events: the sequence of events is generally implied in the order of the sentences, e.g. He got home and went to bed.3 Key, i.e. paralinguistic (intonational or gestural) clues for the tone and spirit of the text, e.g. angry or joyful voice. Instrumentalities, i.e. the style and register of the text, e.g. group membership markers, dialect features, etc. Norms, i.e. the social rules characteristic for the setting, e.g. formal for an official activity; collaborative for group work. Genre, i.e. the type of discourse, speech act or event, e.g. an anecdote, a moralizing story, a formal lecture, etc. According to other linguists (Cook 1992, Levinson 1983, Thomas 1995, etc.), among the main social constraints that govern linguistic exchanges are: o the interlocutors, i.e. the sender of the message (speaker or writer), whose text is marked by his own psychological features, educational level, his present mood or state of mind, etc.
o o
As basic unit of analysis, pragmaticians take the utterance, viewed as the pairing of a sentence and a context (Levinson, 1983, quoting Bar Hillel). To show that his model was not designed exclusively for the English language, Hymes (1974, p.62) proposed a similar model for French, i.e. P-A-R-L-A-N-T: participants, actes, raison (resultat), locale, agents (instrumentalities), normes, ton (key), types (genres). See also section 7.3.1.4 Observing the maxim of Manner.
David Crystal (1987: 120) argues that, although theoretically we can say anything, in practice our linguistic performance is constrained by a large number of social rules, norms of formality and politeness, etc. As people learn these rules at a very early age (e.g. to say Please! and Thank you!), they become part of our ordinary linguistic behaviour. For example, the personality of the interactants has a great bearing on the form of the message. The senders educational level influences the range of his vocabulary (poor or rich), the grammatical accuracy of his sentences (numerous grammatical mistakes, if the speaker is uneducated, e.g. double negation), his pronunciation (groupspecific allophones), etc. Furthermore, the receivers psychological/ educational features also affect the way in which the speaker formulates his message, e.g. when talking to a child, he does not use elevated words. In addition, in social interactions, the speaker always assesses his social status relative to that of his interlocutor. This estimation is reflected (grammaticalized) in his choice of vocabulary (e.g.
187
188
titles of address, the proper variant of the T/V pronominal system), grammatical structure (e.g. longer and more elaborate sentences if the hearer is socially superior), formality and style (more formal when addressing a person perceived as socially superior; informal register when talking to a peer), etc. The physical (spatial and temporal) setting constrains the way individuals speak, too. For example, in class (situation), when the teacher talks about Shakespeare (function: information), the speaker cannot use colloquial language and casual style, but must choose his words carefully, build up long and elaborate sentences, use a serious tone of voice, etc. On the other hand, the interactants personality and status also affect the meaning of the message: the same utterance may carry different meanings if produced by different types of persons. For example, I go to school every day, means one thing, if uttered by an adolescent boy, or by a fifty year old gentleman. Or, I declare war to Russia has one meaning and effect if carried by the voice of a child, or that of President Obama. Similarly, the same utterance may have a different meaning and effect depending on the personality of the addressee. Ill knock you out means one thing if said by a fighter to his opponent, another if addressed by a father to his son, or yet another if said by a son to his father. The meaning of an utterance also depends on the discourse type and its function. For example, always in Always Coca-Cola! actually means Buy Coca-Cola! (even though semantically there is absolutely no relationship between the words always and buy); this is because the utterance belongs to the discourse of advertising, whose function is to promote sales. Conversely, an utterance such as Always Democrat!, uttered in the context of a political speech, means Vote for the Democrats! because the function of political speeches is to persuade audiences to follow and elect the members of the party the speaker belongs to. The role of paralanguage in shaping the meaning of an utterance is equally important. Oral paralanguage is carried by the speakers tone (or timber) of voice and by his body language. Voices can convey a wealth of meanings: they can be cold, soft or sexy, domineering or tender, critical or understanding, they can invite or reject, etc. Various emotions and attitudes are also conveyed by the tempo of the speech or the loudness of the units, e.g. fast speech or an extra loud word may show irritation, impatience or delight.
In the same way, body language carried by the speakers facial expression, his eye contact or its absence, gestures, body posture, etc. emphasizes, supports or contradicts the meaning of the words. In writing, paralanguage comes under various forms: the quality of the paper (substance), the shape and size of the letters, typographical display, innovative layout, accompanying picture, etc. Take, for example, a printed text. Change of type face may trigger consistent change of meaning. A standard typeface (e.g. Arial) connotes seriousness; one that imitates handwriting produces a sense of intimacy. Choice of the wrong type face may convey a different meaning and trigger social sanctions: imagine a letter of condolences written in Comic San MS. Research has shown that the weight of the paralinguistic message is greater than that of the linguistic message: if the sender says Thank you! with a mocking voice, the receiver understands that the sender is not grateful at all for what he has received. The weight of the written paralanguage is also greater than that of language: imagine a love letter scribbled on a crumpled sheet of paper, a congratulatory note written on a postcard featuring a monkey, or a scientific report adorned with drawings of flowers and hearts. A change in any of the features of the situational context can trigger serious changes of meaning. Take, for example, the utterance, I have no knife. In a restaurant (setting), spoken by a guest (speaker) who wants to have a meal (activity type) and addressed to a waiter (addressee), it means Please bring me a knife, i.e. with his utterance, the speaker makes a request (function). Conversely, if the speaker is caught (activity type) in a dark alley (setting) by the police (addressee), it means Please dont shoot; by stating that he is unarmed, the speaker is trying to defend himself (function). Or, if the utterance comes in response to a request to cut the strings on a box (setting, activity type), it means I cant (function: refusal and excuse); etc. It is equally true that the way people use the language influences events: at a serious meeting, a good joke can relieve the tension and make the atmosphere friendly.
5.2
Reference and deixis
The presentation above has pointed to the idea that the context in which the interaction takes place is an essential component of any linguistic exchange. Face-to-face communication implies the simultaneous presence at the same location of two or more
189
190
participants, a physical environment that contains all kind of objects, shared knowledge of previous events, etc. With written communication there is no simultaneous presence (therefore no shared time and place) for the interactants; still the interlocutors share a lot of common background knowledge and experience. The most direct way by which language encodes (grammaticalizes) that background is by the procedure of reference. The participants in the conversation anchor their contribution to the linguistic exchange in the immediate spatial, temporal, social and discoursal environment by referring to certain items linguistically or gesturally. In other words, the speaker refers to persons or objects around himself, or to events previously mentioned, by using expressions and/or gestures. In this way, he encodes in the language those elements of the situational context. For example, the speaker may use the demonstrative pronoun this to encode an object placed in his vicinity, and at the same time point with his hand to the object; the word today is used to refer to the day when the conversation is taking place; the speaker uses the pronoun I to refer to himself, and you is employed to refer to the addressee; etc. On the other hand, linguistic items such as this or today are used to encode different information, depending on the time and/or place when/where they are uttered. The word this, for instance, can be employed to refer to a book, a picture or an event; today can refer to Monday, June 17th, or Thursday, May 14th. The pronoun I changes referent according to the person who pronounces it, and the referent of you is whoever the speakers addressee is; etc. In what concerns the relation between the referring expression and its referent, earlier linguists distinguished two types of reference: o endophoric, i.e. the linguistic expression (e.g. pronoun) is used to reiterate the reference of a previous expression (e.g. a noun phrase) within the discourse, e.g. I met Mary yesterday and she told me that ; and exophoric, i.e. the linguistic expression is used to refer to something or someone not mentioned previously in the discourse, but mutually known to the participants, e.g. She is my sister (the reference to the real-world person is probably gestural).
reference is made to real-world entities, not to lexical units in the text. That is to say, all reference is exophoric. From another perspective, reference or rather, co-reference can be1: anaphoric, i.e. the expression makes reference to something that has already been mentioned in the text, as in the example above; or cataphoric, when the main referring expression follows a secondary one, as in He is my brother, that man. The most obvious way in which language encodes reference to the surrounding context is by way of deixis. Deixis (Gk. = pointing, indicating) concerns the way in which languages encode or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech event (Levinson, 1983: 54, original emphasis). In the language, deixis takes the form of deictic or indexical terms/expressions, whose function is to encode within the utterance the multitude of factors existing around the utterance. Deictic terms can encode the place of utterance (here, there), the time (now, yesterday), the person (I, you), the moment in the discourse (the former, so far), or the social status of the participants (honorifics: Madam, Your Honour). Gestural deixis (e.g. pointing to an object) functions as a parallel paralinguistic message whose function is to emphasize or clarify the meaning of the linguistic text. With indexical terms, as with any other category of words, their logical or conceptual meaning is essential: words such as there, now or yesterday can be found in the dictionary, accompanied by accurate definitions of their meaning(s). These conventional aspects of meaning are known to all the people who share the same language and are valid across contexts. But an essential feature of indexical terms is that they do not name the same stable entity on all occasions of use: their meaning varies according to the situational context, the person who uses them, the time and/or place of their use, etc. For instance, third person sg. he refers to one person, if the word is used to refer to John Smith, and another if the referent is Ed Pope. The word is a variable, i.e. one of the numerous expressions the speaker can use to refer to a specific item in the
Today, however, linguists argue that it is incorrect to say that she in the first example refers back to the word Mary: all
1
See also section 4.5.1 Text and textness.
191
192
world. As Levinson (1983) puts it, the deictic terms is a placeholder for some particular entity given by the context. On the other hand, it is not the expression used that performs the reference. The speaker uses one of many expressions he has available to indicate his intention to refer to a certain entity in the world. To achieve what linguists call successful reference, it is essential that the hearer should be able to interpret the speakers reference correctly. For example, the speaker can say That boy or The boy over there or simply The boy; what counts is his intention to refer to a certain boy, as well as the hearers ability to identify the real world person referred to. For decoding indexicals, it is often enough to have a general knowledge of the speech event. For example, if one knows when and where the action of a narrative takes place, and who the characters are, it is easy to interpret terms like yesterday, here, and I. This type of deictic usage is called symbolic. Yet, it often happens that indexicals can be interpreted only in relation with the physical environment in which the activity takes place. For example, that (in Give me that) or he (in He hit me) must be accompanied by a gesture indicating the object or person referred to, otherwise the utterance is uninformative. In the same way, utterances like Cheers! or Here you are! require physical contribution to make the message complete. This type of deictic usage is known as gestural. Some aspects of deixis are deeply grammaticalized. The verbal category of tense, for example, is employed by speakers to refer to actions that are previous, simultaneous or subsequent to the moment of utterance, and morphological agreement encodes the number of participants. To the three traditional categories of deixis person, time and place deixis Levinson (1983: 62-5) suggests the addition of two more: discourse deixis and social deixis.
5.2.1
Person deixis
Person deixis concerns the encoding of the role of the participants in the speech event in which the utterance in question is delivered (Levinson, 1983: 62-3), i.e. it refers to the ways in which language mirrors/grammaticalizes the relative roles of the participants in the discourse.
Person deixis1 is directly reflected in the grammatical category of person. The pronominal system is the most obvious way to encode participant roles. The first person grammaticalizes the speakers reference to himself, the second encodes the speakers reference to one or more addressees, while the third encodes the reference to persons and entities which are neither speakers nor addressees of the utterance in question. Conceptually, the relationship between the pronominal system and the participants in the discourse can be summarized as follows: first person denotes speaker inclusion [+S]; second person points to addressee inclusion [+A]; third person denotes both speaker and addressee exclusion [-S] [-A]. In its handling of the pronominal system, English makes a three-way distinction: first, second and third person. To this, the categories of gender (for the third person singular) and that of number (for the first and third person) are added. Different languages encode social status differently, e.g. in English there is only one second person pronoun (i.e. you), while French and Romanian have a T/V distinction2: tu/vous, respectively, tu/dumneavoastr; in addition, Romanian has a medium-politeness second person singular pronoun, dumneata. Romanian and French also have a masculine/feminine opposition for the third person plural (i.e. French ils, elles, Romanian ei, ele), but no common or neutral third person singular pronoun (corresponding to the English it). It must be noted that we does not mean plural speaker, i.e. it does not consist of I + I + I + I but of I + you or I + him, etc. This also shows that we may include the addressee or may exclude him from the act or event mentioned in the utterance. Yet, semantically and grammatically no distinction can be made between we-inclusive-of-addressee and we-exclusive-of-addressee. For example, the sentence Weve been there, asserts that the speaker has been there, but it does not specify whether the addressee has been there or not. Nevertheless, pragmatically it is quite easy to make the distinction: the addressee (at least) knows
1
For the sections regarding Person deixis and Social deixis, see also sections 1.2.2.1 Social meaning and 3.2 Formality and style. In other languages the pronominal system is much more complex. For example, in Japanese, pronouns are distinguished also with respect to sex of speaker, social status of referent, degree of intimacy with referent, degree of relative rank, etc. (Levinson, 1983).
193
194
about his inclusion in or exclusion from his interlocutors reference on the basis of his actual participation in or absence from the place or event mentioned by the speaker. One should also keep in mind the fact that, with written communication especially, the speaker/spokesman can be different from the addresser (the source of the message) and the addressee (the targeted person) can be different from the hearer of the message. In the case of a television commercial, for instance, the speaker is usually an actor, but the source of the message (the addresser) is the manufacturer or distributor. In the same way, the recipient or hearer of the message can be distinct from the intended audience: I may hear a cigarette ad but, since I dont smoke, it is not addressed to me. The pronominal system goes hand in hand with a corresponding morphological agreement. Verbal inflections encode person and number, but they can also encode degrees of politeness. For instance, the French Vous voulez? is ambiguous between second person plural or polite second person singular. The Romanian Vrei? is similarly ambiguous. The difference consists in the fact that, in Romanian, the pronoun/subject is usually elided; if it is present, it disambiguates the meaning: Voi vrei? (plural)/ Dumneavoastr vrei? (singular polite). Or, if there is a predicative element, it tells in both languages whether the addressee is singular, higher in rank, or plural, male or female, e.g. Vous tes gentil/le/s or Suntei amabil//i, etc. In some languages, the polite pronoun of address is borrowed from the third person singular (the Italian lei, or the German Sie), with corresponding predicate agreement. In such cases, it is as if [the speaker] can only politely enter into conversation with [the hearer] through the evasive tactic of pretending that [the hearer] is a listener, but not the addressee (Leech 1983: 141). Person deixis can also be marked with the help of vocative terms. Vocatives, i.e. noun phrases used to refer to the addressee, are set apart from the rest of the sentence by means of prosody and punctuation. Some such vocatives called summonses or calls are used sentence-initially and gesturally, e.g. Hey you, come here quickly, or Listen pal, . They function as independent speech acts1 and are rather informal (used only between close friends).
Others called addresses are parenthetical, e.g. To tell you the truth, my friend, I dont really think . Stylistically, they have a wider acceptability. Greetings are also vocative in nature. To help the speaker to cope with various types of social relations, the language has produced a wide range of stylistic variants: How do you do! (formal); Good morning (neutral); Hello! (informal); Hi! (familiar).
5.2.2
Social deixis
In close connection with person deixis is social deixis, which concerns the encoding of social distinctions that are relative to participant-roles, particularly aspects of the social relationship holding between speaker and addressee(s) or speaker and some referent (Levinson, 1983: 89). In other words, social deixis concerns the way utterances mirror/encode certain realities of the social situation in which the communicative exchange occurs. Obviously, oral and written discourses exploit differently the ability of the language to express the relation between the speaker and his social environment, but there are also a number of common features. Just as in the case of person deixis, social indexical items (e.g. polite pronouns, vocatives, titles of address) function as placeholders for certain participant roles. Levinson (1983: 89) is, however, careful to restrict the notion of social deixis to those aspects of language structure that encode the social identities of the participants, or the social relationship between them, or between them and persons and entities referred to. This means that social deixis must be restricted to those aspects of the language which grammaticalize social relations. The importance of social deixis becomes obvious when analysing Oriental languages, where social ranking is deeply rooted and strictly observed. As Levinson (1983: 94) points out, there is scarcely a single sentence of, for example, Japanese, Javanese or Korean, that can be properly described from a strictly linguistic point of view without an analysis of social deixis. The English language, however, is poor in manifestations of social deixis: there is not even a pronoun for polite address. Romanian is not very subtle in mirroring social relations either.
See section 6.3 Speech acts.
195
196
Social deictic information can be expressed in two basic ways: absolutely and relationally. Forms of address, such as Your Honour, or Mr. President are examples of absolute social deixis, the persons addressed in this way being authorized recipients of the title. Expressions that mention the addressees sex (as in Your Ladyship!) also belong to this category. Relational social deixis relies on the relationship that exists between the speaker and the other person(s) involved in the conversation or referred to, or that between himself and the setting in which the linguistic exchange unfolds. In his communicative exchanges, the speaker relates himself to three categories of participants: o o o the addressee, i.e. the person addressed the referent, i.e. the person/object/event the speaker is referring to the bystander, i.e. the non-participant overhearer
speakers attitude: Hey you! or Excuse me, Sir! give voice to very different kinds of attitude. Estimation of the social distance between himself and his addressee affects not only the speakers lexical choices, but also the grammatical complexity of his utterances. For example, if the speaker who wants to ask his interlocutor for help may formulate his request as Give me a hand, will you? if he perceives the social distance as close; or as Im so sorry to bother you, but I really cant do it by myself if the relationship is distal. The speakers lexical and stylistic choices are also affected by his perception of the relationship between himself and the setting in which the speech event takes place. A high-distance setting (church, courthouse, hospital, a job interview) will make the speaker lower his voice, select his vocabulary carefully, build up his sentences carefully and polish his style. Conversely, a lowdistance setting (among friends, at a party) may urge him to indulge in group-specific vocabulary and pronunciation, elliptical sentences, informal style and extensive paralanguage. The examples show that social deictic information can be encoded just about anywhere in the linguistic system (Levinson, 1983: 92). It can be expressed lexically or morphologically, by choice of vocabulary or level of formality, by phonological or prosodic emphasis and, in most cases, by a combination of several of these factors. Obviously, the speakers social deictic choices are controlled by the non-written laws of social interaction. Like with all pragmatic phenomena, the speaker knows that disregard of those rules may trigger serious negative consequences. Moreover, the speakers formulation of his utterance results not only from his estimation of the social distance between himself and his addressee/setting, but also from the real-world goal he wants to accomplish. Thus, for example, if the speaker wants to ask for a favour, he will formulate his request more carefully, so as to gain the addressees good will, even if he does not consider him socially superior. The domain of social deixis is definitely close to that of sociolinguistics. The difference lies in the fact that, while sociolinguistics studies the way certain categories of people use language to express social realities, social deixis as part of pragmatics analyzes the way people intentionally and strategically exploit the possibilities of the language in order to achieve certain real-world aims.
The speakers estimation of his position within the act of communication results in a certain attitude he embraces, which in its turn is reflected in the personal and social deictic terms he uses, as well as in his lexical choices and his stylistic register. For example, titles of address (Sir, Madam) reflect the speakers perception of his own social inferiority in relation with the addressee or referent, or in relation with the act of communication. Honorifics (Captain, Doctor, Your Honour!), or euphemistic terms (e.g. the Superstar), give voice to the senders respect and recognition of his own inferior status. In official circumstances, the speaker may employ a honorific term to address a person otherwise socially close to him. For example, in class, a son may address his father as Teacher, and a formerly close friend may address the chief of state as Mr. President! In this way, they give voice to their awareness of the latters social superiority. At the other end of the scale are the dishonorifics (i.e. derogatory terms used to refer to an addressee or referent the speaker does not like, e.g. Hes a pest!) and the intimacy markers (e.g. darling, sweetheart, honey, my pet). Although the two categories give voice to feelings and attitudes in total opposition, their effect is similar: they reduce social distance (obviously, in different ways). Vocatives, used for summonses or addresses, represent another social deictic category whose function is to carry along the
197
198
How the speaker uses the language strategically to foster his real-world aims will be discussed in more detail in the next chapters.
5.2.3
Place deixis
Place (or space) deixis concerns the encoding in the language of the spatial location of a certain item in relation to the location of the speaker at the time of the utterance. There are a number of pure place-deictic words: demonstrative pronouns (e.g. this, that), or deictic adverbs (e.g. here, there). Such terms encode the distinction between proximal (i.e. close to the speaker this, here), and distal (i.e. located away from him that, there). But in utterances such as, This is it! or Thats it! the proximal/distal dimension is neutralized. Furthermore, in English, the interaction between deictic and non-deictic factors may take on puzzling forms. For example, in There is a famous statue over there, the first occurrence of there is non-deictic (there is has a unitary meaning that does not convey a locative meaning); only the second there is deictic. Place deictic items can be used symbolically, i.e. in general terms, as in This is a nice place, or gesturally, as in This is a nice picture. In the former case, the meaning of the word pragmatically includes the location of the speaker, while in the latter, the word refers to the location of an object that is close to that of the speaker. Demonstrative determiners can combine with other non-deictic terms denoting spatial organization (surface, top, back, etc.) to point to the location of a person/object relative to that of the speaker, e.g. This side of the mountain. Motion verbs, such as come and go, bring and take away, etc., also have in-built deictic components. Thus, come shows motion towards the speaker, while go shows movement away from him. As a result, and utterance such as Im coming (i.e. speakers motion towards the addressee) seems to be anomalous. Such deictic shifts are motivated by reasons of politeness (see also Chapter 8).
5.2.4
Time deixis
Time deixis encodes in the language the physical time in which certain events took place and present them as previous,
simultaneous with, or subsequent to the time at which an utterance was spoken (or a written message inscribed) (Levinson, 1983: 93). The most frequent encoders of time deixis are adverbs of time (e.g. now, then, yesterday, this year). The category of tense also serves to grammaticalize time. Time deictic items can refer to periods/spans of time (as in Ill be away on Monday) or to restricted moments (as in He called me up on Monday). Our usage and understanding of time and time deixis is considerably influenced by the way our society conceptualizes the logical notion of time. For measuring time, the natural cycles of day, week, month and year are generally taken for granted. By using the calendar, we can locate events in time non-deictically, i.e. in an absolute way (e.g. July, 15th, 1998). Deictic temporal location is relative to the speaker and speech event: with words, such as today, yesterday, tomorrow, their absolute value is insignificant; what matters is their relative, or deictic, value. Or, in a phrase such as next Monday, there is an interaction between a non-deictic and a deictic usage: Monday is not deictic in itself; it is the deictic modifier next which makes the expression relative. By saying next Monday, the idea of comparison with the present moment becomes more powerful than that of the specific day of the week. Some utterances may be restricted in time. For example, a greeting such as Good morning, is restricted in use to the logical stretch of time corresponding to the part of the day called morning. Since deixis involves a perception of relativity, and since the sender of the message and its receiver may not be simultaneously present, two notions have to be clarified: that of coding time (CT), i.e. the temporal location when the speaker makes his utterance, and that of receiving time (RT), i.e. the temporal location when the receiver intercepts it. With oral exchanges, CT and RT are simultaneous; in the case of written texts, however, the receiver is not present at the time of the encoding. In the case of a novel, for example, the writer may be talking about now, but that now is not part of the RT. The example also shows that the category of tense is an important deictic feature, highlighting the relationship of a given action to the deictic centre: simultaneous (He is a student), anterior (He was a student) or posterior (He will be a student).
199
200
Difference must also be made between the logical notion of time, a purely deictic concept, and its linguistic realisation, i.e. the grammatical category of tense. With a sentence such as, The earth is round, we can say that the verb is marked morphologically (present tense), while conceptually it is unmarked (its roundness is not restricted to the present). Grammatical tense may also carry an extra load of aspectual and/or modal features, e.g. This time tomorrow Ill be flying to London; or He may have seen the film.
5.2.5
Discourse deixis
Word order plays an important discourse deictic role: it mirrors not only the linguistic organization of the utterance, but also its logical and informational organization. It was shown in the section dedicated to clause as message (section 4.2.1) that the left-most element represents the Theme and introduces the old information (the Given), while the New is placed in the Rheme, towards the end of the utterance. This natural word order is often overthrown, a certain item being forcibly placed in Theme position, e.g. That, Im really sorry about, or A pest, thats what he is. The role of such left dislocated constructions is to foreground a certain element of the utterance. Naturally, the basic deictic categories often overlap, i.e. they can function differently in different contexts. Thus, for example, vocatives can express either person or social deixis, greetings can function as temporal, person, or discourse deixis, demonstratives can be used space-deictically or person-deictically, etc.
Discourse (or text) deixis encodes the reference to portions of the unfolding discourse in which the utterance (which includes the text referring expressions) is located (Levinson, 1983). Discourse deictic expressions indicate the relationship between the individual utterance and the rest of the discourse that contains that utterance. Discourse particles (e.g. well, anyway, therefore or still), or phrases (e.g. in the last paragraph, in the next chapter, or in conclusion), indicate the place of the utterance within the text. These examples point to the fact that time deictic last and next can also be used discourse deictically, which seems natural if we think that discourse develops in time. Place-deictic this and that can also be used discourse deictically, as in the exchange A: Mary lied to me about X. B: Im surprised to hear this.1 There are numerous words and phrases which show the relationship between an utterance and the rest of the discourse. Terms, such as but, still, however, besides, after all, well, so, actually, in conclusion, etc. indicate to the hearer how he should interpret the utterance prefaced by one of those items. For example, utterance-initial anyway seems to suggest that the utterance that contains it is not related to the immediately previous one, but to something that has been said a little earlier; In conclusion indicates the end of something; yet is used to introduce the utterance that will effect that end; etc.
5.3
Manipulation of deixis
Lyons (1977, 637-8) suggests that, as far as deixis is concerned, the grammaticalization of deixis can be best understood in relation to face-to-face conversation, which unfolds in what he calls the canonical situation of utterance. Face-to-face interaction is organized in an egocentric way (i.e. around the speaker), everything else being described according to its location relative to the speaker. Consequently, even when the text contains no deictic items, the deictic centre for ordinary conversation is viewed as based on the following coordinates: o o o o the central person is the speaker the central time is the time at which the speaker produces the utterance the central place is the place where the speaker is at the moment of the utterance the discourse centre is the point in the discourse the speaker is just uttering the social centre is the speakers social status, relative to the addressees social status
In this example, use of this seems anaphoric, i.e. referring back to the referent of another word in the previous sentence. The difference lies in the fact that, while anaphora refers to some real-world entity to which a previous linguistic expression also referred, in this case this refers to the entire previous piece of discourse, i.e. to the fact that Mary lied to me about X.
We must remember that, in conversation, speakers change roles all the time and at great speed. When he has finished his part, the speaker relinquishes the floor and takes on the role of
201
202
listener; then the other person becomes the deictic centre of the conversation, only to relinquish this role as soon as he has finished speaking, etc. Writing is different in this respect: with written messages, the sender produces longer stretches of text uninterruptedly, and there may be a considerable lapse of time between CT and RT. To enhance the impact of their message, writers often manipulate deixis. Most written messages are organized egocentrically. A letter, for example, has an easily identifiable writer, who often talks about the circumstances valid at the moment of his writing the letter (CT). In this case, the readers time (RT) and place coordinates are completely different, i.e. the now and here in the letter do not correspond to the original ones. In the case of narratives, writers often organize their plot around the protagonist, so that the now and here of the text correspond to the characters co-ordinates, not to those of the writer. In such cases, we speak of a deictic projection, i.e. there is a shift in the point of view. Take, for example, the excerpt from Salingers Catcher in the Rye reproduced in section 4.5.2.3. The protagonist tells his story in the present (If you really want to hear ), and there are also two person-deictic shifts: first, the writer tells his story in the first person singular ( I dont feel like), i.e. he identifies himself with his protagonist; secondly, the novelist addresses the reader (one reader at a time) directly (If you really want). The reason for such deictic shifts lies in the writers desire to reduce the social distance between his protagonist/his story and the reader. This way, he strategically brings his narrative closer to the reader, makes it more vivid, and thus enhances its impact. Another discourse type which accomplishes special effects by manipulation of deixis is advertising. Advertising is incontestably written communication, the texts being generally produced by entire groups of copywriters. But in a desire to enhance its impact, advertising struggles to convey a sense of orality, of closeness and immediacy. As a result, it imitates oral communication. The ad copy-writer is anonymous and unimportant, and so is the time when the message was written. What matters is the receiver and the impact the message has upon him, so that the deictic centre is projected upon the receiver. As a result, if the reader comes across the urge to Call now!, he does not have to think of the moment in which the message was written (CT), but
of the very moment he is reading it (RT). In this context, the value of now is repeatedly and continuously postponed: whenever the receiver reads the message (even if he reads it several times), now is supposed to be valid. Place deictic items may also contribute to reducing distance. Presented visually in the form of an alluring picture, and linguistically (as this ), the product enters the home and intimacy of the receiver while s/he watches TV or leafs through a magazine during his/her leisure hour. Manipulation of person and of social deixis ad further dimensions. The receiver is addressed directly (as in face-to-face conversation), with the 2nd person singular variant of the pronoun (in the languages which have the T/V distinction). In this way, the speaker/the character in the TV spot appears as socially close. Social distance is also conveyed visually, by the type of person the protagonist embodies (young and fun-loving for teenage audiences, feminine and sexy for adult target customers, etc.), by the role the latter takes on (peer, confident, adviser, etc.). Discourse deixis generally appears in the form of your old X for the first section of the text (representing an earlier stage in ones life), and now we have for the present section of the text (and standing for a new life stage in ones existence). The present chapter has provided some explanation of how the situational context can affect the meaning of an utterance/a text, and it has also thrown some light on the way the speaker manipulates the language so as to enhance the impact of his message and obtain certain real-world advantages. But neither context nor deixis can explain the great gap that often exists between the lexical meaning of certain sentences/utterances and their actual message. The following chapter will therefore focus on another essential pragmatic phenomenon: on how the speaker uses the language to do things with it.
204
Chapter 6
Language in use: Speech acts and indirectness

6.1 Linguistic competence vs. linguistic performance
It was discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.2.3) that pragmatic meaning is based on the speakers knowledge of the world. In Chapter 5 (section 5.1) it was argued that pragmatic meaning is contextual, i.e. it is subject to all kind of language internal and language-external factors. But analysis of large samples of language produced in various types of real-world situations revealed that neither the dictionary, nor the context can account for the great richness and variety of human communication. Because meaning is use, as the great Austrian-British philosopher of the mind and of the language, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), suggests. Even early-day linguists realized that there is a serious gap between what the dictionary and grammar tell us regarding the language, on the one hand, and the way people use the language, on the other. As a result, they concluded that, if they wanted to explain how a language actually works, they must survey the native speakers competence along two levels: what he knows about the language, i.e. his intuitive grasp of the language; and what he can do with the help of the language, i.e. the way he uses the language to interact with his social group.
competence roughly covers language organization, while linguistic performance pertains to language in use, and that it is the role of pragmatics to link the two components. Obviously, this can occur only at discoursal level, where texts are produced and received in well-defined (linguistic and non-linguistic) contexts, which generate and control those pragmatic features. Chomsky described linguistic competence as the fluent speaker's ability to recognize and produce, with the help of a finite number of lexical items and grammar rules, an infinite number of grammatically and semantically well-formed (i.e. accurate) sentences1, including sentences that are totally new. Chomsky admitted that, in their linguistic performance, native speakers often make mistakes and produce utterances that are less-than-perfect (e.g. elliptical and minor ones). However, he considered that such constructs should be discarded as unworthy of the linguist's interest and suggested that linguistic wellformedness be taken as basic criterion for linguistic analysis. There are, however, at least three major aspects concerning the ways speakers use the language which contradict this view: 1. It often happens (especially when learning a foreign language) that perfectly well-formed utterances make no sense2. 2. In ordinary face-to-face interactions people often make mistakes or leave their sentences unfinished; and yet, in spite of their non-wellformedness, the utterances are still meaningful and the message manages to get through. 3. People use the language differently in different situations, and they often indulge in complicated linguistic strategies, instead of communicating facts simply and straightforwardly. The answer to the first question lies in the context of utterance. It was discussed in the previous chapter that, if he does not have sufficient information regarding the features of the situational context, the receiver is often unable to interpret utterances that were produced in it. Similarly, political jokes, articles, talk shows, etc. are frequently beyond the understanding
To mark this distinction, de Saussure proposed the term langue for the former, and parole for the latter. Building on de Saussures distinction, Chomsky proposed the term linguistic competence for peoples knowledge of the language, and linguistic performance for the way they use it. While competence is a psychological process (an innate faculty of the human mind), performance is pragmatic by nature. Going back to the scheme regarding the levels of linguistic analysis presented in Chapter 5, we can see again that linguistic
A sentence such as, He is a boy, is both grammatically and semantically well formed; *He has some air, may be grammatically well formed, but semantically it is anomalous. Remember Corders assertion reproduced in section 5.1, according to which well-formed sentences, produced by native speakers are mostly ambiguous when taken out of context.
Chapter 6: Language in use: Speech acts and indirectness
205
206
of those who do not have knowledge of the physical and social environment in which they were produced. In answer to the second question, linguists concluded that non-wellformedness actually belongs to the fluent speaker's knowledge of the language. Memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, errors in applying knowledge, etc. are typical for human communication. As a result, (casual) conversation abounds in broken sentences; false starts and hedges (well, you know) fill the space and help the speaker gain time; and reformulations enable him to express his thoughts more clearly and more convincingly. Thirdly, linguists realized that the complex ways in which people build up their messages is generally determined by social considerations. According to Dell Hymes (1927 ), one of the pioneers of sociolinguistics, the competent speaker knows to use the language not only correctly, but also appropriately with respect to context, addressee, situation and activity type. He insisted (1966) that there are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless, and he even argued that some occasions call for being appropriately ungrammatical. Therefore, rejecting Chomskys distinction between competence and performance as narrow and artificial, Hymes proposed the term communicative competence. Obviously, communicative competence relies on the rules of the language; but pragmatic factors, including principles of language usage and interpretation, may have an even greater role in shaping the form and meaning of the speakers utterance, or the receivers interpretation of that utterance. In addition, the real-world context (physical, psychological, social or interpersonal) is reflected in the language structure in two major ways: by the way the speaker grammaticalizes the social context and adapts his message to the situation; and by the way he exploits his knowledge of the language to achieve a particular real-world goal.
language in social interaction and the effect of our choice on others (Crystal, 1987: 120). We must emphasize again (see section 5.2.2) that, unlike sociolinguistics, which is interested in the fixed, stable, systematic characteristics embedded in a persons linguistic output, pragmatics studies the variables: it focuses on the way the producer of the message intentionally adapts it to the situation, the way he exploits his linguistic repertoire in order to achieve a particular real-world goal. In other words, pragmatics focuses on what linguists call strategic communication. But strategic exploitation of the language is much more complex. The study of the texts produced in ordinary face-to-face communication has revealed the fact that people rarely express their thoughts and ideas in a simple and direct way; in most cases, their words carry their message indirectly. In numerous cases, the speakers utterance is so indirect that he seems to be saying one thing when in fact he means something entirely different. Before we can discuss the strategies of linguistic indirectness, we must first say a few words about the functional potential of the language and the theory of speech acts.
6.2 Language functions

Although a superficial inspection might urge us to say briefly that people use the language to convey and exchange information, the role of language is much more complex. Leech (1981: Chapter 4) suggests that language has five basic functions, namely: a neutral-informational function, i.e. people use the language to convey and receive information; this may seem to be the most important function of the language, yet utterances are often subordinated to other aims a directive (or conative) function, i.e. the speaker uses the language to influence the behaviour or attitudes of others: we tell others what to do, we inquire and request, demand or command, etc. an expressive function, i.e. the speaker uses the language to express his feelings and attitudes: his likes or dislikes, wishes and desires, fears and hopes, etc. an aesthetic function, i.e. people often use the language for the sake of the linguistic artefacts itself: they construct their utterances so as to please the ear, rather than for the information their words carry
How the speaker grammaticalizes the context of his utterance was discussed in the previous chapter. In the section dedicated to manipulation of deixis (see section 5.3), some examples were given of how the speaker (e.g. novelist or advertising copywriter) can manipulate deixis to accomplish certain real-world aims. Since pragmatic factors result from peoples interaction with the world, pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of
207
208
a phatic function1, i.e. the speaker often uses the language merely for keeping communication lines open [] and social relationships in good repair (Leech, 1981); in numerous cases, what one says is of lesser importance than the fact that one says it: not greeting, not inquiring about our interlocutor's well-being, or not congratulating him on his birthday, can be perceived as a virtual offence,2 i.e. non-communication of a polite attitude is viewed not only as the absence of that attitude, but as an aggressive attitude. According to another approach (Brown & Yule, 1983: 1-3), the communicative functions of language can be grouped into two basic categories3: the transactional function, i.e. using the language to express content and information; and the interactional function, i.e. using the language to express social relations, personal feelings and attitudes, etc. Matching the two approaches, Leechs neutral-informational function would correspond to Brown & Yules transactional function, while the interactional function would generally cover the other four categories. Indeed, people use language and other communicative systems to express content and information. But a great deal of human communication is interactional, rather than informative: in everyday conversations, much is said without any information conveyed. At parties, people tell jokes so as to attract attention and fill the time silence can be devastating, and listeners make all kind of interested noises (e.g. oh, hmm) either to take somehow part in the conversation, or simply to show that they are interested. With written texts, the transactional function of the language seems to be primordial; but letters are often written primarily for interactional purposes, too.
6.3
Speech acts
Austin, philosopher of the language at Oxford University, developed his ideas gradually, first in a series of lectures at Oxford, then at Harvard. His ideas were published posthumously in 1962, under the title How to Do Things With Words1. Austin developed his ideas in reaction to logical positivism and to truth-conditional semantics. Oxford-based logical positivists, such as Bertrand Russell, viewed everyday language as a rather debased vehicle, full of ambiguities, imprecision and contradictions and set out to refine language, removing its perceived imperfections and illogicalities (Thomas, 1995: 29) in the hope to create an ideal language hence the name ideal language philosophers. In response, Austin and his group2 argued that, no matter how deficient or defective language might be, it serves ordinary people perfectly well. Therefore, they suggested, instead of trying to rid the language of its imperfections, linguists should study the linguistic output of ordinary interactants, trying to understand how they manage to communicate so efficiently and economically. As a result, Austins group came to be known as ordinary language philosophers. Austin also reacted against the truth-conditional approach to semantics advocated by logical positivists. When Austin began developing his ideas, the focus in semantics fell exclusively on conceptual meaning and on the truth or falsehood of utterances (hence truth-conditional semantics). Logical positivists upheld the idea that a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or can be tested empirically. For example, A dog has four legs is true, and A ball is square is false, because the truth or falsehood of those utterances can be verified; but a statement such as, The king of France is bald is meaningless, because there is no king of France. Truth-conditional semantics also endeavoured to present the perceptions of native speakers regarding the consonance or anomaly of sense relations (see section 1.3.4).
In close connection with the functional potential of the language is the theory of speech acts, developed by the father of pragmatics4, J. L Austin.
1 1 2 3 4
The term was introduced by Malinowski, as phatic communion. The term was introduced by Goffman, 1967. Halliday uses the terms ideational (or reflective) and interpersonal (or active). Even though the works of other philosophers of the time, such as G.E. Moores, or Wittgensteins later works, contain similar views, Austins
great influence is probably due to the fact that he developed a consistent line of thought. At Austins sudden death in 1960, his ideas were still unpublished. The book was edited by his student J.O. Urmson, based on Austins lecture notes and recordings of the lectures. Among Austins group was also his student H.P. Grice whose theory of conversational implicature (see Chapter 7) took the study of pragmatics to a further level.
209
210 I absolve you from your sins I bet you five pounds
But Austin realized that, in ordinary communication, we often come across utterances which are false or illogical by the standards of truth-conditional semantics, yet they make perfect sense to ordinary communicators (e.g. the vast amount of figurative utterances in ordinary speech). He also noticed that people use the language in complex ways, to convey much more information than is carried by the semantic load of the words. It was mentioned before that Austin developed his theory of words as actions along two series of lectures. On the way, he often modified his views (whenever new examples contradicted his former assertions). But if we want to understand how and why pragmatics came into being, we should follow Austins course of thought. To begin with, Austin noticed that some1 utterances have no truth-condition at all, i.e. you simply cannot categorize them as true or false, so that he made a distinction between: Constatatives, e.g. He goes there every day; Im a student; The colour of that car is white; etc. Performatives, e.g. I apologize; I bet you $5; I name the child John; etc. A performative utterance is built with the help of a performative verb hence, Austins performative hypothesis. In the case of the former category, one can verify whether the statement is true or false (e.g. whether the car is actually white or not). With the latter category, though, one cannot say It is (not) true. Rather, such utterances are perceived as doing something, performing an action. Thus, Austin argued, people use the language not only to say things, but also to do things. In other words, utterances not only convey meanings, they can also perform actions. For example, by saying I apologise, the speaker expresses a meaning, and at the same time performs the action of apologising; by saying I promise to do it, he also performs the act of promising; the utterance I warn you! actually does the act of warning; etc. Austin identified several categories of performative verbs: o o o metalinguistic performatives: say, protest, declare, object, apologize, deny, promise, etc. ritual performatives: name, baptize, pronounce, absolve, sentence, etc. collaborative performatives: bet, challenge, bequeath, etc. I apologize for that
1
The fact that utterances can do things becomes obvious if we look at ritual performatives. Some utterances can actually perform official acts, e.g. by saying, I now pronounce you husband and wife!, or, I absolve you from your sins!, a priest can actually unite a couple in holly matrimony, and respectively, absolve a penitent from his sins. Austin termed the utterances that can perform actions, speech acts. For a speech acts to be successful, certain felicity conditions must be met. For example, in the case of the marriage ceremony, the person pronouncing the utterance must have the proper legal authority, the parties to be joined in matrimony must be present and willing to be united, the words must be the exact ones that are supposed to be uttered, etc. Similarly, if a person says to the other, I forgive you, he must truly want to forgive him. Failure to meet the felicity conditions will cause the action to misfire: the people will not be legally married if the person performing the ceremony does not have the legal right to perform the act; nor will the marriage be legal if the ceremony is performed on stage, during a theatrical performance; and there will be no forgiveness if the speaker who utters the words does not truly mean them; etc. In the first stage, Austin restricted the notion of speech acts to a relatively small set of utterances: affirmatives that contained a performative verb (e.g. say, declare, promise, etc.) in the active mood and simple present tense, with a first person singular subject, and suggested that performative utterances can be tested with the adverb hereby inserted between the subject and the verb, as in: I hereby apologize for that I hereby absolve you from your sins I hereby bet you five pounds At a later point, though, he realized that these conditions are not exclusive: performative utterances can have a first person plural or a group subject, and the verb can in the present continuous or passive etc., as in: Im (hereby) denying that The court (hereby) finds you not guilty Your employment is (hereby) terminated
At a later point, Austin realized that most utterances have no truth condition.
211
212
On the other hand, the fact that an utterance contains a performative verb is no guarantee that the action is performed, as in: I swear Ill kill you if you dont shut up Moreover, Austin realized that things can be done with the language without the respective performative verb, e.g. that you can apologize/congratulate someone by saying: I apologize Im so sorry I didnt mean to hurt you. Etc. Congratulations! You did it! Im so proud of you! Etc. As a result, Austin made a distinction between primary performatives (for those utterances which contain a performative verb) and secondary performatives (for those which do not). Levinson (1983) marks the distinction by proposing the terms explicit performatives and implicit performatives Furthermore, Austin noticed that, in daily communication, people often say one thing (i.e. their utterance performs one kind of act by its conceptual content) and mean another (i.e. by their intended meaning, they perform another type of act). For example, the teacher who says, I have no pen, seems to be stating a fact (i.e. performing the act of providing information); in fact, he is indirectly asking for a pen (i.e. performing the act of requesting). Or, if the speaker says, Youll be there on time!, his words (by their conceptual content) give us information concerning the receivers presence at a certain place and at a certain time; the real meaning (the action) of his utterance, though, is that of a warning (Be there, or youll be punished!). To accommodate those utterances which do one thing by means of another, the American linguist J.R. Searle proposed the term Indirect Speech Acts (ISA). At a later point, however, the idea of Indirect Speech Acts was discarded, linguists arguing that all speech acts are more or less indirect1. It must also be mentioned that many utterances have been lexicalized as performing other acts than those carried by their words. For example, Can you open the window? rarely functions as
a request for information concerning the persons ability to open the window; it is conventionally used as a request to actually open it.
6.3.1
Locution illocution perlocution
Austin suggested that a speech act works on three levels, or rather, that the speaker performs three distinctive kinds of acts: a locutionary act, consisting of the actual words uttered, with their sense and reference an illocutionary act, i.e. the action performed by the speaker by uttering those words, and a perlocutionary act, i.e. what is achieved by virtue of the force of the utterance, the real-world effect of the utterance. I have a headache
Take, for example, the utterance: o Its locution is the actual wording, whose meaning results from the conceptual and contextual meaning of the lexical chain, in this case, I + have + headache. Its illocution is the action performed by the speaker with the help of that locution, in this case, it may be a request to be given an aspirin. Its perlocution, i.e. the real-world effect the speaker accomplishes, in this case, he is (not) given an aspirin.
Austin himself abandoned the distinction between constatatives (statements) and performatives, considering that statements have a performative aspect, too.
In other words, locution regards the utterance proper: the lexical items the speaker uses and the way he organizes them to convey his message. The illocution (or illocutionary force, or simply force) of the utterance depends on the speakers intention, on what he wants to do with the help of his utterance. The perlocution is the real-world result that is accomplished. Perlocutionary effect is the reason which makes the speaker build up his utterance in a certain way, e.g. more or less indirectly, so as not to hurt his interlocutors feelings. Thus, locution depends on the speakers knowledge of the language and of the context of utterance, whose various aspects were discussed in the previous chapters. Perlocution pertains to the real world, so that it is not the object of linguistics. It is the role of illocution to bring together form and effect: the speaker, who has a clearly defined aim in mind, evaluates the situation and formulates his utterance in such a way as to serve best his real-world aim. Therefore, illocutionary force which regards language use and strategic communication is an essential feature of pragmatics.
213
214
The notion of illocutionary force explains how the speaker can convey more meaning than, or a meaning that is different from, the semantic load of his utterance. This is because the relationship between locution and force is complex. On the one hand, the speaker can endow the same utterance with various illocutionary forces, i.e. the same locution can be used to perform different speech acts (illocutions). For example, the utterance Can you do it? can be used as a mere question regarding the hearers ability to do something (illocutionary force: request for information), or as a request for the receiver to actually do it (illocutionary force: request for performance of an action). Or, by saying The door is open, the speaker can be making an observation (illocutionary force: giving information), a request for the receiver to close it (illocutionary force: request for an action), or as an urge that the receiver should leave the room (illocutionary force: a threat). On the other hand, the speaker can perform the same speech act by using different locutions1. For instance, I apologize and Im sorry both perform the act of apologising. Or, the three utterances Give me that pen!, Will you please give me that pen!, and I have no pen! have the illocutionary force of a request. In fact, the same locution can be used to perform opposite speech acts. For example, if the speaker says Great! in response to the receivers important achievement, the action he does is that of praising and congratulating. Conversely, if Great! is said in response to some mischief or failure, the action performed is that of criticising and scolding. Obviously, paralanguage (e.g. tone of voice, facial expression) has an important contribution in helping both the speaker in his performance of the speech act, and the receiver in his correct interpretation of the speakers intended meaning. Utterances are said to initiate actions: receivers interpret the illocutionary force of the speakers utterance and respond in a certain way (perlocutionary effect). For example, if your guest says she likes your salad very much, you will interpret it as a request for more and offer her another helping2.
Interpreting correctly the force of an utterance depends largely on the speech event or activity type1. The social situation, or the culturally recognized social activity going on, creates a certain framework of expectations. According to it, the hearer interprets the utterance, attributes a certain meaning and force to it, and reacts in a certain way. For example, if at a tea party (activity type), a lady tells another one, Thats a nice dress, the latter interprets it as a praise (its force) and will answer Thank you! (its perlocutionary effect). But if the same utterance is spoken by a lady customer in a shop (activity type), the shop-assistant will interpret it as a request to see/purchase it (its force), so that she will take it down and ask whether the lady would like to try it on (its effect). In the same way, a waiter serving you in the restaurant will interpret the utterance, I have no knife, as a complaint or a request for a knife; conversely, in a hold-up, the utterance is perceived as a request not to be hurt; nor will the police shoot if the robber holds up his arms and claims by uttering those words that he is unarmed.
6.3.2
Levels of meaning
The previous section has pointed out the idea that, between what the speaker says and what he means there may be a serious gap: the speaker may say I have no pen and mean Give me a pen, please; he may say I have no knife and mean Please dont shoot; he may say Thank you and mean I dont want it; etc. This is because texts convey meaning on three levels (Thomas, 1995: 2): an abstract/lexical meaning a contextual/utterance meaning, and the force of the utterance
In my book, Working with advertisements (2009) I have suggested the idea that all selling ads, no matter how they are formulated, perform the same speech act: that of urging us to buy. Your interpretation, though, may be incorrect: your guest doesnt want more salad, or perhaps she didnt even like your salad; she only wanted to be polite and say something nice, i.e. a linguistic strategy used for keeping social relations in good repair (see chapter 8).
When interpreting a text especially an ambiguous one the receiver must analyze it along the three levels, so as to pick out the speakers meaning (i.e. his communicative intention, the force of his utterance) from a whole range of possible meanings. At the level of abstract/lexical meaning (denotation), the hearer processes the dictionary meanings of the individual lexical items, identifies the cases of polysemy or homonymy, etc., and determines what the sentence could mean. For example, on reading the sentence (see also section 1.3.3.1) The customer has a right to clear information
1
The term speech event was introduced by Hymes. Levinson (1983: 368) considers that activity type is more comprehensive.
215
216
the receiver will first establish the dictionary meanings of the lexical items (customer + have + right), identifying the cases of polysemy (right and clear have at least two meanings) and of grammatical ambiguity (clear can be an adjective or a verb). In this case, the hearer will conclude that the sentence could mean Customers have a right to receive clear information, or to erase information. The second level, that of contextual (or utterance) meaning, implies assigning sense and reference to the individual elements in the utterance, as well as determining the best interpretation for the utterance in the given context. In this case, the receiver must first of all think of the discoursal context in which the utterance was produced: the text belongs to a site of the EU aimed at teaching customers of their rights (which also disambiguates the meaning of right = entitlement). In this context, the referent of the word information is data regarding products or services, their qualities, etc., so that the obvious contextual sense of clear is comprehensible, unambiguous (customers need to receive such information, not to erase it). The third level involves decoding the force of the utterance, i.e. the action performed by the speaker, his intended meaning. In the case of this text, the receiver understands that, in the context of consumer education, the utterance performs the speech act of informing him, a customer, of his right to be treated truthfully and respectfully by those who provide the goods he needs and who also benefit from his purchases. In the same way, on hearing the utterance I have no pen, the receiver first interprets the dictionary meaning of the words (which pose no problem to the competent speaker). Then he assesses the situational context, e.g. the speaker a teacher is preparing to write something; he is uttering those words in the presence of several of his students. Thirdly, the hearer asks himself why the speaker is uttering those words, what perlocutionary effect he wants to accomplish. As the desired effect is obvious, the receiver (each of the students present) will understand that the teachers intended meaning is Give me a pen, please, i.e. that his utterance has the force of a request. Whether the perlocutionary effect is accomplished or not (i.e. whether the teacher gets the pen or not) depends on several real-world factors, which do not pertain to the field of linguistics. Understanding correctly the force of speakers utterance is very important when the speaker words are completely different from what he means.
For example, John is told that he will have to work extra hours and he says, Im delighted; in fact, he is quite upset. In such cases, the first level of meaning is clear. It is the second level which makes the receiver doubt that Johns intended meaning coincides with that carried by the conceptual load of his words. The clues are provided by the nonlinguistic context: the speakers paralanguage (sarcastic tone of voice and facial expression), the interlocutors shared background knowledge (the receiver knows that the speaker wants to get home early to his wife and children), the setting (it is Friday night), etc. Having decoded the contextual meaning of Johns utterance, the receiver can get to the third level and interpret the speakers intended meaning, i.e. what he wants to do with his words. In this case, Johns communicative intention is obvious: by the irony of his words, he wants to express his utter dislike of the situation and to criticise his boss. Identifying the speakers intended meaning and the force of his utterance is not always easy. Take, for instance, the utterance where the speaker is complaining about his headache: the receiver has no problem in assigning sense to the individual words (have, headache), and the referent of I is also obvious. Furthermore, if the utterance comes in face-to-face conversation, the situational context is also obvious: a common physical location (e.g. at home); an activity in which they are both involved (e.g. doing homework), the paralanguage is obvious (complaining tone of voice), etc. And yet, the receiver may not be able to identify the speakers communicative intention or its illocutionary force: is he asking for help? asking for an Aspirin? asking to be excused? trying to get out of a job he does not like? Etc.
6.4
Indirectness
In social interactions, people do not do and do not say things at random, but always with a more or less clear aim in their mind: we provide information because we know/think our interlocutor needs it; we congratulate him because we are pleased with his success, or simply because we know he would feel hurt if we did not; at parties we tell jokes because we want to make a good impression, or simply to avoid silence; etc. Nor do people always say things directly and straightforwardly: the examples above show clearly that there is often a serious gap between what the speaker says and what he means.
217
218
In the pragmatics of communication, participants use indirectness so as to say more, or to convey a meaning that is in some way different from the meaning of the utterance. Weizman1 (1989) describes indirectness as a lack of transparency, in the sense that the speakers message does not convey its meaning in an obvious and unambiguous way. But it is important to understand that, as a pragmatic phenomenon, indirectness is not just a non-intentional lack of transparency. [] The key notion here is that of intended exploitation of a gap between the speakers meaning and the utterance meaning (Weizman, 1989: 73, original emphasis). Surveying the way ordinary communicators use the language for every-day purposes, linguists realized that indirectness is a typical feature of ordinary communication.
6.4.1
Speech acts and indirectness
It was mentioned in section 6.3 that the same speech act can be performed by uttering various locutions, that speech acts can be more or less indirect. In the following list of utterances, Open the window Will you open the window? / Would you open the window? Can you open the window? / Could you open the window? Wouldnt/Couldnt you please open the window? I really hate to bother you, but would you mind terribly if I asked you to open the window? Its quite hot in here, dont you think? each is more indirect than the one before it. The first utterance is the most straightforward: it gives voice to the speech act (a request) with the help of an imperative verb. But whether or not please is added, imperative utterances are perceived as rather rude, so that they are generally avoided. The following two utterances enquire about the receivers willingness to open the window, the difference between the two forms being that would is perceived as more polite than will. The utterances containing can/could are more indirect: they no longer enquire about the receivers willingness, but about his ability to open the window. The difference between can and could encodes again a further degree of politeness.
The negation added to the modal verb (Couldnt/Wouldnt you) confers even more tentativeness, thus, more politeness, to the request: the speaker does not take it for granted that the speaker can/wants to perform the action (see also section 8.2.2 Negative politeness). The next utterance presents the request in an indirect and very polite way: the select lexis and complex grammatical structure make the style formal, so that the request sounds elegant and tentative, rather than directive. In fact, by introducing a conditional if, the speaker practically avoids making a request: he seems to say, Im not asking you, but if I did, would you mind terribly? The last utterance is completely indirect: the speaker does not even mention the window which he wants opened, he merely mentions the fact that the situation is not exactly as it should be. The final question tag seems to invite the listener to express his own opinion; in fact, it invites him to make inferences regarding the senders actual meaning. Indirectness is often triggered by the speakers desire to make his message more interesting and enhance its effectiveness. All figurative language is basically indirect. Euphemism, irony, jokes, etc. are more likely to attract the listeners attention and/or dispose him favourably in the direction of fulfilling the speakers wish. In the case of irony or banter, the speakers words can mean the exact opposite of what he means. For example, he may say Im delighted when in fact he is quite upset; or, he may say Youre horrible! and actually mean Youre great! In the first case, the speakers words convey a positive meaning, while the force of his utterance is negative. In the second, the lexical meaning of the utterance is negative, while its force is positive. Obviously, what counts is the speakers intention, which is carried by the illocutionary force of his words, not by the words themselves. Thus, indirectness, as an intrinsic feature of strategic communication, involves a gap between what the speaker says and what he means. The speaker can use a variety of forms more or less indirect to perform the same speech act. In terms of grammatical construction, indirect utterances generally have a more complex sentential structure. The direct imperative formulation is the simplest. Modal constructions (of the can/could you or will/would you type), or modal negatives (of the Couldnt/Wouldnt you type) conventionally signal indirect requests and function as clues for requestive interpretation. Carefully
Quoted by Thomas, Meaning in Interaction, 1995: 133.
219
220
worded, long and intricate utterances (e.g. I really hate to bother you. Would you mind if I used your phone?) give voice to the speakers feeling that he is asking for some favour. Tag questions appended to the utterance complicate its structure, but at the same time, reduce social distance by involvement of the receiver in the act. But lexical and grammatical complexity is not necessarily a sign of deference: if the speaker wants to make fun of his employee, he may phrase his utterance very pompously, saying the opposite of what he means, e.g. Its so kind of you to finally make your appearance. The illocutionary force of indirect utterances is often unclear: it is up to the receiver to decide how to interpret it. Leech (1977: 99) suggests that the rhetoric of speech acts often encourages ambivalence: Would you like to come in and sit down?, depending on the situation, could be an invitation, a request or a directive. Or, more important, it could be deliberately poised on the uncertain boundary between all three. Linguists insist that it is often in the speakers interest, and in the interest of politeness, to allow the precise force of speech acts to remain unclear (Leech, 1977: 99). It is also in the receivers interest that the force of utterance should be negotiable. For example, the speaker who needs to borrow some money is unlikely to approach his interlocutor with a direct Give me $1000!, not only because such an address is rather rude, but also because he knows that, to obtain the money, he must gain his interlocutors good will. On the other hand, the speaker tries to avoid both having to ask for a big favour and the possibility of being rejected both of which are perceived as terribly unpleasant. Conversely, if the request is formulated with Can/Could you?, it gives some space to both the receiver who can say politely, Im sorry, I cant! and to the speaker himself who understands that the receivers refusal is due to the latters inability, not to his lack of volition. If, on the other hand, the speaker begins by saying that Im going out of my, Ive got to pay the last instalment for the house by Friday and theres also Johns hospital bill (no request is actually formulated), the receiver is allowed to understand the force of his utterance correctly (and give him the money), or simply (pretend) not (to) understand it. In such cases, neither the speaker nor the receiver has any reason for embarrassment: since there was no request, there can be to refusal.
Thus, if the speaker employs this last variant, he does so specifically and intentionally, i.e. he uses the language strategically so as to achieve so real-world aim or to avoid negative consequence. What tells him how (in)directly to formulate his message is his assessment of the situational context and the real-world aim he wants to accomplish. Thomas (1995) warns that indirectness is both costly and risky. It is costly, because it involves greater effort on the part of the speaker, who must construct his position carefully and still obtain the desired results. It is also costly to the hearer, who must make an effort of interpretation regarding the speakers communicative intentions. On the other hand, indirectness is risky due to the gap between what the speaker says and what he actually means. As a result, the receiver may not understand (or may not want to understand) the illocutionary force of the speakers utterance. Indirectness is also risky when exploited for the sake of interestingness. For example, if person A asks B how he likes his new office building and the latter answers, Its like the Pompidou Museum1 (instead of saying simply I like/dont like it), A must not only visualize the building to see where the similarities may lie, but also make guesses whether the speaker is praising the building or criticizing it. Indirectness is a universal phenomenon: all over the world people indulge in complex strategies of roundabout speech. Nevertheless, indirectness also implies important individual and especially cultural differences. For example, Americans consider a direct, straightforward approach honest, therefore recommended; conversely, Asian cultures insist on elaborate strategies of indirectness.
6.4.2
Factors that govern indirectness
It was shown in section 6.3.1 that the speaker can perform the same speech act with the help of various locutions, e.g. Help me!, Could you give me a hand here?, or This bag is too heavy for me! are only some of the ways in which the speaker can request for help. The difference between them is that each in the succession is more indirect than the one before it. The question then arises, what are the considerations that make the speaker decide upon the required degree of indirectness of his speech act? Linguists have dedicated a lot of time and
A rather strange and heatedly debated construction.
221
222
energy to identifying the reasons for the intricate ways communicators use the language. Analysing the linguistic behaviour of ordinary communicators, linguists have reached the conclusion that the factors that govern indirectness are universal, i.e. they capture the types of consideration likely to govern pragmatic choices in any culture (Thomas, 1995: 124), but the way they are applied and exploited in communicative exchanges varies. Thomas (1995: 124) suggests that the indirectness of utterances is governed by four main factors1: 1. The relative power (P) of the speaker over the hearer. 2. The social distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer. 3. The degree to which X is rated (R) an imposition in culture Y; 4. Relative rights and obligations between the speaker and the hearer.
The speaker looks up at or fears people who possess one or another type of power. As a result he will formulate his request more tentatively, i.e. indirectly. For example, in: I was wondering if you could perhaps tell me the speaker avoids a direct (imperative) request by questioning the act (I was wondering), by using the past (was), by lowering the modality of his utterance (modal could, not would), by introducing an additional low-modality marker (perhaps), by using a soft and tentative tone of voice, etc.
6.4.2.2
Social distance
6.4.2.1
Power
The relative power of the receiver over the speaker (P) such as exercised by the father over his son, by the teacher over his student, the employer over his employee, or the role model over his fan is an essential factor for explaining the degree of indirectness that the speaker uses to address his interlocutor. That is, it has been noticed that people use a greater degree of indirectness with people who have some power or authority over them. Power can rely on considerations of age, education, authority, social position, etc. Power is of several types2: Coercive power is in the hands of those who have access to instruments of coercion and who can punish. Reward power involves the ability to offer the speaker things he might want: a job, money, grades, etc. Legitimate power is an asset of the person who has the right to prescribe or request certain things by virtue of his role, age, status, etc., e.g. parents are legal guardians and providers. Referent power belongs to those whom you admire: role models, actors, politicians. Expert power is an asset of the person who has special knowledge or expertise in a certain field, e.g. a teacher, a doctor, or a scientist.
The social distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer is another sociological factor that determines the degree of indirectness employed by the speaker to address his partner in the conversational exchange. Social distance relies on the participants relative social status and position (e.g. employer-employee, teacher-student), but it also derives from considerations of age, sex, degree of intimacy, etc., e.g. whether the employer is young and a close personal friend or a senior citizen whom you have just met. Together these factors determine the speakers attitude and respectfulness towards the addressee. Language mirrors social distance in the choice of vocabulary and formality of style. We can distinguish several levels of social distance, namely: Intimate language i.e. the kind of language used in the family and among close friends is minimally articulated, most of the message being carried by half words and non-verbal expressions. Personal language i.e. the type of language used by peers and close co-workers is casual and colloquial, often slangy, and non-verbal expression still carries much of the message. Social language i.e. the language used by distant coworkers and chance acquaintances is formal, but it can still be casual and easy-going. Public language i.e. the language of official encounters, of formal addresses and speeches, the language used to address people you are unlikely to meet personally is written out in advance even when spoken; it is fully articulated and explicit, the vocabulary is formal, the syntax is complex, etc.
Brown & Levinson ([1978] 1987) refer to only three factors: relative power (P), social distance (D) and rating or ranking of imposition (R). Thomas (1995: 126-7), quoting Spencer-Oateys doctoral thesis (1992).
223
224
Formality (see also section 3.2), as reflected in the linguistic choices made by the speaker, is a sign of deference (as opposed to familiarity). Degrees of deference are expressed with the help of deference markers (e.g. address forms or honorifics Professor, Doctor, Your Lordship/Ladyship, Your Honour, etc.), lexical choice and formality of style, and are also built into the grammar of the language, e.g. in the pronominal system (the T/V distinction). Since in English the opposition familiar/deferential is unmarked in the pronominal system, English speakers signal deference at many other linguistic levels: phonetic (careful pronunciation and intonation as opposed to non-standard, stigmatized usage); semantic (choice of lexis); pragmatic (manipulation of indirectness); discoursal (granting high P speakers more speaking time, non-interruption, etc.) etc. It is often difficult to distinguish between power and social distance, as they usually co-occur: generally, a marked power difference (high P) also involves social distance (high D). For example, an employer-employee relationship involves both relative power and social distance. And a high P person uses social language, and so do high D speakers. It may also seem paradoxical that there is a great similarity between the language used in cases of marked power difference (high P) and that employed in relationships of equality and intimacy (low D). Both generate bald statements and commands, physical proximity without apology, the broaching of intimate subject matters, interruption and abrupt topic switch (Cook, 1992: 151). For example, the high P person can use a direct imperative (Hand me that!) without having to fear the consequences; not do low D situations require a lot of indirectness. Conversely, there is a difference between deference (high P) and mutual formality (high D). In the first case, the speaker considers his interlocutor superior and worthy of his respect, so that he constructs his speech very carefully and employs a high degree of indirectness (i.e. implying rather that saying things). The second persons attitude will probably be much more informal and straightforward, as the latter acknowledges his own superior status. With mutual formality, the two persons are socially distant and the participants formality and indirectness results from their desire to preserve social distance, from their refusal of informality and intimacy. Register and deference are sociolinguistic phenomena. In deciding upon the formality of their address, speakers have little choice: they have to go along with the unwritten laws of the
society they live in. For example, in French as in Romanian, the choice between the T/V pronoun variants is compulsory, strictly regulated by sociolinguistics norms. The speakers choice reflects his estimation regarding his place and role in the linguistic exchange, as regulated by social conventions. The rule cannot be broken unless the speaker is willing to risk social sanction. But speakers can manipulate the language so as to affect and change the receivers perception of the P and D factors and thus change participant relationships. Power and social distance are not pre-determined: nobody can say exactly, how superior/inferior or how distant/close his interlocutor is. Power and social distance are negotiated by the interlocutors along the communicative exchange, i.e. the speakers formality of style, paralanguage, attitude, etc., will influence the receivers perception of the relative P and D. For example, if a high P (a boss) tells his employee, Call me Chuck! he does so in order to reduce social distance and make the latter feel at ease. The D factor can be reduced in the opposite direction also: if a high P person uses the polite pronoun to address a low P person, his aim is to make the latter feel important and respected. In other cases, speakers manipulate the D factor to their own advantage. For example, a low D speaker may address his higher D interlocutor by his first name; if the latter does not object, the attempt was successful; but if he continues to call the speaker by his last name, it shows that he refuses to reduce D (i.e. he does not want to be on familiar terms with him). By the force of his words, and especially of his paralanguage, an equal P speaker can force him into a low P status: the receiver is so inhibited that he cannot assess the social distance accurately.
6.4.2.3
Size of imposition
Another factor that governs indirectness is the size (or rating) of imposition (R): the speaker formulates his utterance more or less (in)directly depending on how great he estimates his request to be, or how seriously he considers he is intruding into the receivers personal life. To estimate the size of ones imposition, let us consider Goffmans (1967) categorization of free and non-free goods1. According to this, free goods are those that are freely available (i.e. no payment financial or other is required for them), e.g.
1
See also section 4.2.2 Clause as exchange.
225
226
asking for the salt in a restaurant, or using someones bathroom. In such cases the speaker does not need to make his request too polite; a direct, Pass me the salt, please! will do. But even in such situations the speaker may be tempted to utter a more intricate sentence (e.g. Would you kindly pass me the salt?), or really indirect ones (e.g. My steak is not salty enough). Such indirectness may be triggered by considerations of politeness. The activity type and the situation of the linguistic exchange greatly influence the status of the goods (i.e. free or non-free) and, consequently, the R factor. Thus, at home, you can ask for some more food without imposing you consider it natural and your right. But if you are a guest for lunch, you cannot ask for another helping without risking consequences, whether in the form of embarrassing your host (who has no more food to offer), or of a silent disapproval by the other guests. Lakoff (1974) points out that the term goods does not refer exclusively to material objects; it can also include the category of services. For example, asking someone to tell you the time or to show you the way to the station involves no material object to be handed over. In such cases, the cost your interlocutor will have to pay in order to satisfy your request is the effort necessary for carrying out the act. Nevertheless, in this case, too, the size of imposition is calculable and it depends directly on the relative power and social distance between the interlocutors, on the situation and activity type, etc. Thus, a student interrupting the professors lecture and asking him what the time is will have to bear the consequences of his highly inappropriate act, although the service requested is ranked among the category of free goods. Size of imposition is also culturally determined. There are cultures that favour high involvement, i.e. it is nice to inquire about your interlocutors family and occupation. Others give preference to non-involvement and consider questions concerning ones personal life and affairs rather intrusive. That is why people, and especially students of foreign languages, have to learn how to use the language appropriately, so as not to make blunders in the target language environment.
but if a host wants her elderly guest to stand up so that she can open the door behind her, an indirect utterance (e.g. Would you mind terribly if I asked you to move over a bit?) is a better choice. On the other hand, the speakers indirectness also depends on his estimation whether the act belongs to his interlocutors duties, or the latter will have to do him a favour. For example, if you are in a shop and want to see a certain item that you may want to buy, you will simply ask the shop assistant, Show me that lamp, please!1 But if you are visiting someones home, and would like to see a particular object that you heard was very valuable, you must phrase your request indirectly (I was wondering, could I see that exquisite lamp of yours Ive heard so much about?), because showing it to you does not represent your hosts duty. Obviously, the overall indirectness of an utterance results from the speakers estimation of the composite value of the four factors. For example, if a middle aged lady wants to ask a young man in the street to give her some change for a slot machine, she will have to make her request indirect (e.g. Im terribly sorry to bother you but couldnt you by any chance ) because, although he is low P (male and younger), there is high D (they are total strangers), he has nothing to gain from the act of giving her what she is asking for (it is a high cost request), and she is asking for a favour. Conversely, if the young man, on noticing that the lady needs some change, offers her some, he may say simply Let me give you some!, because he is providing a service (very low R) which is not his duty. In conclusion, the way people use and interpret the language is affected by factors pertaining to the communicators knowledge of the world and of society, as well as of the unwritten laws that govern linguistic exchanges, which are pragmatic by nature. Pragmatic knowledge relies on context-dependent aspects of language structure, but also on principles of language usage and interpretation.
Even in such a case you may be tempted to say, Could you please show me that lamp? or Id like to see that lamp, so as to avoid the act of requesting (people do not like to ask for a favour).
6.4.2.4
Rights and obligations
The degree of indirectness the speaker estimates as required for his utterance also depends on whether he is asking for something that he considers to be his right, or is asking for a favour. For example, in class the teacher is entitled to give certain orders to his students, so that a direct Stand up! is appropriate;
228

the meaning of a word, approach its lower, stable, selfidentical limit, want, in effect, to turn on a light bulb after having switched off the current. Only the current verbal intercourse endows a word with the light of meaning.
Chapter 7
Cooperation and inferential communication

7.1 Meaning in interaction
The previous chapters have led us to three non-exclusive descriptions of pragmatic meaning. They have shown that pragmatic meaning involves: knowledge of the world (Chapter 1) language in context (Chapter 4) language in use (Chapter 6)
It was also shown in Chapter 6 that the actual meaning of an utterance can be quite different from that carried by the lexical meanings of its words, and that no matter how the speaker might formulate his utterance, what matters is his communicative intention. Thus, meaning is not inherent in the vocabulary alone. The overall meaning of the speakers message depends on the meaning potential of its individual items, but it is also influenced by concrete factors of the situational context. Thirdly, there is also the illocutionary force of the utterance, which results from the speakers communicative intention. To bridge the gap that exists between the speakers words and the force of his utterance, the listener must make use of his own linguistic, pragmatic and psychological abilities, and at the same time, take into consideration the main features of the conversation going on. This leads us to the conclusion that meaning or rather, making meaning is a dynamic process. The approach to meaning as a dynamic thing is not new; it was already suggested in the late 1920s, by the Russian linguist and literary theorist Bakhtin1, who said:
Meaning does not reside in the word or in the soul of the speaker or in the soul of the listener. Meaning is the effect of interaction between speaker and listener produced via the material of a particular sound complex. It is like an electric spark that occurs only when two different terminals are hooked together. Those who [], in attempting to define
In the same way, Thomas (1995: 22-3) considers that meaning is not [] produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer alone. Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance. Negotiation of meaning is a metaphor which recalls the marketplace, where the seller sets a price for his wear (usually higher than its true value), the buyer retaliates by offering a price that is much lower (probably lower than its worth), etc., until they finally reach a sum that is acceptable for both. In the same way, in communication, the two communicators bargain until they finally settle upon a mutually agreeable set of ideas. Such meaning negotiation is induced by the typical features of face-to-face communication time pressure, a rapid change of roles (the speaker becomes hearer, then again speaker, etc.), the existence of a non-linguistic context, the need to capture the interlocutors attention, etc. which induce the all kind of information gaps. One such type of gap are the missing links (discussed in 1.2.3 Pragmatic meaning): relying on his interlocutors supposed knowledge of the world and on a mutual background, the speaker leaves a lot of factual information unsaid, to be filled in by the receiver. Another type of gap is that between adjacent utterances (see section 4.5.1 Text and textness). To illustrate the gap between two adjacent utterances, Levinson (1983: 97) gives the following example: A: Can you tell me the time? B: Well, the milkman has come The two utterances seem to be completely unrelated: Bs words do not seem to come in reply to As question. Nevertheless, A interprets them as a meaningful answer: he understands that B does not know what the time is but, in his desire to be helpful, he is offering some information that might serve his interlocutor as a clue for the information he needs, i.e. the milkmans round usually follows an exact time schedule, so the information that he has already been around can provide the approximate time.
Quoted by Cook, 1992: 182, original emphasis.
Chapter 7: Cooperation and inferential communication Or, in the exchange (Levinson, 1983: 102), A: Where is Bill? B: Theres a yellow VW outside Sues house
229
230
the second sentence does not seems related to the first. And yet, person A will interpret Bs answer as providing the information required: he will infer that the car is the very place where John is. The examples also illustrate a third type of gap, i.e. that between what the speaker says and what he means (says: Theres a yellow VW; means: Hes in that yellow VW). This type of gap was discussed with relation to speech acts (see section 6.2): the speakers words say one thing, but the illocutionary force of the utterance conveys another meaning. The gap between the lexical meaning of the utterance and the speakers intended meaning results from the strategies of indirectness (see section 6.4) the speaker employs for achieving various real-world goals. Considerations of social distance, or the speakers desire to be interesting, may urge him to avoid direct reference, hence he will prefer to hint (imply), rather than express things plainly and straightforwardly. To explain how by means of shared rules of conversation, competent language-users manage to understand one another (Thomas 1995: 56), Grice proposed his Cooperative Principle with its four maxims of conversation.
7.2
Indirectness and implicature
H.P. Grices (1913-1988) theory of conversational implicature (or simply, implicature) is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983: 97). Grice, who was first Austins student, then worked with Austin at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s, belonged to the same tradition of ordinary language philosophy. Grice first presented his theory of implicature in a series of lectures he delivered at Harvard in 1967. In 1975, he published it in Logic and conversation, and expanded it in 1978 and 1981, but he never fully developed it. Just like Austin, Grice reacted against the limitations of truthconditional semantics and against the views of ideal language philosophers (in the tradition of Frege, Russell and Tarski), offering functional explanations to linguistic phenomena. What Grice attempted to do was to reconcile the views of ideal language philosophers, who viewed language as a formal system, with those of ordinary language philosophers, whose object of study was natural language, i.e. actual linguistic usage.
On the other hand, Grice tried to relieve the semantics of natural language of whatever can be best explained at the pragmatic level (Sperber & Wilson, 2005: 471). Ordinary language philosophers considered that there was an unbridgeable gap between the semantics of formal languages and that of natural languages. Grice argued that the gap could be considerably reduced if a clear cut distinction was made between sentence meaning and speakers meaning. Then the linguist could explain how, in context, relatively simple utterances could be used by speakers to convey richer and fuzzier meanings, consisting not only of what was said, but also of what was implicated. This, according to Sperber & Wilson (2005: 468), represents the foundation of modern pragmatics. Thus, just like Austin, Grice was interested in the intentionally produced gap between what the speaker says and what he means, i.e. between the literal meaning of an utterance and the speakers intended meaning. But they investigated the phenomenon from different perspectives. Austin was interested in the action performed by the speaker by means of his utterance, i.e. its illocutionary force. As a result, the theory of speech acts focuses exclusively on the speakers ability to convey some additional meaning (says: Theres a yellow VW; means: Bill is in that yellow VW), or some meaning that is different from the logical meaning of his words (says: Im delighted!; means: Im terribly upset!). Grice accepted the idea that the speaker indirectly conveys more meaning than what is carried by the semantic load of his words, or a meaning that is different from it, and he agreed that the speaker produces his own (intended) meaning. But unlike Austin, Grice insisted that the hearer, too, produces his own meaning. In the felicitous cases, the receivers meaning coincides with that of the speaker (in the cases mentioned above, the hearer understands that Bill is in that yellow VW, respectively, that the speaker is quite upset). In other cases, though, he may misunderstand the speakers intended meaning. Thus, Grice argued, for a theory that wants to explain how communication works and how meaning circulates between a sender and a receiver who interact with the help of the language, a further dimension must be added: that of the receiver, who must make an effort to interpret the speakers words and intentions. For discussing the contributions of the two parties to the communicative exchange, Grice proposed two sets of conceptual
Chapter 7: Cooperation and inferential communication
231
232
tools: to imply/implicature for the speaker, and respectively, to infer/to make inferences for the hearer. The speaker, Grice suggested, rarely puts his ideas into words directly. In most cases, he intentionally implies (or implicates) more meaning than is carried by the conceptual content of his words, or a meaning that is totally different from it. To cover this intentionally conveyed additional communicative load, Grice proposed the term conversational implicature, or simply, implicature. In his turn, the receiver who wants to determine correctly the speakers intended meaning must make inferences (educated guesses) as to what the speaker actually wanted to say. To retrieve the additional communicative load, the hearer must not only process the utterance itself, but also take into consideration the significant features of the situational context. In short, focussing on both parties that take part in the communicative act, Grices theory of implicature attempts to explain how implicatures are generated by the speaker and how they are interpreted by the hearer.
Grice based his Cooperative Principle on the idea that communicators are rational individuals who use the language in a cooperative way. The participants in the exchange cooperate, i.e. they behave along well defined (though unwritten) lines that govern communication. In these cooperative exchanges, speakers imply/implicate more information than what they actually say by virtue of the literal meaning of their words, and listeners interpret this additional information by virtue of the inferences they make concerning that additional message. The Co-operative Principle says:
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.
7.3 Cooperation and inferential communication

In a theory outlined before that of implicature, Grice proposed the notion meaning-nn (non-natural), i.e. a meaning the speaker intends the hearer to recognize as having been intended. The theory of implicature relies exactly on such types of meanings, conveyed indirectly and specifically by the speaker, with the intention of being recognized by the receiver as intended meaning. But the theory of implicature is much more complex than that. A theory of how people use language, it is based on the idea that there is a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation. These arise, it seems, from basic rational considerations and may be formulated as guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation to further co-operative ends (Levinson, 1983: 101). Grices Cooperative Principle explains, among other things, how and why interlocutors interpret adjacent sentences that seem to be unrelated as meaningful and belonging to the same discourse. It also gives an account of how the receiver manages to retrieve the whole communicative content of the utterance by bridging the gap between what is said (the expressed/literal meaning) and what is meant (the implied/intended meaning).
It is interesting to note that Grice formulated the Cooperative Principle and its Maxims in the form of imperative sentences (Make your contribution !). This, however, does not mean that he, the philosopher of the language, is telling the speaker how to behave in conversation. Rather, it is a sort of internal monologue, e.g. as though the speaker is repeating to himself some unwritten rule according to which he knows he should behave, e.g. I should try to make my contribution . In other words, the Principle tells us that, to contribute with maximal efficiency to a conversation, the speaker should speak: in the way it is required, e.g. he should try to say what his interlocutor needs to know at the moment when it is required, e.g. when his interlocutor needs to know it, and according to the purpose or direction of the conversation going on, i.e. because his interlocutor needs that specific piece of information. But Grice does not want to suggest that speakers always behave in this way. In most ordinary conversations, the speaker does not spell out all the information he wants to convey, nor does he convey the information directly and straightforwardly. The additional information is merely implied, i.e. conveyed by means of conversational implicature. For instance, in the exchange: A: Did Jane buy those shoes? B: Well, the moneys gone B does not say anything about shoes; and yet, his utterance represents his cooperative contribution to the linguistic exchange, an attempt to provide the information required: since he does not
233
234
know for sure whether Jane bought the shoes or not, he is offering some information that may serve A as a clue. Obviously, the utterance conveys only part of the speakers meaning by its logical content: what the speaker says is that [pragmatically interpreted particle]1 there is no more money What the speaker means is:
which probably means that Jane bought the shoes

This additional meaning represents the speakers implicature. On the other side of the communicative exchange is the cooperative receiver. On receiving an answer which seems to be unrelated to his own question/request, the hearer does not discard it as meaningless. In most ordinary kinds of talk [], when talk does not proceed according to their specifications, hearers assume that, contrary to appearances, the principles are nevertheless adhered to at some deeper level (Levinson, 1983: 102). This shows again that Grice does not mean that people always follow the principle on a superficial level; rather, he suggests that, whenever it is possible, receivers consider that what was said respects the provisions of the principle on some deeper level. In other words, no matter how strange or unrelated to the conversation the speakers utterance might be, the hearer still assumes that his interlocutor is a rational being who is contributing cooperatively to the exchange. As a result, he makes inferences to work out the speakers actual meaning. To do so, he asks himself a set of four questions: why is my interlocutor saying this very thing right now, and to me? For the examples above: why is B talking about money, now when I am asking him about the shoes? Or why is B talking about the milkman when I am asking him about the time? Making the correct inferences, the receiver bridges the gap between the speakers words and his intended meaning, and also between the two adjacent utterances. Let us analyse from this perspective three of the utterances in the list of locutions presented in section 6.4.1: Open the window! Could you open the window? Its quite hot in here, dont you think?
The imperative Open the window! carries the speakers intended meaning as directly as possible. In this case, what the speaker says coincides with what he means. In the question Could you open ?, the speaker is asking the hearer politely if he is able to open the window; in fact, the illocutionary force of his utterance is that of a request. This means that the utterance carries some additional meaning: the implicature, If you are (able), then please do it. The last utterance in the series is entirely (and strategically) indirect. What the speaker says is that it is warm in the room; what he means, however, is completely different. Having the same illocutionary force as the previous example, the two utterances also carry similar implicatures: Please open the window! This also shows that implicatures are not semantic inferences, but rather inferences based on both the content of what has been said and some specific assumptions about the co-operative nature of ordinary interaction (Levinson, 1983: 104). The Co-operative Principle is detailed in four maxims of Quality, of Quantity, of Relevance and of Manner each with one or several sub-maxims. They describe in more detail how the speaker generally behaves (or how he should behave) in ordinary communicative exchanges, and what expectations the receiver has when interpreting the speakers words so as to draw the right inferences.
1. The maxim of Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically (i) do not say what you believe to be false (ii) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence 2. The maxim of Quantity (i) make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange (ii) do not make your contribution more informative than required 3. The maxim of Relevance Make your contributions relevant 4. The maxim of Manner Be perspicuous, and specifically: (i) avoid obscurity (ii) avoid ambiguity (iii) be brief (iv) be orderly
The particle well is discussed in section 7.4 Types of implicature.
235
236
Grice also suggested that the speaker can contribute cooperatively to the discourse in two major ways: o o by observing1 the maxims, and by deliberately flouting (violating, breaching) the maxims.
The same thing happens when there is an information gap between two adjacent utterances, as in: A: Do you have a pen? B: Look on my desk Semantically, As utterance represents a question whether B has a pen or not; pragmatically, it implicates if you do, please give it to me (illocutionary force: request). B amplifies As utterance and makes the correct inference, i.e. that A is asking for a pen. When his turn comes to become speaker, B conveys his intended meaning indirectly, too: he implicates that I know/think that on my desk there is a pen and you can take it. In doing so, both speakers abide by the maxim of Quality: A is asking for a pen because he (probably) needs one; B is offering (information regarding) a pen that he knows/thinks is on his desk.
7.3.1
Observing the maxims
When observing the maxims, the speaker contributes directly and straightforwardly to the conversation, providing as much information as is required, at the time when it is required, speaking truthfully, clearly and unambiguously, etc. Still, he may implicate some additional meaning. To get to the speakers intended meaning, the rational and cooperative hearer, who assumes that the speaker is following the maxims, amplifies what has been said and makes inferences regarding that additional meaning. For implicatures that result when the speaker follows the maxims, Levinson (1983: 104) proposed the term standard implicatures.
7.3.1.2
Observing the maxim of Quantity
7.3.1.1
Observing the maxim of Quality
The maxim of Quantity suggests that the speaker generally says neither less nor more than is required within the conversation. For example, the utterance: Today is sunny implies that on the day of the utterance, the sun is shining and there are no clouds. The maxim of Quantity explains how the pragmatic context can endow the semantic content of words with additional features. For example, in the exchange: A: Do you have children? B: I have a son a son in Bs utterance implies only one son, or no more than one, although semantically, in the absence of the word only, the utterance could accept I have a son, if fact, I have three (sons), or and I also have a daughter. Traditionally, when faced with such examples, semanticists had a problem to solve: semantically, sunny means that the sun is shining, but that does not exclude the existence of some clouds in the sky. In the same way, conceptually, having a son does not exclude having several sons/children. As a result, semanticists would differentiate between the meaning of wholly sunny and partially sunny, between one and only one. With the help of Grices maxims, this puzzle of semanticists could be solved. As Levinson (1983: 99) puts it,
The maxim of Quality suggests that, for efficient communication, the speaker should tell the truth (or at least to believe sincerely in the truth of what he is saying), that he should not say things that he believes to be false (sub-maxim 1), that he should refrain from saying things for which he lacks adequate evidence (sub-maxim 2). For example, when the speaker says, Hes at home right now he is supposed to know for a fact, or at least to believe so, that the person mentioned is at home; were he not certain of it, he would use a modal verb (He may be at home), or some hedging expression (Well, perhaps). In the absence of such clues, the utterance thus carries the implicature I believe he is at home and I have adequate evidence that he is. Similarly, when hearing the speaker say, John got married last night the receiver assumes that the speaker knows it is so, e.g. because he was at the wedding, or because he got reliable information.
A term proposed by Levinson (1983: 104), after Grices flouting.
237
238
from this set of dilemmas the notion of implicature offers a way out, for it allows one to claim that natural language expressions do tend to have simple, stable and unitary senses (in many cases anyway), but that this stable semantic core often has an unstable, context-specific pragmatic overlay namely a set of implicatures.
The maxim of Quantity also suggests that the speaker makes the strongest statement possible. For example, on hearing the utterance: He had an accident and broke his arm the receiver makes the inference no more than a broken arm, he did not die. This is because, according to the maxim, the speaker is expected to make the most powerful and informative assertion possible (in this case, the worst thing that happened). The degree of informativeness of ones message contains further implicatures. If the speaker says more than necessary, the listener is tempted to read more into the utterance than what has been said.
With such considerations in mind, A assumes that relevance holds, i.e. that the two utterances belong to the same text; that B is implying more meaning than is carried by his words, a meaning that is related to the question/request that he has made. This way, he makes the connection between his own request and his interlocutors utterance, and makes the inference, I cannot lend you the money because. In other words, far from being irrelevant in the context, Bs words represent not only an answer to As request (illocutionary force: refusal), but also provide indirectly a reason for that refusal. The maxim of Relevance also explains why imperative utterances do not need specifications of time, e.g. when then speaker says, Give me that! he does not need to say now: the item is relevant/important to him at that very moment.
7.3.1.3
Observing the maxim of Relevance
7.3.1.4
Observing the maxim of Manner
In discussing semantic anomaly, Leech (1981, Chapter 1) is careful to point out that the human mind abhors vacuum of sense; whenever the hearer is faced with absurd sentences [he] will strain his interpretative faculty to the utmost to read them meaningfully. In the same way, on encountering adjacent utterances whose elements seem to be unrelated, communicators strain their minds to identify the most likely link. The maxim of Relevance explains best how and why seemingly unrelated adjacent utterances are interpreted as belonging to the same text. Consider, for example, the exchange above, where A is asking for a pen and B is talking about his desk. Or, in Levinsons milkman example, A can draw the proper inferences concerning Bs implied meaning only by considering his words as relevant to the context of communication, i.e. related to it and meaningful. In the same way, in: A: Can you lend me $10? B: Were going on a trip next week the two utterances seem to be totally unrelated: A is asking for a loan, B is talking about a trip. But the maxim of Relevance tells us that the rational and cooperative speaker contributes to the conversation that is going on (not to some imaginary conversation in his head), adding meaning to it.
The maxim of Manner tells us that, for efficient communication, the speaker should try to express his ideas briefly and clearly, that he should avoid obscurity and ambiguity, that he should be brief and orderly. Generally in communication, it is in the speakers best interest to present his ideas clearly, so that the receiver should understand his message correctly. For example, when mother wants her daughter to go shopping for her, for maximum efficiency, she makes a clear and unambiguous list of the products she needs, presented by categories, so that her daughter should not have to run from one type of shop to another and back, etc. In the same way, when exposing his ideas, the speaker usually presents them as clearly as possible, trying not to confuse the listener. For example, in the exchange: A: How do you like that painting? B: Its beautiful B answers As question briefly and unambiguously. Whenever the maxim is not strictly observed, the receiver is entitled to make inferences and discover some additional meaning. For example, in: A: How do you like that painting? B: Its quite interesting the very fact that the speaker does not express his liking directly bears the implicature that he does not really like it.
239
240
In the same way, as he knows that the receiver may not be inclined to listen to him for a long time, the speaker usually presents his ideas succinctly, in the order in which they occurred or that of their importance (sub-maxim 4: be orderly). With the fourth sub-maxim, Grice managed to solve another of the puzzles of semanticists: the fact that the word and has different meanings in different contexts. Consider the example: My son is an engineer and my daughter is a doctor Mary opened the door and stepped into the room Since and is a copulative conjunction, the two elements linked by it are of equal syntactic value, so that they should be interchangeable. This, however, works in the first case (My daughter is and my son is), but not in the second (*Mary stepped into the room and opened the door). To semanticists, this triggered the conclusion that and in the first example is different from and in the second, whose meaning is and then (see also section 7.3.2.4). But this way, the number of meanings of simple words would proliferate unlimitedly (consider also the cases discussed in relation to the maxim of Quantity, totally/partially sunny and only one son). Again, Grices maxim provide the solution: words have a stable semantic core, but they may also have an unstable context-dependent pragmatic overlay of implicatures. In most cases within conversational exchanges, several maxims work together. For example, in: A: Where are you going? B: To school B answers As question truthfully (observes the maxim of Quality), clearly (observes the maxim of Manner), giving the right amount of information (observes the maxim of Quantity). Moreover, the two utterances being adjacent, A will assume that Bs words come in answer to his question (observing the maxim of Relevance).
Grice considers that the main reason for such intentional floutings of the rule is the speakers desire to make his contribution more interesting or more suggestive. Take, for instance, the example discussed before, where the speaker says, Im delighted! when in fact he is quite upset (see sections 6.3.2 and 7.2). His utterance is obviously and intentionally false (i.e. he is flouting the maxim of Quality); in fact, what he says is the exact opposite of what he means. In such cases, even though the utterance seems absurd, the receiver will still assume that his interlocutor is rational and cooperative. As a result, he will stretch his imagination and make inferences so as to retrieve the speakers intended meaning. As Levinson (1983: 102) puts it, when talk does not proceed according to specifications, hearers assume that, contrary to appearances, the principles are nevertheless being adhered to at some deeper level. In other words, even when the speakers utterance deviates drastically and dramatically from maxim-type behaviour, the receiver still presumes that he is contributing cooperatively to the conversation, so that he will make an effort of imagination to retrieve the speakers intended meaning.
7.3.2.1
Flouting the maxim of Quality
Flouting the maxim of Quality is a euphemism for telling a lie. Yet, in most cases, these lies are so blatantly false that nobody in his right mind would believe them. It is, therefore, logical for the hearer to assume that the speaker wants to convey some other meaning, or perhaps a meaning that is the very opposite of what has been said. In such cases, the receiver is expected to make other kinds of inferences concerning the speakers intended meaning. Flouting the maxim of Quality shows how irony works, e.g. in: Son: Dad, could you give me some money? Father: Sure, Im Bill Gates the father is telling a blatant lie (he is obviously not Bill Gates). As a result, the son understands that he must make inferences: first he identifies the feature that sets the two persons apart (i.e. [+WEALTH] for Bill Gates, [-WEALTH] for the father); then he infers that, since the father is asserting the opposite of what he is (that he is rich), he must interpret the other words in the utterance to have the opposite meaning, i.e. that sure actually implicates of course not.
7.3.2
Flouting the maxims
In ordinary communication, speakers generate massive amounts of implicatures by observing the cooperative principle and its maxims. In numerous cases, though, the speakers contribution is intentionally and obviously false, ambiguous, or irrelevant for the conversation going on. In other words, the speaker is deliberately and blatantly breaking/breaching the rules of logical communication by violating/infringing one or another of the maxims.
241
242
The competent speakers capacity to make inferences also accounts for the receivers ability to interpret semantic anomaly. Faced with an anomalous construction, such as: He is advancing by walking in circles (where advance involves the feature [+FORWARDS], while in circles definitely excludes that feature), the pragmatically competent speaker will not reject it as void of sense; rather, he will stretch his imagination and dodge and bend some rules, both of the dictionary and of logic, to grasp the message's intended meaning. In this case, the contradiction will make him conclude that the person is not advancing at all. The example suggests that a massive amount of figurative speech relies on violation of the maxim of Quality, the falsehood involving a clash between some conceptual feature(s) of the word or utterance. For example, the falsehood inherent in the nominal metaphor, The Iron Lady (of Margaret Thatcher) involves a clash in between the features [-HUMAN] of iron, and respectively, [HUMAN] of lady. Similar conceptual clashes occur in the case of the predicative or sentential metaphor. For example, in: He is climbing the stairs of immortality the action of the verb (to climb) requires a [+CONCRETE] object, but immortality is obviously [-CONCRETE]. Since the clash triggers a logical/conceptual impossibility, the receiver will infer that the term climb is used metaphorically. Metaphor is perhaps the most obvious example of the difficulty the receiver may encounter in decoding correctly the speakers intended meaning. Take, for instance, the example given in section 6.4.2, where the speaker compares a building to the Pompidou Museum: the hearer may infer that the speaker is praising the new building, while in fact the speakers implicature is negative.
by emphasizing no more than (i.e. saying more than necessary), the speaker (e.g. a politician) is implying that somebody has made contrary (and false) accusations. Saying less also triggers implicatures. For example, in: A: What are you looking for? B: Some stuff by refusing to tell A what he is looking for, B is conveying the implicature none of your business. Tautology is also based on flouting the maxim of Quantity. Apparently uninformative from a conceptual point of view (the two elements in the utterance have the same truth value), the tautology acquires additional meanings by pragmatic implications and conversational implicatures. Take, for example, the tautology: Boys will be boys Since the phrase is uninformative from a semantic point of view, the receiver will have to resort to his knowledge of the world, which tells him that boys are generally naughty. On the next level, that of cooperative communication, the receiver will make inferences based on the assumption that the speaker is contributing meaningfully to the exchange. Bridging the gap between the speakers words and his communicative intentions (including the illocutionary force of the utterance: of resigned or amused acceptance), the receiver will draw the inference Boys will always be naughty, there is nothing you can do about it. Many tautologous phrases Whats yours is yours, If you wont, you wont have become lexicalized.
7.3.2.3
Flouting the maxims of Relevance
Speakers often blatantly violate the maxim of Relevance: they say something completely and outrageously out of line with the conversation going on. Take, for example, the exchange: A: My boss is a jerk B: Lovely weather, isnt it? It is at such moments, more than in most other cases, that the hearer must ask himself the four questions: why is the speaker saying this, now and to me? Since there is no relation whatsoever between a boss being a jerk and the weather, the receiver will conclude that the speaker is trying to communicate some other meaning. The most common inference is that his friend is trying to signal that someone is listening, or that the boss has just entered
7.3.2.2
Flouting the maxims of Quantity
The maxim of Quantity says that the speaker makes his contribution as informative as necessary. As a result, whenever the maxim is violated (i.e. the utterance is more or less informative than required), the speaker is probably trying to convey some additional meaning. Thus, for example, in: I have no more than one car
243
244 If reversed,
the room. Obviously, it may be the wrong inference, e.g. B just wanted to signal that he did not want to talk about the subject. The speaker may flout the maxim of Relevance for other reasons. For example, in: A: Come and give me a hand here B: Will you teach me how to do X? by asking A to teach him to do something, B hopes to extricate himself from a chore he does not feel like doing. Or, take the example: A: Mom, can I go out? B: Have you finished cleaning your room, Billy? Bs question concerning the cleaning of his room is obviously not the answer Billy expected. But since it comes in response to his request, he must interpret it as related to it and relevant. No great knowledge of the world or of the rules of conversation is required to tell the receiver what inference to make in such cases. This also shows that numerous implicatures/inferences, especially those related to the maxim of Relevance, are contextdependent (see also Particularized implicatures in section 7.4).
She got pregnant and got married the utterance triggers a different implicature: that the pregnancy appeared out of wedlock and the marriage took place afterwards, so as to settle an unpleasant situation. This shows that the sequential nature of utterances generally corresponds to the natural order of events and explains the effect of pragmatic features upon the semantic content of and. Grice distinguishes four types of non-observance of one or another of the maxims (flouting, violating, opting out, and infringing a maxim); a fifth type was later proposed (suspending a maxim). Briefly, the differences run along the following lines1: o o Flouting a maxim, i.e. deliberately and blatantly breaking one or another of the maxims, e.g. Sure, Im Bill Gates. Violating a maxim, i.e. an unostentatious non-observance of a maxim, as in not telling the whole truth: e.g. the husband asks his wife whether there is another man in her life and she replies, No, there isnt another man. But this is not the whole truth: in fact, she is having an affair with a woman. Infringing a maxim: in this case, the speaker has neither the intention to lie, nor to generate an implicature; the inferences result from the speakers inability to express his ideas clearly, e.g. because he does not speak the language well, because he is drunk, nervous or excited, etc. Opting out of observing a maxim is the No comment type of behaviour, e.g. a doctor, a lawyer or a priest may claim that he cannot talk openly about things told him in confidence. Suspending a maxim: an expression that is supposed to be unlucky is often avoided, e.g. among British actors there is the superstition that uttering the name of Shakespeares Macbeth brings bad luck, so they call it the Scottish play (i.e. they fail to Observe the maxim of Quantity).
7.3.2.4
Flouting the maxims of Manner
The maxim of Manner tells us that the speaker tries to make his message brief and orderly, and that he tries to avoid obscurity or ambiguity. But in daily exchanges, speakers often violate the maxim of Manner by being deliberately vague or ambiguous. For example, when the speaker considers it unsafe to express a clear-cut opinion, he may say something like: Well, you know, I sort of Or, in the exchange, A: How do you like Xs new house? B: It is the sort of museum only rich men can put together by flouting the sub-maxim Be brief, B is implying that the house is neither beautiful nor in good taste. Furthermore, by saying more than is necessary, the example also flouts the maxim of Quantity; which shows that the maxims work together, that it is often hard to distinguish the separating lines. Non-observance of the sub-maxim Be orderly explains the importance of sentence order in the case of utterances coordinated by and (see also section 7.3.1.4). Take, for instance, Grices example, She got married and got pregnant
Grice was not consistent in these distinctions, and the terms flouting/violating/infringing are often used in free variation.
7.4 Types of implicature

Grice proposed the term implicature as a general cover term, to stand in contrast with what is said or expressed by the truth condition of expressions, and to include all kinds of pragmatic (non-truth1
After Jenny Thomas, 1995: 72-78.
245
246
Meaning and communication poor but honest small, but perfectly formed unmarried, but far from stupid She is 37, but still attractive
conditional) inference discernable (Levinson, 1983: 127). But he felt it important to make at least two distinctions. On the one hand, he distinguished between: generalized implicatures, i.e. those types of implicature that do not require any particular context or special scenario; e.g. in: I walked into a house Some of them are on holiday a house always implicates not my house, and some of them always implicates not all of them. particularized implicatures, i.e. the types of implicature that arise only in specific contexts/scenarios, e.g. the utterance B: Lovely weather, isnt it? (see 7.3.2.3) bears the implicature Attention, your boss can hear you, only if preceded by an utterance meaning something like My boss is a jerk, and in the situational context where the person is close by. Implicatures that are both derived from observing the maxims and are generalized are often hard to distinguish from the semantic content of the linguistic expressions. Formal pragmatists focused primarily on this type of implicature, narrowing considerably the domain of research of pragmatics. The number of particularized floutings and exploitations of the maxims has a much great weight in language use than that of generalized implicatures. For example, ironies, or utterances related to the maxim of Relevance, require particular background assumptions that should rule out or contradict their literal interpretation. Another distinction Grice made was that between conventional and conversational implicature. Conventional implicatures are also non-truth-conditional: expressions such as but, moreover or so contribute to what is conventionally implicated, rather than what is said. The implicature is simply attached by convention to the lexical item, contaminating the context in which it appears. Such expressions are used to perform higher-order speech act, such as contrasting, adding or explaining, in addition to the basic speech act of saying. Take, for example, the copulative conjunction but. It is often used in contexts where, from a truth-conditional perspective, the copulative conjunction and would be the correct choice, as in1:
There is no logical reason why a person who is poor should not be honest, that a small (child) should not be perfectly formed, that an unmarried woman should be stupid, etc. Grammatically and truthconditionally, poor and honest, 37 and still attractive, etc. would be equally correct. What the adversative conjunction accomplishes is to convey the additional implicature that the elements of the group are in contrast. Replacing but with and results in the loss of the conventional implicature (poor and honest does not preserve the implicature of oppositeness). Linguists have identified few carriers of conventional implicature but, therefore, even, yet, for (as in, She plays chess well, for a girl Thomas, 1995: 57). But, as Levinson (1983: 128-9; 162) shows, a large number of deictic expressions carry conventional implicature, especially person deixis (the T/V pronominal system), social deixis (e.g. Sir, Madam, mate, sonny, hey, etc., when used in addresses) and discourse deixis (e.g. however, moreover, besides, anyway, well, still, furthermore, although, oh, etc.). For example, the vous variant of the 2nd person pronoun, or the deictic word Sir, conventionally implicates social distance and higher social status of addressee. Discourse particles indicate for the receiver how he should interpret the speakers utterance. Thus, the discourse particle well (in one type of usage) shows1 that the speaker is aware that he is unable to provide a completely satisfactory answer, hence the word typically occurs in partial answers: A: Do you like him? B: Well, hes nice Or, anyway conventionally implicates that an utterance prefaced with it is closer to a prior utterance than to that immediately preceding it. Conventional implicature is also carried by longer phrases. For example, as it was asserted before, Can/Could you...? questions have been lexicalized as meaning Please (help me/tell me) In opposition, conversational implicature is non-conventional, i.e. it is not part of the conventionally accepted meaning of the linguistic expression.
The examples are from Thomas, 1995: 57.
After R. Lakoff (1973), quoted by Levinson (1983: 162).
Chapter 7: Cooperation and inferential communication For example, the utterance (Levinson, 1983: 114) Herb hit Sally
247
248
conversationally implicates Herb didnt kill Sally by hitting her: semantically, hit and kill belong to related linguistic fields, but the speaker who abides by the maxim of Quality mentions the worst thing that happened. Another characteristic feature of conversational implicature is that it is cancellable or defeasible. For instance, in: John works 10 hours a day the implicature of no more than 10 (maxim of Quantity: the strongest assertion) is suspended by addition of an if clause (if not more), of in fact (in fact more), of and maybe (and maybe more), etc. Conversational implicature is also non-detachable1: no matter what linguistic expression the speaker might use, the implicature is still conveyed. For example, John works 10 hours a day John spends a lot of time in his office John rarely has time for his children John is so lazy, he only works 10 hours a day etc. all convey the same implicature of John works a lot. This also shows how implicature differs from other pragmatic phenomena, such as presupposition. Presupposition is attached to (carried by) the conceptual content of the lexical item itself: e.g. He tried to do it, presupposes that he didnt manage to do it. Implicature is a kind of intentional indirectness, a type of strategic manipulation of the language, so that it is indeterminate and unstable (even if not always). Just like speech acts, where the same expression can be used to perform various actions, the same utterance can give rise to different implicatures, according to the context of utterance. For example, the utterance Thanks a lot! implicates Im grateful if uttered by Mary on receiving a present; Im quite upset when uttered in response to some mischief (her son just broke her favourite vase); I no longer need it if her daughter offers to help her when she is about to finish the work; etc. This also shows that implicatures are calculable: on the basis of what the speaker has said in the given context, and on the assumption that he is following the cooperative principle and its maxims, the receiver can construct a logical argument to establish
1
what inferences he should make so as to work out the speakers intended meaning. Thus, for the first variant of the example, Marys interlocutor has no reason to doubt her sincerity, so he interprets the utterance at face value (that Mary is pleased with the present). In the second case, Marys son knows quite well that his mother is not pleased, so that he makes the inference that her intended meaning is the very opposite of what she has said (flouting the maxim of Quality). In the third, it is the non-linguistic context which helps the receiver to interpret the message correctly: Marys daughter can see that the work is almost finished. Obviously, the role of paralanguage is quite important: the negative paralanguage is more powerful than the positive message. Naturally, receivers can make the wrong inferences and misinterpret the speakers meaning. Therefore, we should distinguish between actual implicatures and potential implicatures. Actual implicatures are conveyed intentionally (as in the case of Marys mocking Thank you! to her daughter). Potential implicatures, on the other hand, are produced by the receiver in his process of making inferences. Some potential implicatures may be correct; others are merely imagined, e.g. on hearing the speaker say, Im so proud of you!, the receiver imagines that the speaker is telling the truth; in fact, he is making fun of him. Implicature, like all forms of strategic communication, is a typical feature of language in use. It is the gradual institutionalization of implicatures that contributes to change of meaning. For example, many euphemisms begin as polite metaphors, but they get conventionalised (e.g. lady, bathroom). Lexicalization also affects idioms, which gradually lose their transparency (e.g. by the way), or change their meaning (e.g. Eat, drink, and be merry; There is no love lost between them see section 3.1.2 The origins of idioms). The great merit of Grices theory is that his principles can be applied to a great variety of apparently unrelated linguistic facts: how the simplest words (e.g. and) can mean different things in different contexts, how speakers can mean more than what they say, how hearers retrieve that additional meaning, how metaphors and tautologies work, etc. Obviously, as Levinson (1983: 104) points out, a purely conventional or rule-based account of natural language usage can never be complete, and [] what can be communicated always exceeds the communicative power provided by the conventions of the language and its use.
With the exception of the maxim of Manner, where meaning is carried by the very form of the utterance.
250
Chapter 8
Strategies of politeness
Austins theory of speech acts and Grices theory of implicature had a great impact on the study of language and of linguistic behaviour. By investigating the way people use the language in ordinary communication, they explain to some extent how and why speakers convey more information than, or an information that is different from, that carried by the linguistic content of their words. They also explain how receivers interpret this additional semantic load to retrieve the speakers intended meaning. Grice suggested that the main reason for indirectness is the speakers desire to make his contribution more interesting or more suggestive. But linguists realized that this cannot be the only reason for the vast amount of indirectness that characterizes ordinary communicative exchanges. Nor can the two theories explain the intricate ways in which people use the language. Some linguists suggested that such manipulations of the language exploit polite obliquity, i.e. hinting strategy, or indirectness employed for reasons of politeness. They also suggested that indirectness is triggered by more than just linguistic factors, and that a more general theory of social interaction is required to explain them. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed the emergence of several theories of politeness that attempted to help out Grices theory by analyzing the social constraints governing utterance production. The most popular among them are those developed by R. Lakoff (1973), G. Leech (1977 and 1983) and P. Brown & S.C. Levinson ([1978] 1987). All theories of politeness have as starting point the importance of social order: their aim is to explain how communicators use the language to preserve good social relations1 and a favourable atmosphere. The basic idea of the theories of politeness is that people formulate their utterances in a certain way for fear they might
intrude, embarrass or hurt their interlocutors feelings, but also to protect themselves from being hurt or embarrassed. For example, when a person asks for some good or service (e.g. for a loan, or for directions in the street), he knows that, by requesting a favour, he is intruding upon the other persons privacy. As a result, he builds up a long and intricate sentence so as to signal that he appreciates the effort his interlocutor is making to provide him with the answer. On the other hand, the speaker also wants to protect his own safety and image. To avoid the embarrassment of being refused or rejected, for instance, he formulates his request very politely (a polite request is less likely to be refused) of very indirectly (he does not actually ask, so that there is no refusal if the receiver is not willing to comply). Thomas (1995: 150-5) is careful to point out that pragmatics does not view politeness as a real-world attitude; it merely refers to the way people use language strategically so as to appear polite. She also emphasizes the difference between deference and register, on one side, and politeness, on the other. In the case of deference/register, the speaker has little choice: if he does not use the proper markers of deference, or the proper level of formality, he will be sanctioned by society for his non-adherence to the social norms. Conversely, politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon refers to the speakers strategic use (i.e. exploitation, manipulation) of the language in order to obtain a certain real-world advantage, or to avoid unpleasant consequences.
8.1
Politeness: Principles and maxims
R. Lakoff (1973) suggested that the speaker who knows the importance of preserving a favourable atmosphere and good social relations generally follows three unwritten principles of politeness: i.e. he generally tries to avoid imposing to make his hearer feel good to give him options whether to perform or not a certain action
Hence, the factors the govern indirectness (see section 6.6) are a central issue within these theories.
Thus, for example, the speaker does not like to ask for favours because he knows that, by his request, he is imposing upon the hearer. But if he has no choice, he makes his request either very polite (e.g. Im terrible sorry to bother you but, ), or very indirect (e.g. Its quite hot in here, see section 6.4.1). By being
Chapter 8: Strategies of politeness
251
252
very polite, the speaker signals his respect and appreciation for the receiver and the effort the latter is making and thus, makes him feel good. By being indirect, the speaker relies on the hearer to make the correct inferences. Speakers generally avoid direct requests because a direct request requires a direct answer which can be either positive or negative and a straightforward refusal would embarrass the speaker himself. The formulation Can/Could/Couldnt you? is often the best choice: it is indirect, thus perceived as polite; it gives the listener the option to perform the action or not; it avoids the risk that the hearer will not understand the illocutionary force of the utterance correctly. In the same way, Leech (1983, Chapters 4-6), who argued that cooperation is just one aspect of what he calls Interpersonal Rhetoric, suggested the introduction of a Politeness Principle to rescue Grices Principle of Cooperation. Just like Grices Cooperative Principle, the Principle of Politeness investigates the gap between what is said and what is meant. But while Grice focuses primarily on the communicative content of the message, Leech concentrates on the way the speakers indirectness serves his main communicative goal, i.e. his desire to preserve good interpersonal relations. According to Leechs Politeness Principle, people generally tend to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs to maximize the expression of polite beliefs
8.1.1
Tact and Generosity
According to Leech (1983: 107), tact perhaps the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking society1 is essential for explaining why people often express their thoughts so indirectly. The maxim of Tact says that people generally try to minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other2 and to maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other. Leech (1983, 123) argues that the tactfulness of the speakers utterance results from the interplay of three scales: o o o the cost-benefit scale, i.e. the speaker assesses the cost or benefit to himself and to the hearer that his utterance incurs the indirectness scale, i.e. the length of path from his illocutionary act to its illocutionary goal the optionality scale, i.e. the speaker decides on the amount of choice he wants to allow the receiver.
That is to say, the speaker assesses the size of imposition of his request/offer on a cost-benefit scale and grades the indirectness of his utterance accordingly: the higher the cost/the lower the benefit for the hearer, the more indirect his utterance will be. For example, an utterance such as: Have a sandwich needs no indirectness because the act is beneficial for the hearer. But if the speaker asks the hearer to give him something, or to help him do something, he will have to say something like, Would you be so kind as to hand me that book? Couldnt you please give me a hand here? because the request implies an effort (i.e. a cost) by the hearer. The three examples also suggest that the speakers formulations give the receiver various amounts of options3 whether to perform the action or not. If there is no option for the hearer in the case of the direct imperative (example 1), it is because the act is beneficial for the hearer. Even if the latter decides to refuse the sandwich, there is
In other words, whenever the speaker has to say something unpleasant for the hearer, he says as little as he can, or does it as indirectly as possible. For example, when a teacher asks a student how he likes his course, the latter may say, It is quite interesting, but rather difficult for me or I generally prefer literature to linguistics (even if neither assertion is true). To correct the negative impression, he may also add, I liked the section about X very much (even if that is not true either). The example shows clearly that linguistic politeness is not as a real-world attitude: it merely concerns expressions of polite/ impolite beliefs aimed at establishing and preserving good social relations, i.e. the communicative strategies the speaker employs so as to maintain amiable social relations. Leechs Politeness Principle is detailed in six maxims, i.e. of Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy.
Leech also shows that, with some Oriental cultures (e.g. Japanese or Chinese), the maxim of Modesty bears a far greater weight. The terms self and other are used to refer to the speaker and, respectively, to the hearer. Leechs ideas do not contradict Lakoffs, but rather, develop them.
253
254
no real harm: his polite Thank you but Ive already eaten will not hurt or embarrass either him or the speaker. The second example formulates the request in a very polite and rather indirect way. Asking the receiver about his willingness to help incurs some risk, though. As a rule, English yes/no answers contain the auxiliary used in the question1. According to this rule, the answer to Will you? is, No, I will not, i.e. I dont want to a refusal on account of lack of volition, which is rather rude. But the speakers request (handing over a book) does not represent a serious imposition upon the receiver, so that the speaker knows he is not running a real risk. Asking for help (example 3) represents a much more serious imposition, so that the speaker formulates his request by using modal interrogative negative Couldnt you? This way, he is not only polite, but also gives the receiver an additional degree of optionality: if he refuses, it is on account of his lack of ability (Im sorry, I cant) a highly acceptable way for the receiver to opt out of performing the action. This kind of refusal is also tactful with respect to the speaker, who understands that the reason why his interlocutor is not complying with his request is his inability, not his lack of volition. The Generosity maxim regards the speakers presentation of his own costs/benefit, so that it stands at the opposite pole on the cost-value scale. The maxim shows that speakers generally minimize the expression of benefit to self and maximize the expression of cost to self. To make the perception of cost to hearer/benefit to himself look smaller, speakers use minimizers or hedges, as in:
maximizer important, and the fact that the speaker is mentioning a big favour he has done for the receiver (high cost to speaker/high benefit to hearer), prepare the ground for a serious request.
8.1.2
Approbation and Modesty
Leechs next two maxims of Approbation and Modesty develop Lakoffs assertion that speakers generally want to make their interlocutor feel good. The maxim of Approbation suggests that the speaker tends to maximize expressions of praise of other/to minimize expressions of dispraise of other. To get the desired effect, the speaker shows great interest in and appreciation for his interlocutors achievements, looks or clothes. If he finds nothing good to be said, he tries to conceal his dislike and to avoid open criticism. Linguistically, he accomplishes this by subtle indirectness, as in the exchange, A: How do you like it? B: Its quite interesting or B: Well, its not exactly what I expected Even silence is preferable to open criticism. But then, silence carries its own risks (see the Phatic Maxim below). At the opposite pole is the maxim of Modesty, which shows that the speaker tends to minimize expressions of praise of himself and to maximize expressions of dispraise of himself. Even small children know that it is not nice to brag about ones own performances, therefore utterances of self-appreciation are quite rare in educated circles. As for compliments, in English-speaking societies it is polite to accept them graciously1, with a modest Thank you, or with a form of understatement, as in: Not bad, is it? where the negative form is strategically used to actually highlight the persons possessions, qualities or performances.
Just have a look I only want a minute of your time

By using just, and respectively, only, the speaker suggests that the request is minor, i.e. that it involves no high cost from the hearer and no high benefit for himself. Conversely, a perception of high benefit to the hearer/high cost to the speaker can be achieved with the help of maximizers. For example, in: Remember that important paper you had to hand in last Monday? I helped you, didnt I?
1 1
Naturally, this rule of grammar is often ignored by actual language usage: in ordinary communication we often come across the adjacent pair, Will you ? Im sorry, I cant.
Leech (1983: 137) suggests that the Tact Maxim dominates Interpersonal Rhetoric in the case of English speaking societies. Conversely, with some oriental cultures, the Modesty Maxim is the most powerful. Thus, Japanese women must refuse compliments, declaring themselves unworthy for them.
255
256
In the Western world, humour has a great role in negotiating approbation and modesty. Irony (see section 2.2.2.1.2.3) can be used to be impolite while seemingly saying the right thing, e.g. How nice of you to come! when a student or employee is late again. Conversely, banter sounds impolite, but the participants know they should not take the words at face value: the rude words are no more than friendly teasing. Dishonorifics (e.g. old rascal, old chum) also belong to this category.
8.1.4
Other maxims
Leech (1983: 139) also suggests a Phatic Maxim1 a maxim that refers not to the content of the message, but to the way the conversation is managed and structured by the participants. For example, shows Leech, speaking at the wrong time (interrupting) or being silent at the wrong time has impolite implications. According to this maxim, in social circumstances, the reason people keep talking is often merely to avoid silence, which can be either embarrassing (at a party) or insulting (not greeting). Leechs view regarding the impolite implications of silence recalls Goffmans virtual offence (see section 6.2 Language functions). Leech also mentions lesser principles, such as the Principle of interest, that urges the speaker to make his presentation as attractive as possible, and that of optimism (or the Pollyanna Principle2), which relies on the idea that optimism is a general tendency of the human personality, so that people prefer pleasant topics of conversation to unpleasant ones. This is also the reason why speakers often understate the degree to which things are bad, invent euphemisms to disguise unpleasant subjects, etc. The multitude of minimalizing adverbials of degree (e.g. a bit, a little, a tiny bit) also stands proof for mans attempts to avoid or ignore the unpleasant. It is, however, questionable whether optimism is a general characteristic of human exchanges: some discourses rely on exploiting mans enjoyment of tragedy and of the out-of ordinary, e.g. journalism thrives on the bad and the sensational, which represent probably the easiest way to enhance the readers interest. Leech argues that the speakers decision to follow one or the other of the principles (of cooperation or politeness) depends on the actual situational context, so that it is determined on a case-tocase basis: when the speakers basic aim is to convey information, he gives preference to the Cooperative Principle; when his main concern is good interpersonal relations, he follows the Principle of Politeness. For example, if a friend asks me to go shopping with her and help her choose a dress for a party, I shall give her my honest opinion concerning the best buy (I observe the maxim of Quality). But if she asks me what I think of the dress she is wearing a
8.1.3
Agreement and Sympathy
The Agreement maxim shows that speakers generally minimize expressions of disagreement between self and other and maximize expressions of agreement between self and other. One can often hear people begin their answers with: Yes, but The speaker obviously disagrees with what he has just heard; but politeness urges him not to express his disagreement too bluntly. As a result, he hedges his answer with an affirmative Yes, at the beginning of his utterance. The Sympathy maxim shows that utterances mirror the speakers attempt to minimize the antipathy that may exist between himself and his interlocutor and to maximize the sympathy existing between them. Sympathy for the receiver can be expressed in various ways. Choice of vocabulary is a key factor. For example, one never addresses ones interlocutor as My enemy (except jokingly); but you can often hear speakers say: This, my friend, is even when the rest of the message is unpleasant or hostile. In his attempt to maximize sympathy, the speaker may strategically reduce the social distance between himself and the hearer, e.g. by manipulating the T/V system, by using terms of endearment (e.g. dear, darling) or words denoting social closeness (e.g. my friend/pal), in-group identity markers (e.g. slang or dialect), paralanguage (e.g. touching). This way, the speaker creates a bond between himself and the receiver.
1 2
See also section 6.2 Language functions. The name comes from one of Eleanor H. Porters characters.
257
258
dress I find shapeless and tasteless, I shall try to find something positive to say, e.g. praise its colour or the quality of its material, so as to boost my friends self confidence (i.e. I observe the Principle of Politeness). Sometimes there is a clash between the two principles: the speaker may have to decide whether to tell the truth (behave cooperatively) and run the risk of hurting the hearers feelings, or to tell a white lie (follow the Politeness Principle) and preserve positive social relations. In the case of the example above, for instance, a speaker who is determined to always tell the truth will obviously hurt the hearers feelings if she tells her that her dress is horrible, or that it makes her look like a sack of potatoes. But hearing the truth may be the lesser evil for the receiver than embarrassing herself in front of a larger audience: on hearing the truth, she may decide not to wear the dress at the official ball organized by her husbands firm.
In addition, they argue, in social interactions everyones face depends on everyone elses face being maintained: as a result, the speaker indulges in intricate strategies of politeness so as: o o to avoid losing face to avoid hurting other peoples face
8.2
Face and face management
Just like Leech, Brown & Levinson ([1978] 1987) also built their theory of politeness around Grices theory of cooperation; but they supplemented it with Goffmans theory of face. Goffman (1967), who borrowed the term from the English folk expression to lose face, interprets face as the individuals public self-image, his reputation and good name. Within theories of politeness, face is viewed as the individuals self-image, his feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. Brown & Levinson take up Grices idea that meaning circulates among communicators on the basis of the cooperation between the speaker and the hearer. But unlike Grice, who focuses on the success of the communicative exchange, Brown & Levinson who consider that the indirectness of communicative exchanges is largely due to a mutual awareness of face sensitivity focus their attention on the reasons that make the speaker grade the indirectness of his utterances. These reasons, they show, reside in: the speakers need to save his face, i.e. to maintain his reputation intact or to enhance it the speakers fear of losing face, i.e. of getting his image damaged1
1
In other words, the speaker is polite first of all because he wants to make sure that he will not be shamed (refused/rejected or insulted): if I am polite, my interlocutor is expected to comply with my wishes, or at least, to be polite, too. On the other hand, the speaker is polite because he does not want to hurt his interlocutors feelings. He may do so out of a real desire to be tactful; in numerous cases, though, it is mere strategic behaviour aimed at avoiding negative consequences: e.g. a person who has been hurt is likely to take revenge; or, if the speaker (accidentally) shames his interlocutor in front of his friends, others might disapprove, and then the speaker himself will lose face. In his turn, the hearer expects both cooperation and strategies of politeness, so that he makes his inferences concerning the speakers intended meaning accordingly. There are two types of face wants: o o Positive face, i.e. ones desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others Negative face, i.e. ones wish for freedom of action and freedom from imposition, i.e. to be able to act according to ones wishes, without being impeded or imposed upon.
Face wants are universal in character; but there are also important cultural, as well as individual differences. Some utterances, argue Brown & Levinson, have a high likelihood of causing displeasure: they are face threatening acts (or FTAs). Imperative utterances, for example, are intrinsically face threatening, i.e. they will probably hurt either the hearers or the speakers face. Others (indirect ones) are perceived as more tactful and their face threatening quality is less powerful. When faced with the need to do an FTA, the speaker must first decide whether to do the act at all and risk the consequences, or not to do it. Obviously, he must make his decision fast, and on a case to case basis. For example, if you know that your bosss wife is having an affair with the leader of a competing firm, you evaluate the
The fear of losing face is often stronger than the desire to improve ones image: the idea that we might say something stupid and others might laugh often reduces us to silence, even though we would like to participate in the conversation.
259
260
consequences of both telling him (he will feel embarrassed and angry with you), and of not telling him (his wifes affair is prejudicing the company, and thus, your own position). To make things safer, you will begin by making hints about unfaithful wives jeopardizing their husbands position. But when the situation has reached a stage where the companys very existence is under question, you know that you had better open your mouth and shout the truth in your bosss face. Thus, the speaker evaluates the situation and selects his FTAs accordingly (grading their indirectness). In cases of immediate urgency, he will use the highest degree FTAs (imperatives) because there is no time to formulate elaborate and roundabout constructions. Conversely, in cases such as that regarding the bosss wife, the speaker knows that he should get the message through (and thus save his interlocutors face and position), but do it tactfully (i.e. indirectly), so as to avoid negative consequences. Obviously, the P, D and R factors1 play an essential part in the speakers assessment of the communicative situation: the overall indirectness of the utterance results from the speakers estimation of the composite value of relative power, social distance and the rating of imposition on the cost-benefit scale. On the basis of such observations, Brown & Levinson concluded that, in cases where there is a high likelihood that the utterance will damage either the hearers or the speakers face, the latter usually indulges in face-preserving strategies, i.e. complex linguistic lines of attack meant to diminish the face threat. By indulging in such strategies of indirectness, the speaker manipulates the P, D and R factors and, consequently, the listeners perception of the speech act performed. The table2 on the next page summarises the strategies for doing FTAs. (S and H stand for the speaker and, respectively, the hearer.) According to the table, whenever the speaker must do an FTA (i.e. say something that might hurt his interlocutors feelings, he can choose between not doing the act at all (Dont do the FTA3), although it may be important, or doing it (Do the FTA), even though he risks social sanctions.
1 2 3
See section 6.6 Factors that govern indirectness. Adapted after Brown & Levinson ([1978] 1987): 69, 102, 131, 214. If Grices or Leechs imperative constructions can be viewed as a kind of inner voice, with Brown & Levinsons approach they can be interpreted as a parent or an educator advising his child or pupil on correct behaviour.
261
262
Thus, estimation of risk of face loss results in selection of communicative strategy: the more indirect the speaker will make his utterance. In the event when the speaker decides to do the FTA, he can do it on record (i.e. directly), or off record (i.e. indirectly), in all kind of different ways and by using various strategies. Furthermore, on record performance of an FTA can be carried out baldly, without redressive action, or with redressive action. In a situation of extreme urgency (e.g. if your boss is about to step into a deep hole in the asphalt), the speaker has no time to formulate an elaborate or roundabout utterance: urgency requires efficiency and, even if it implies some face risk, nothing is more efficient than directness. Direct, imperative utterances represent the bold on record performance of an FTA. In cases where there is no urgency, but the message can still cause face damage, the speaker can do his FTA on record, but soften it with redressive action, i.e. an additional act performed by the speaker to indicate that no face-threat is intended or desired. This way, the threat contained in the act is alleviated. The speakers redressive actions depend primarily on the social distance between himself and his addressee: his estimation of the D factor will urge him to embrace positive politeness (basic for familiar behaviour) or negative politeness (basic for an attitude of respect). Whatever approach the speaker might choose, he must grade and adapt his address according to the receiver of the message (the P and D factors), the size of imposition of his request (R), the activity type, etc. Too much politeness can be as harmful and face damaging as no manifestation of politeness at all. As Leech (1983: 144) points out, overpoliteness [] can have the effect of signifying superiority or ironic distance. Conversely, underpoliteness can have the effect of establishing or maintaining a bond of familiarity. [] The more intimate the relationship, the less important it is to be polite. Hence lack of politeness in itself can become a sign of intimacy; and hence, the ability to be impolite to someone in jest helps to establish and maintain such a familiar relationship.
friend, a member of the same social group (equal P and low D). By using strategies of positive politeness, he creates an atmosphere of cosy friendliness and lively optimism. In the context of positive politeness, the speaker presents a request as no big deal. Needless to say, the request may be quite significant (e.g. the speaker is asking for a big loan); but the sender manipulates the language so as to reduce the R factor. The main lines of appeal of positive politeness1 are:
I. Claim common ground with H: a. Convey X is admirable, interesting, etc. 1. Notice H, attend to his interests, wants, needs, goods 2. Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with H 3. Intensify interest of H, make your story interesting b. Claim in-group membership with H: 4. Use in-group identity markers: dialect, slang, diminutives, ellipsis c. Claim common opinions, points on view, attitudes, knowledge: 5. Seek agreement 6. Avoid disagreement, hedge your opinions 7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 8. Joke, tease H II. Convey that S & H are co-operators a. Indicate S knows Hs wants and is taking them into account 9. Assert/presuppose Ss knowledge of and concern for Hs wants 10 Offer, promise, even if falsely b. Claim Reflexivity 11. Be optimistic 12. Include both S and H in the activity 13. Give/ask for reasons c. Claim Reciprocity 14. Assume/assert reciprocal rights/obligations; III. Fulfil Hs want for some X: 15. Give gifts to H: goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation
8.2.1
Strategies of positive politeness
As the list shows, Brown & Levinsons theory tries to explain not only how speakers use the language to preserve good social relations, but also what they speak about to preserve and improve those relations. Such usage of the language exploits its phatic potential. Let us illustrate briefly the authors points.
Positive politeness is that of a jovial attitude, of friendliness and intimacy. When the speaker embraces positive politeness, he wants to show that he considers the listener to be socially close, a
The lists follow those proposed by Brown & Levinsons ([1978] 1987).
263
264 or manipulation of deixis Lets agree that
The speaker who is keen on establishing good relationships with his interlocutor and decides to use a friendly approach (positive politeness) can claim common ground with the receiver. He can achieve this by expressing his admiration for the latter How are those great kids of yours? by claiming in-group membership Our friends would laugh at that common opinions As you said, this is far from perfect or common background knowledge When we were kids Another handy strategy positive politeness is to show interest in the latters preoccupations, wants, or goods Youve got a new dress/hairdo Even negative aspects can be noted, but jokingly You arent really in your best mood today, are you? Speakers often exaggerate in their display of interest in, sympathy with, or approval of their partners actions. Even when they are not really curious about what the latter is up to, the devastating effects of silence, or the need to maintain good social links, requires that the speaker should say something nice. Body language (e.g. eye contact, touching) and paralanguage (e.g. exaggerated intonation, concerned voice) are quite important in conveying the speakers emotional involvement. Etc. In-group identity markers (e.g. dialect, group specific slang, abbreviated forms, diminutives, etc.) enhance the feeling of closeness between speaker and receiver. In the same way, ellipsis typical for spoken communication suggests shared background knowledge, thus intimacy. Common opinions can create a cordial atmosphere; therefore, seeking agreement or, at least, avoiding disagreement, is very important. This can be achieved by broaching safe topics (e.g. the weather in England) or expressing ones point of view and attitudes tentatively, e.g. hedging ones opinions, as in: Well, you know, I dont quite think Presupposition of common ground You know what I mean
can enhance the feeling of familiarity, too. As for humour and a good joke, they can be priceless assets in the speakers strategic attempt to put his listener at ease. Another tactic of positive politeness is to convey the idea that the speaker and the hearer are cooperators, i.e. that they are both interested/involved in a certain type of activity. The speaker can obtain his partners good will by showing that he is aware of and concerned about the latters wants and needs. Saying or hinting that I know that you want X and Ill help you to get it will make your interlocutor feel cheerful and optimistic. Claiming reciprocity, e.g. reciprocal rights and obligations, as in, Remember who stood by you when (i.e. you should also stand by me) suggests equal P, therefore closeness and informality. An address, such as: Youve got to admit it, its, conveys a sense of mutual support, of confidence and optimism. Fulfilment of the receivers wants gives an easy access to the latters heart, therefore giving gifts to the latter can be helpful. Naturally, these gifts can also belong to the category of free goods, e.g. those fulfilling human-relation wants, such as sympathy, the desire to be liked and cared about, etc.
8.2.2
Strategies of negative politeness
If speakers manipulate positive politeness for the sense of intimacy and optimism it conveys, negative politeness is based on formality and restraint and its function is to minimise imposition (R). It is the approach used in high P, high D and/or high R situations. While still observing Grices conversational maxims, the user of negative politeness goes at great lengths of indirectness in order to avoid hurting or imposing. Even in cases of extreme urgency it is not recommended to perform strategies of negative politeness on record. Whenever urgency dictates rapid action (e.g. there is a gas leak and the window must be opened without delay, there is no time to waste),
265
266 I was wondering, do you like X?
the speaker will try to replace the direct command (imperative) with an indirect speech act of conventionalised indirectness: Could you please move over so that I can open the window? i.e. a grammatical interrogative, conventionally accepted as an indirect request. In most cases, negative politeness is accompanied by redressive action, with the help of which the speaker signals that he does not mean to impinge upon the hearers wants. The following lines of appeal for negative politeness should be considered:
I. Dont presume/assume: make minimal assumptions about Hs wants: II. Dont coerce H: Give H option not to do act: Dont assume H is willing/able to do X Assume H is not likely to do X Doubt Hs willingness /ability to do X Minimise threat make explicit P, D, R values: Minimise imposition Give deference III. Communicate Ss want not to impinge on H: Apologise, admit impingement, indicate reluctance to impinge, beg forgiveness, etc. Dissociate S, H from the particular infringement: Impersonalize S and H State the FTA as a general rule Nominalize IV. Compensate, fulfil Hs other wants: Go on record incurring a debt
Hedging is another means to soften ones assertions: hedging adverbs well, perhaps, by any chance, somehow, etc. are useful when the speaker does not want to express his ideas too bluntly. An utterance such as: Well, I dont really think this is the case is a much more acceptable way to inform your boss that he is wrong. Just like Lakoff and Leech, Brown & Levinson insist that the speaker must not coerce the receiver; on the contrary, he must give the latter the option not to do the act. An utterance such as: I was wondering whether you could do X for me is much more strategic than Do X! because the receiver is given the option whether to do the act or not. A polite speaker will not assume that his interlocutor is willing or able to do something for him (i.e. assertions, such I know you will/can help me are not recommended). Neither should he declare straightforwardly what the latter is likely to do: such situations require polite pessimism, as in: You are not free this afternoon, are you? where the speaker avoids expressing his assumption that the receiver will be there to help him1. The speaker who knows the importance of face and how easily it can be damaged, is generally careful about minimizing face threat, therefore he makes explicit his perception of the P, D and R values, especially if he is low P. He gives expression of his place in the exchange, compared to that of the hearer, as for example: Youre the specialist in this field as well as of his estimation of the size of his imposition, as in: I have a big favour to ask you Deference markers e.g. the polite variant of the T/V system, titles of address and honorifics make explicit the speakers perception of his own social status. Euphemisms, disclaimers (e.g. in advertising), minimizers and diminutives, etc., are also meant to reduce imposition, as in: Just call and youll get it free
Thus, when addressing a high P high D receiver, the speaker is careful about the way he formulates his utterance because the latter is not likely to forgive a strategic error. Therefore, in most cases, the form and content of his utterance is the exact opposite of what was suggested for positive politeness. For example, if positive politeness recommends that the speaker should indicate that he knows what the hearer wants and likes, negative politeness urges him to make minimal assumptions concerning the listeners wants or preferences. A boss who is keen on preserving social distance, for example, would consider it impertinent if you talked about his wants in public (e.g. I know you like X); with such a person, even if circumstances are quite informal, the speaker should question his likes and wants:
This also shows why negative constructions are perceived as more polite than positive ones.
267
268
Another tactic of negative politeness is to dissociate both the speaker and the hearer from the particular infringement. This is achieved by impersonalizing both the participants, e.g. by use of the passive voice, as in: It was asserted that or by presenting the FTA as a general rule, as in: It is required that Customers must Nominalisations, as well as use of the verbal Past Tense, also contribute to a point-of-view distancing. His contribution was highly appreciated
association clues. For example, a young couple who want to spend the evening out and do not have money for a babysitter may ask their parents: Mum, the kids would like to see the latest box office hit and theres something wrong with our DVD. Would you mind it we sent them over? Theres no school tomorrow, so could they also sleep over? Violation of the Quantity maxim can be achieved by overstating, by using tautologies or contradictions, etc., as in: A: I cant get along with my son lately B: Boys will be boys When violating the Quality maxim, speakers can be ironic; or they can use figures of speech to avoid open rudeness, as in: Im so happy you allow me to take part in the teamwork says Mike, who has already finished his part of the work and sees that, if he wants to see the project finished in time, he will have to do some more work. Violating the Manner maxim results from being ambiguous or vague, from over-generalizing or being incomplete, etc. A: How did you find their suggestion? B: Well, I dont really know, it may be a good idea says Mary, who does not like the idea at all. The importance of politeness in ordinary communication is unquestionable, and language has a major role in conveying a sense of tactfulness: many conflicts have been avoided by skilful manipulation of linguistic strategies. To see how a native speaker tells us to use the language so as to appear polite, read Annex 12.
8.2.3
Off record strategies
Both positive and negative politeness can be used to exploit indirectness as polite obliquity. But the most indirect hinting strategies are those which do the FTAs off record. Off record strategies, which rely on conversational implicature triggered by flouting the Gricean maxims, are even more avoidance-based than those of negative politeness. In everyday life, speakers often violate the maxims in order to make their message more interesting. But quite often, the reasons for flouting the maxims can reside in considerations of politeness. Here is the basic system of off record strategies:
I. Invite conversational implicatures, via hints triggered by violations of Gricean Maxims: Violate Relevance Maxim Give hints, give association clues, presuppose, understate Violate Quantity Maxim Overstate, use tautologies, use contradictions Violate Quality Maxim Be ironic, use metaphors, use rhetorical questions II. Be vague or ambiguous Violate Manner Maxim Be ambiguous, be vague, over-generalize, displace H, be incomplete, use ellipsis
When flouting the Gricean maxims for reasons of politeness, speakers express their thought indirectly so as to avoid endangering their own face or hurting their interlocutors feelings. According to the Relevance maxim, when speakers do not want to convey their message directly, they make hints or give
270
9.
Conclusions
Language and thought

By pointing to the gap between what the speaker says and what the speaker means, Austin, and especially Grice, opened a new perspective for the study of language and communication. They showed that, to survey meaning, the analyst needs to employ not only semantic, but also pragmatic tools, because the speakers message depends not only on the logical content of his words, but also on the way he uses them and on his communicative intention. Grices theory also contradicts the Saussurian code model of communication, according to which utterances are signals that encode the speakers message, and comprehension is achieved by decoding those utterances. According to the inferential view advocated by Grice and his followers, utterances are not signals, but pieces of evidence regarding the speakers meaning. For comprehension, the hearer makes inferences regarding the meaning the speaker wants to convey, based not only on evidence from the utterance itself, but also from the situational context. Recognition of the speakers intention is a key factor for successful communication. But, as Sperber and Wilson (2005: 500) show, as pragmatics developed, it has become increasingly clear that the gap between sentence meaning and speakers meaning is wider than Grice himself thought. Unanimously accepted as basis for the inferential view of communication, and hence, for the science of pragmatics, Grices Principle of Cooperation was developed by later linguists in various directions1.
9.1
Explicit vs. implicit communication
It was shown in section 7.2 that, with his theory of implicature, Grice was trying to remove from the semantics of natural language those features that can be best explained at pragmatic level. To do so, he made a clear-cut distinction between what the speaker says and what the speaker means. To refer to this distinction, later linguists introduced the terms explicit meaning for the meaning encoded in the speakers words, and implicit meaning for the propositions that result from inferential processes. Explicit meaning pertains to (truth-conditional) semantics. Implicit meaning,
1
which includes all pragmatically derived inferences, belongs to the field of pragmatics and to a much wider theory of communication. But as linguistic research developed it became obvious that there is a further gap between the lexical meaning of the utterance and what the speaker actually says, so that from sentence meaning to speakers meaning we can distinguish three levels: (a) sentence meaning, i.e. the meaning encoded in the speakers words (b) what the speaker says, i.e. the full proposition carried by his words (c) what the speaker means, i.e. his communicative intention As main sources for the linguistic underdeterminacy1 (i.e. insufficient semantic content) of what the speaker says, disambiguation and reference assignment are unanimously acknowledged. To decode the meaning of the utterance: He is heading for the bank now the receiver must disambiguate heading and bank, and assign referents to he and now. Other sources of linguistic underdeterminacy (Carston, 2002: 19-28) are: the linguistic expression may come in a subpropositional logical form (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/95: 188), or a propositional radical/a fragment of a proposition (Bach, 1994:269), as in: Its the same [as what?] Shes leaving [from where?] the unspecified scope and context-sensitivity of certain linguistic items, e.g. the linguistic expression does not provide a clear measure for the state of things, as in: That is difficult (relative to what?) It is serviceable (vague) the underspecificity or weakness of the encoded conceptual content, in which case the utterance requires some enrichment (e.g. the first example below) or narrowing (e.g. the second): Something has happened (obvious truth) Something [bad/strange] Theres nothing on telly tonight (obviously false) nothing [interesting] the overspecificity or narrowness of the encoded conceptual content, in which case the utterance requires a process of adjustment, e.g. narrowing (as in the first example below), or widening (as in the second): Ann wants to meet a bachelor (not any bachelor, but one who is heterosexual and interested in marriage) The steak is raw (raw must be adjusted to be applicable to foods)
1
For example, the theories of Politeness, discussed in the previous chapter.
Underdeterminacy is different from (conceptual or predicational) indeterminacy, which is viewed as vagueness or generality of sense.
Conclusions
271
272
To make the distinction and fill the gap between the lexical meaning of the speakers utterance and what the speaker actually says various terms have been proposed, such as saying and what is said, proposition expressed, truth-conditional content, or Bachs (1994) impliciture (< implicit meaning). The most widely accepted term, however, is Sperber & Wilsons explicature, a term coined to stand in opposition with Grices implicature. Sperber & Wilson (2005: 472; 500) argue that the speakers explicit meaning goes well beyond the minimal propositions arrived at by disambiguation and reference assignment and that pragmatic inference contributes not only to implicit content, but also to truth-conditional aspects of explicit content. For example, when the speaker says: Ill bring a bottle to the party he does not mean any bottle, but specifically, a bottle full of alcohol. Such information, which comes in the form of inferential enrichment, is needed to bring the semantically fragmentary and incomplete sentence meaning to a fully propositional form. This shows that the speakers utterance (i.e. what the speaker says) contains more explicit information than is carried by the semantic load of his words, information that cannot be retrieved by decoding, disambiguation or referent assignment; to recover it, some pragmatic inferential process is required. For the amount of information explicitly communicated by the speaker, Sperber & Wilson (1986/95) proposed the term explicature, insisting that a proposition communicated by an utterance is an explicature if and only if it is a development of a logical form encoded by the utterance (my emphasis). In opposition, all the other propositions that make up the speakers meaning represent implicatures. The authors illustrate this with the following example:
Thus, Lisas utterance carries the explicature supper and tonight . In addition, it carries the implicature I do not want to join you for supper because I have already had supper tonight. Since explicit truth-conditional content falls within the scope of negation and other logical operators, while implicatures do not, standard tests can be employed to check whether some part of the speakers meaning is an explicature or not. For example, negation of the utterance does not cancel out explicatures (constancy under negation), but it annuls implicatures: if Lisa had said I havent eaten she would still be talking about supper and tonight (i.e. the explicatures are preserved). Conversely, the implicature (that she does not want to join the Joneses) would be suspended. Carstons examples for enrichment, narrowing and adjustment are also cases of explicature. The relevance-theoretic approach also insists on the existence of higher-level types of explicature, triggered by propositional-attitudinal verbs (e.g. think, believe, doubt) or adverbials (illocutionary adverbials: frankly, confidentially ; attitudinal adverbials: happily, unfortunately; evidential adverbials: obviously, possibly ; etc.), etc. The function of such expressions, Blackmore (1987) suggests, is procedural, rather than conceptual: they indicate, guide, constrain, or direct the inferential process, telling the receiver how to interpret the utterance. In addition, Wilson & Sperber argue, various elements of linguistic form, including indicative, imperative or subjunctive mood, rising or falling intonation, inverted word order, and some particles and markers like please and lets, constrain the process of inferring the higher-level explicatures. Their function is to express the speakers propositional attitude and speech act (Carston, 2002: 162). In this context we should also mention a principle proposed by Recanati (1989, 1993) the Availability Principle which tells us that the communicators intuition often contradicts the truth-conditional content of an utterance. For example, although the truth-conditional interpretation of Lisas utterance Ive eaten would be indeterminate (Ive eaten at some time or other), there is no intuitive basis for such an interpretation, argues Recanati, because neither the speaker nor the hearer is aware that this proposition is part of what is said; the
Lisa drops by her neighbours, the Joneses, one evening as they are sitting down to supper
Alan Jones: Do you want to join us for supper? Lisa: No thanks. Ive eaten What Lisas utterance says according to the Gricean view is that she has eaten something or other at some time or other. In fact, she is asserting explicitly that she has eaten supper on the evening of the utterance. It is only by supplying those pieces of information that the meaning of the utterance acquires its fully propositional form.
Conclusions
273
274
propositions they are both aware of are Ive eaten supper tonight and I dont want to join you. Consequently, the author suggests, in making a decision concerning what is said, we should always try to preserve our pre-theoretic intuitions on the matter (Recanati 1989: 310; 1993: 248). This shows that many features of linguistic communication stand on the semantic-pragmatic interface, so that a comprehensive survey of meaning requires both semantic and pragmatic tools.
9.2
Relevance
One of the most influential theories of the post-Gricean age is Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilsons Relevance Theory (1986), which proposes a simplification of the maxims as means of assessment. Taking up Grices view of communication as recognition of intention, and speakers meaning as an overtly expressed intention which is fulfilled by being recognized (Sperber & Wilson, (2005: 469), the authors distinguish two types of intention: an informative intention a communicative intention, i.e. having the informative intention recognized as intention. According to the way the speaker handles his communicative intention, an utterance can be o overt (ostensive1), when the speaker signals his intention to communicate some extra meaning, e.g. communication that observes Grices maxims, cases of irony resulting from flouting the maxims2 (e.g. of Quality, as in Father: Sure, Im Bill Gates see section 7.3.2.1) o covert, when the speakers communicative intention is not manifest, e.g. violating or infringing the maxims (see section 7.3.2.4), exploitation of social taboos or sexual innuendo in advertising, etc.
1
Relevance-theoretic pragmatics focuses on ostensive stimuli (i.e. on ostensive linguistic utterances), on what they ostensively communicate and on how this is achieved. The Theory of Relevance departs from the Gricean view both in terms of utterance production and interpretation (Sperber & Wilson, 2005: 468-501). In terms of utterance production, the authors argue that relevance-oriented inferential processes are efficient enough to allow for a much greater slack between sentence meaning and speakers meaning. In what concerns the receiver, the authors consider that his expectations regarding the speakers meaning do not derive from principles and maxims; the very act of communicating raises precise and predictable expectations of relevance, which are enough on their own to guide the hearer towards the speakers meaning (my emphasis). In other words, the speaker does not need to restrict the gap between his words and his intended meaning to reasonable dimensions: all rational communication bears in itself the assumption that the utterance is relevant for the conversation going on. In his turn, in his interpretation of the speakers meaning, the receiver is guided by a similar assumption/ expectation, so that no matter how unrelated to the conversation going on the speakers words might seem, he will try to bridge the gap between what the latter said and what he meant so that it should match the logical thread of the conversation. The Theory of Relevance proposes two basic claims regarding the role of relevance in cognition and communication: Cognitive Principle of Relevance o Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance. Communicative Principle of Relevance o Every act of overt communication conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance.
In Carstons (2002: 116) definition, the set of assumptions (propositions) ostensively communicated are those for which the communicators stimulus (utterance) makes it mutually manifest (to communicator and audience) that she intends to make them manifest (or more manifest) to the audience. Obviously, metaphorical usage is ostensive because the speaker makes mutually manifest her intention to make manifest to the addressee that P (Carston, 2002: 116), where P stands for the speakers intended meaning.
Thus, the cognitive principle of Relevance tells us that people tend to pay attention to what is most important (i.e. maximally relevant) to them at a specific moment. Therefore, if the speaker wants his utterance to be successful, he must make the receiver perceive the utterance as relevant enough to be worthy of attention. Or, as the communicative principle of Relevance shows, by the very act of communicating, the speaker indicates that his utterance is optimally relevant.
Conclusions
275
276
On the other side of the communicative exchange, the hearers expectations of relevance are triggered by the utterance itself; these expectations are predictable enough to guide the receiver towards the speakers meaning. Presumption of optimal relevance, a key notion in the Relevance Theory, tells the hearer not only that utterance is relevant enough to be worth processing, but also that it is the most relevant one compatible with the communicators abilities and preferences. Based on the presumption that the utterance is optimally relevant, Sperber & Wilson developed a relevance-guided comprehension heuristic, which suggests that the receiver follow[s] the path of least effort in constructing an interpretation of the utterance and that he stop[s] when [his] expectations of relevance are satisfied. This shows clearly that communication is different from scientific research: while in scientific research all facts must be considered, to process the data provided him by the speaker, the hearer must search for the path of least effort (i.e. for a meaning that is obvious and relevant), and to stop his search when his expectations of relevance are satisfied (i.e. when he perceives the link between what the speaker is saying and the conversation going on). This is because, while in other fields of research the data are provided by an impassive source (e.g. nature), the data for utterance interpretation come from a speaker who is cooperating and who wants his message to be understood correctly. Obviously, the shorter time span for utterance interpretation also restricts the hearers analytic process. It was discussed in the previous section that, according to Relevance Theory, the speaker may communicate two classes of assumptions (propositions): explicature and implicature. The content of explicature comes from two distinct sources: the linguistic expression (which must be decoded) and the context. For example, to interpret the utterance1 Hes in the grip of a vice the hearer will have to make several types of contextual contributions to retrieve the speakers explicit meaning: assigning referent to He, identifying the temporal context, and disambiguating the meaning of vice (literal or metaphorical meaning) in the context. The additional information, the implicature carried by the utterance, resides in the speakers communicative intention and
1
is retrieved by pragmatic inference. The reason that has made the speaker produce the utterance, i.e. its relevance for the communicative exchange, represents an important clue to guide the hearer in making his inferences. Thus, to retrieve the full meaning of the speakers utterance, Relevance Theory tells us that the receiver follows the path of least effort and stops when his expectations of relevance are fulfilled. For example, to interpret the second utterance in the exchanges below (from Carston, 2002: 143-5), the hearer will probably follow the paths: Ann: Shall we play tennis? Bob: Its raining Explicature: Its raining at locationA/B Implicated premise: If its raining in locationx then its not possible to play tennis at locationx Implicated conclusion: Ann and Bob cant play tennis at locationA/B or Passer-by: Im looking for Whitby Street. Can you tell me where it is? Speaker: Its the second one down on the left a. S has uttered sentence with logical form: [its the second one down on the left] (Output of linguistic decoding) b. Ss utterance is optimally relevant to me (Presumption of optimal relevance) c. Ss utterance will achieve relevance by providing an answer to my question (Standard expectation created by the asking of a question) d. Whitby Street is the second street on my left as I proceed down Hinkley Road (First accessible reference assignment which will yield an answer to question) Sperber & Wilsons Relevance Theory is a theory of the mind, rather than of language. With it, they refute the positions of linguists such as Donald Davidson (1986), Noam Chomsky (1992), or Jerry Fodor1 (1983, 1987), who consider that, to develop a theory of the interpreter would amount to creating a theory of everything, the pursuit of which would lead to a theory of nothing (Carston, 2002: 1, quoting Chomsky, 1992).
And yet, Jerry Fodors view of the modular structure of the human mind stands at the basis of Sperber & Wilsons Relevance Theory.
Grices example, quoted by Carston, 2002: 105.
Annexes
277
278
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: English a crazy language
Task 1. Discuss what is strange in each case. Use the dictionary if you dont know what they mean. Give the correct form wherever necessary (the * shows that the form is not correct). Task 2. Identify words/phrases which carry associative meanings and discuss their function.
Text A. English is the most widely used language in the history of our planet. One in every seven human beings can speak it. More than half the world's books and three quarters of international mail are in English. Of all languages, English has the largest vocabulary perhaps as many as two million words and one of the noblest bodies of literature. Nonetheless, let's face it, English is a crazy language. There's no egg in eggplant, neither pine nor apple in pineapple, and ham in a hamburger. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candy, while sweetbreads (which aren't sweet) are meat. We take English for granted. But when we explore it's paradoxes, we find that quicksand works slowly, boxing rings are square, public bathrooms have no bath, and a guinea pig is neither a pig, nor is it from Guinea. And why is it that a writer writes, but grocers don't *groce and hammers don't *ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be *beeth? One goose two geese, so why not one mooth and two *meeth? One index two indices ['indisi:z], so why not one Kleenex two *Kleeneces? If the teacher taught, why isn't it true that the preacher *prought? If you wrote a letter, perhaps you also *bote your tongue. If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Isn't it a bit loopy that you can make amends but not just one *amend? That you comb through the annals of history but not just one *annal? If a horse hair mat is made from the hair of horses, and a camel's hair coat from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair coat made? Perhaps all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive on the parkway, yet park on the driveway? recite at a play yet play a recital? ship by truck yet send cargo by ship? have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, whilst a wise man and a wise guy are opposite? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a few and quite a lot are alike? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell the next? Did you ever notice that we talk about certain things only when they are absent? Have you ever seen a *horseful carriage or a *strapful gown? Met a *sung hero or experienced *requited love? Have you ever run into someone who was *gruntled, *ruly or *peccable? And where are the people who are *spring chicken or who *would hurt a fly? I meet individuals who can cut the mustard and whom I would touch with a ten-foot pole, but I cannot talk about them in English! You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down; in which you fill in a form by filling it out; in which your alarm clock goes off by going on? English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all!). That is why, when I wind up my watch I start it, but when I wind up my speech, I end it. Thank you. Text B. This I have never understood: We chop down trees but chop up wood; We draw down wrath, we draw up wills, We run down foes, we run up bills; We eat food up, we down a drink, Which is a little strange, I think. We turn down offers, turn up noses Just one last thought and then this closes: We should remember, we poor clowns, That life is full of up and downs.
Task 3. After you have read section 2.1.2 of Chapter 2, select five of the lexical items you find more interesting and analyze the technique of word formation they are based on. Task 4. After you have read section 2.2 of Chapter 2, select five lexical items based on transfer of meaning and discuss them Task 5. After you have read section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2, select five lexical of the lexical items you find more interesting and analyze the process by which they were assimilated by the language. Task 6. After you have read Chapter 3, select five idioms and analyze them in terms of transparency and register.
Annexes
279
280
ANNEX 2: Lexical innovation and associative meaning

Text A: Read the text below and pick out the words which do not sound English. Do you think words such as droog, crast or deng exist in the English lexicon? What kind of words are they? What does Burgess want to achieve by including such words in his novel? What kind of society do you think the characters live in? Identify as many lexical items that carry associative as you can and explain their function. A Clockwork Orange By Anthony Burgess 'What's it going to be then, eh?' There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither. Well, what they sold there was milk plus something else. They had no licence for selling liquor, but there was no law yet against prodding some of the new veshches which they used to put into the old moloko, so you could peet it with vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom or one or two other veshches which would give you a nice quiet horrorshow fifteen minutes admiring Bog And All His Holy Angels and Saints in your left shoe with lights bursting all over your mozg. Or you could peet milk with knives in it, as we used to say, and this would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of dirty twenty-to-one, and that was what we were peering this evening I'm starting off the story with. Our pockets were full of deng, so there was no real need from the point of view of crasting any more pretty polly to tolchock some old veck in an alley and viddy him swim in his blood while we counted the takings and divided by four, nor to do the ultra-violent on some shivering starry grey-haired ptitsa in a shop and go smecking off with the till's guts. But, as they say, money isn't everything. Read the vocabulary, then rewrite the text in Standard English
Vocabulary: crast = to steal or rob; robbery; deng, pretty polly = money; horrorshow = good, well; mesto = place; peet = to drink; pol = sex; ptitsa = chick; mozg = brain; rassoodock = mind; skorry = quick, quickly; vellocet, synthemesc = drug; tolchock = hit or push; blow; beating; veck (<chelloweck) = person, man fellow; veshch = thing; viddy = to see or look; etc.
Text B. Read text 1 and discuss Joyces lexical creativity: identify types of lexical innovation and express your opinion concerning the writers possible reasons for it. Seamus Deans comments (text 2) may help you.
Finnegans Wake
By James Joyce 1. riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen-core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface. The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all Christian minstrelsy. The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since dev-linsfirst loved livvy. 2. The first thing to say about Finnegans Wake is that it is, in an important sense, unreadable. In order to pay it the attention it so impertinently and endlessly demands, the reader must forego most of the conventions about reading and about language that constitute him/her as a reader. The advantage to be gained from doing so is considerable; the conventions survive but they are less likely thereafter to dwindle into assumptions about what reading or writing is. Joyce's last great work is an extraordinary performance, a transcription into a miniaturized form of the whole western literary tradition; it is Joyce's outstanding mastery of that form and his amazing powers of transcription that show this to be an unrepeatable, solo performance that need, in a sense, only be looked at rather than 'read' to provide a sufficient impression of its radical, unique status. . Th e l an gua ge of the Wake is a c om posit e of w or ds an d syllables combined with such a degree of fertile inventiveness that new sounds and new meanings are constantly ingeminated. Joyce involves himself and us in an extremely complex series of translations that are endless because there is no original and no target language to supply a limit to the visual and sonar transactions that are negotiated by the text. (Introduction to Finnegans Wake, by Seamus Dean)
Annexes
281
282
ANNEX 3: Sense relations

Read the jokes and say what makes them funny. Decide whether they exploit semantic or pragmatic sense relations. Mention the type.
o o o o o o When I said I wanted to marry her she asked for something more concrete, I wondered what cement. I figured a married man may be down but hes never out. Grammarians tell us matrimony is more than a serious word its a full sentence! It puts the period on many mens lives. Marriage is a wonderful state of matrimony! Sometimes it is more than a state, it is a whole territory! Im still mad on matrimony and Id leave my bride tomorrow if it werent for her enormous figure! I mean her figure in her bank book! The newlyweds went to a lake resort for their honeymoon. The next day they went for a boat ride. The brides mother received a postal card saying: Arrived safely. Grand row before dinner. What a shame, the mother murmured, to think they'd start quarreling this soon! Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things. Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow. Registrar (to imposing bride and diminutive bridegroom): And now I pronounce you wife and man. Henpecked Harry: But, my dear, youve been talking for a whole hour and I havent said a word. Hardboiled Joan: No, you havent said anything, but youve been listening in a most aggravating manner! Experience is something you dont get until just after you need it. A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. He who hesitates is probably right. Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view. The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it. The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread. The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory. Always try to be modest. And be damn proud of it! If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments. How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hand.... I'd kill for a Nobel P(e)ace Prize. Everybody repeat after me....."We are all individuals." Death to all fanatics! Don't be sexist; broads hate that! Love may be blind, but marriage is a real eye-opener. A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good. Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of checks. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now. Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.
ANNEX 4: Figurative speech

In the text below, find examples of figurative phrases, give their nonfigurative meaning, and analyse them in terms of figurative category and transparency, as in the models:
MODELS: o noise and haste = the troubles of life; metonymy; live; semi-transparent o go placidly = live your life calmly; verbal metaphor; live; semi-transparent
Desiderata By Max Ehrmann

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, And remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly & clearly; and listen to others, even the dull & ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud & aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain & bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing future of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity & disenchantment it is perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue & loneliness. Beyond wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Annexes
283
284
ANNEX 5: Meaning and thought

In Nineteen Eighty-Four (written in 1949), George Orwell imagines a Stalinist regime established in a hypothetical England of the future. In a country where Big Brother is watching your every move, a new language Newspeak is being invented, so that 'the Party' can control peoples thoughts. 1. Identify techniques of word formation and cases of meaning transfer. 2. Identify words with associative meanings and discuss their function.
The Principles of Newspeak

I. [The] vocabulary [of Newspeak] was so constructed as to give exact expression to every meaning that a Party member could wish to express, while excluding all other meanings. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping [the] words [that] remained of unorthodox meanings. For example, the word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could not be used in its old sense of 'politically free' or 'intellectually free,' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Newspeak words were divided into three distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary (the vocabulary of everyday life), the B vocabulary (the political vocabulary), and the C vocabulary (the technical vocabulary). II. The A vocabulary consisted of the words needed for everyday life. It was composed almost entirely of words that we already possess words like hit, run, dog, tree, sugar, house, field but in comparison with the present-day English vocabulary their number was extremely small, while their meanings were far more rigidly defined. The grammar of Newspeak had two outstanding peculiarities. The first of these was an almost complete interchangeability between different parts of speech. Any word in the language could be used either as verb, noun, adjective, or adverb. There was no such word as cut, its meaning being sufficiently covered by the noun-verb knife. Adjectives were formed by adding the suffix -ful to the nounverb, and adverbs by adding -wise. Thus for example, speedful meant 'rapid' and speedwise meant 'quickly'. In addition, any word could be negatived by adding the affix unor could be strengthened by the affix plus, or, for still greater emphasis, doubleplus-. Thus, uncold meant 'warm' while pluscold and doublepluscold meant, respectively, 'very cold and 'superlatively cold'. By such methods it was found possible to bring about an enormous diminution of vocabulary. The second distinguishing mark of Newspeak grammar was its regularity: all inflexions followed the same rules. Thus, in all verbs preterite and the past participle were the same and ended in -ed. The preterite of steal was stealed, the preterite of think was thinked, and so on, all such forms as swam, gave, brought, spoke, taken, etc., being abolished. The only classes of words that were still allowed to inflect irregularly were the pronouns, the relatives, the demonstrative adjectives, and the auxiliary verbs.
III. The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words which were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them. The B words were a sort of verbal shorthand, often packing whole ranges of ideas into a few syllables. The B words all compound words consisted of two or more words or portions of words, welded together in an easily pronounceable form. The resulting amalgam was a nounverb inflected according to the ordinary rules. For example, goodthink meant roughly 'orthodoxy', or, as a verb, 'to think in an orthodox manner.' This inflected as follows: noun-verb, goodthink; past tense and past participle, goodthinked; present participle, good-thinking; adjective, goodthinkful; adverb, goodthinkwise; verbal noun, goodthinker. Some of the B words had highly subtilized meanings, barely intelligible to anyone who had not mastered the language as a whole. Consider, for example, such a typical sentence from a Times leading article as Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. The shortest rendering in Oldspeak would be: 'Those whose ideas were formed before the Revolution cannot have a full emotional understanding of the principles of English Socialism.' But this is not an adequate translation. To begin with, in order to grasp the full meaning of this Newspeak sentence, one would have to have a clear idea of what is meant by Ingsoc. And in addition, only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance; or of the word oldthink, which was inextricably mixed up with the idea of wickedness and decadence. But the special function of certain Newspeak words was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. Countless words, such as honour, justice, morality, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and in covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous. In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical. The Party member knew what constituted right conduct. His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake. They were all equally culpable, and, in principle, all punishable by death. He also knew what was meant by goodsex: normal intercourse between man and wife for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman.
(Orwell George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, abridged)
Annexes
285
286
ANNEX 6: Idioms and style

Read the following examples, then find at least ten other idioms and analyse them in the same way:
to be all ears = to listen attentively Romanian equivalent: a fi ochi numai i urechi e.g. The children were all ears when their father told them the story. figure of speech: metonymy stylistic level: neutral and informal speech to keep an ear to the ground = to be alert to all that is happening/being said Romanian equivalent: a fi cu ochii-n patru e.g. He kept an ear to the ground hoping he might find out something useful. figure of speech: metaphor stylistic level: literary or neutral speech as black as the ace of spades = very black, very dirty Romanian idiomatic equivalent: 'negru ca tciunele, foarte murdar'; e.g. After cleaning up his garage, John was as black as the ace of spades. figure of speech: simile stylistic level: can be used in neutral, informal speech and slang. to chase rainbows = to think about things one cant obtain Romanian equivalent: a visa cai verzi pe perei e.g. Hes not very realistic; he chases rainbows all the time. figure of speech: metaphor stylistic level: formal/poetic to get to the heart of something = to get to the essence of a problem Romanian equivalent: a ptrunde n miezul problemei, a merge la int e.g. Right now you are getting to the heart of the whole situation. figure of speech: personification stylistic level: formal or neutral speech glass ceiling = an upper limit to professional advancement, esp. as imposed upon women, that is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged Romanian equivalent: barier profesional, nu e pentru femei e.g. Mary's very good at her job, but she won't get the promotion. You know, the glass ceiling. figure of speech: metaphor stylistic level: formal and neutral speech to be wet behind the ears = young and without much experience in life Romanian equivalent: a fi cu ca la gur e.g. I shouldnt have given him that difficult job: he's still wet behind the ears. figure of speech: metonymy stylistic level: colloquial speech Heaven knows = 'I dont know'; Romanian idiomatic equivalent: Dumnezeu tie! e.g. 'Where did John go? ' 'Heaven knows!' figure of speech: personification stylistic level: standard and neutral speech
ANNEX 7: Register and style

Read the texts and match each of them with the discourse type and stylistic level, according to the model: Text: 1.political speech; 2.academic writing; 3.journalistic article; 4.text of song; 5. letter to friend; 6. literature. Style: a.elevated; b.formal, c.neutral, d.informal, e.colloquial, f.slangy. MODEL: A-1-b
A. I have a dream, that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. [] With this faith we will be able to work together, play together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. [] And when this happens when we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, and from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of Gods children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spirituals: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!" B. I pulled out my report card. I showed it to Mama and to Aunt Carrie. They couldnt read hardly at all, but they knew what an A looked like. Id got A in geography, spelling, reading, arithmetic, and history. The only other mark I got was a D in English, which I didnt bother to point out. So when Mama and Aunt Carrie saw all them As they said I was a good boy. The trouble kicked up when I showed my report card to Aunt Matty. You got D in English! The way Aunt Matty took on, it must have been the first D anybody ever got, because it sure gave her the vapors. Like she seen a ghost. Well, I thought to myself, Ive done it. Brung disgrace on my familys house. Appeared a D in English was so dark a deed that no one could live it down. C. Writers have always considered themselves the determined enemies of jargon and clich. A notable instance of this is the crusade George Orwell carried out against degenerate language, especially against 'journalese' and 'officialese.' Orwell deplores the habit of what he calls 'gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by somebody else and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. Particular targets of his scorn were clich phrases containing dying metaphors, like toe the line, play a leading part in, militate against, and stand shoulder to shoulder with, and vague grandiloquent phrases which can be replaced by a simple, more direct word, as render inoperable can be replaced by spoil or ruin, or take into consideration can be replaced by consider. Orwell saw this trend not just as an invitation to slovenly thought, but as an insidious influence on the intellectual, aesthetic, and moral life of the community: 'Language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have vicious thoughts.'
Annexes
D. Text
Got 30 down at the bottom, 30 mo' at the top All invisible set in little ice cube blocks If I could call it a drink, call it a "Smile on da Rocks" If I could call out a price, let's say I call out a lot I got like platinum and white gold, traditional gold I'm changin' grillz er'day, like Jay change clothes, I might be grilled out nicely (oh) In my white tee (oh), Or on South Beach (oh) in my wife b. VVS studded, you can tell when they cut it Ya see my grandmama hate it, but my lil' mama love it
287
Translation
I've got 30 diamonds covering my bottom teeth and 30 more at the top They have invisible settings and look like little ice cube blocks If I could name my mouth the way we name alcoholic drinks, I'd call this jewelry a "Smile on the Rocks" If I could call out a price, I would tell you that it cost a lot I have platinum and white gold, traditional gold I change my dental jewelry every day the way rapper Jay-Z changes clothes I might be wearing some beautiful dental jewelry while in my white t-shirt, Or I could be on South Beach wearing my wife beater (sleeveless t-shirt) The diamonds on my teeth are excellent quality, as you can see You understand, my grandmother hates me to wear them, but my girlfriend loves it
288
ANNEX 8: The text

Analyse the following texts from a functional perspective:
A. 1. I dont like that! 2. You may be right. 3. Where can one find such a rare object? 4. Could you show me how that works? 5. I dont think that would be the best solution. B. 1. Deborah (mascara). Gives color to your life 2. Andrea Moda (boots). The character is woman 3. Stella Artois (beer). Perfection has its price 4. South African Airways. Snuggle Up in Flat-Out Luxury 5. Hertz (car rental). Hertz has more new cars than Avis has cars C. George: Hello, darling, did you have a good day? Lorna: Not bad. The usual sort of thing. Meetings, phone calls, letters. You know. George: Did you see anybody interesting? Lorna: Well, Chris came into the office this morning. We had a long talk. George: Oh, yes? What about? Lorna: Oh, this and that. Things. You know. George: I see. Lorna: And then Janet turned up. As usual. Just when I was trying to finish some work.
(M.Swan & C.Walter, The Cambridge English Course, Students Book 2, p.16)
E. Dear Lorna, A quick note long overdue to say thanks for your lovely letter. It arrived ages ago, but in the excitement and hassle of getting here and settling in I don't seem to have had two minutes to put pen to paper. We've moved all our stuff in the boxes from Britain finally turned up! so we feel a bit more at home. I have to say I have been feeling dreadfully homesick for my home, friends and family, but there are compensations (the swimming pool and lovely weather, for a start). We also wanted you to be one of the first to know that I'm expecting a baby due in May! So I'm feeling as sick as a dog, as well as homesick (but very excited, too)!! When you last wrote, you were just about to go off to university. I bet you're having a great time! You will drop us a line soon and give us all your news, won't you? You are coming over at Easter, by the way? Lots of love, Karen. P.S. Alex sends his love. F. On the afternoon of Tuesday, October 17, 1989, the city of San Francisco was preparing for another game of baseball World Series between the hometown Giants and the Oakland Athletics. There was a festive atmosphere to San Francisco that day It was a long time since the Giants had played for the championship and everyone wanted to join in the celebration. Then, at 5:04 p.m., the earth began to move. At first it seemed like just another minor earthquake, the sort of thing to which Californians have long been accustomed. But this one kept on getting bigger, building in intensity and power for 15 agonizing seconds. When it was finished, a 40foot section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge had collapsed, as well as many buildings. Further south, in Santa Cruz and Watsonville (the epicenter of the quake), houses had been wrenched off their foundations and streets ripped apart by the massive tremor. For the second time in 83 years, San Francisco had been hit by the Big One. The texts: A. Speech by Martin Luther King; B. Peck R.N., A Day No Pigs Would Die; C. from Geoffrey Leech, Semantics, Chapter 3 (abridged); D. Nelly featuring Paul Wall, Ali and Gipp: Grillz; E. Form Matters. Longman. 2000:29; F. From Speak Up, October 1991 (abridged).
D. Clinton's Choice: Tell All or Just a Bit WASHINGTON President Bill Clinton has had extensive discussions with his inner circle of advisers about a strategy of acknowledging to a grand jury on Monday that he had sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky in the White House, senior advisers have said. Although Mr. Clinton has not settled on this approach, discussions have centered on a plan that would allow him to acknowledge a specific type of sexual behavior while still maintaining that he told the truth when he testified in January that he had never had ''sexual relations'' with the former White House intern, the advisers said.
(R.L. Berke, in International Herald Tribune, Aug. 15, 1998)
E. Aerosmith, Eat the Rich

Well I woke up this morning On the wrong side of the bed And how I got to thinking About all the things you said About ordinary people And how they make you sick And if callin names kicks back on you Then I hope this does the trick
Annexes
289
290
ANNEX 9: Meaning in context

Analyse the way in which the context affects the meaning and message of the following texts. How would different features of the context affect their meaning? A. 1. You dont have to do it if you dont want to. 2. Shes such a great help to all of us! 3. I wonder where that could have come from. 4. Im sure you dont mean that! 5. John is so clever. He already knows the numbers. B. 1. Audi. Never follow 2. Danza Vodka. Made to Chill 3. Givenchy AMARIGE (perfume). Forever and a day 5. Pantne (shampoo). Enjoy a new sensation of fullness. 7. Le Fabbier (furniture) Kiss price. C. Dulux (paint) Treacle Tart: Calm, sensual personality looking for partner to spend time in the bedroom. Brooklyn Nights: Cool, calm individual, great in the bedroom, living room, bathroom. colors: rich, fresh, warm, calm At Dulux we know that Treacle Tart and Brooklyn Nights go together because they come from the same mood group in our new Colour Co-ordination System. This system groups colours into four separate moods: rich, fresh, warm, calm, so when you pick colours from the same mood you can be confident that theyll go together. D. "Er Petunia, dear you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" As he had expected, Mrs. Dursley looked shocked and angry. After all, they normally pretended she didn't have a sister. "No," she said sharply. "Why?" "Funny stuff on the news," Mr. Dursley mumbled. "Owls... shooting stars... and there were a lot of funny-looking people in town today..." "So?" snapped Mrs. Dursley. "Well, I just thought... maybe... it was something to do with... you know... her crowd."
(J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter One)
ANNEX 10: What words do!

Read the text and comment on the way women are supposed to use the language to do things: Female keywords and their meanings 1. 'Fine: This is the word women use at the end of any argument when they feel they are right but can't stand to hear you argue any longer. It means that you should shut up. (NEVER use 'fine' to describe how she looks. This will cause you to have one of those arguments.) 2. 'Five minutes': This is half an hour. It is equivalent to the five minutes that your football game is going to last before you take out the trash, so women feel that it's an even trade. 3. 'Nothing': 'Nothing' means something and you should be on your toes. 'Nothing' is usually used to describe the feeling a woman has of wanting to turn you inside out, upside down, and backwards. 'Nothing' usually signifies an argument that will last 'Five Minutes' and end with the word 'Fine.' 4. 'Go ahead' (with raised eyebrows): This is NOT permission; it's a dare! If you mistake it for permission, the result will be the woman will get upset over 'Nothing' and you'll have a 'five-minute' discussion that will end with the word 'Fine.' 5. 'Go ahead' (normal eyebrows): This is NOT permission, either. It means 'I give up' or 'do what you want because I don't care.' You will get a raised eyebrow 'Go ahead' in just a few minutes, followed by 'Nothing' and 'Fine' and she will talk to you in about 'Five minutes' when she cools off. 6. Loud sigh: This is not actually a word, but is still often a verbal statement. Very frequently misunderstood by men. A 'loud sigh means she thinks you are a complete idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you over 'Nothing!' 7. Soft sigh: Again, not a word, but a verbal statement. 'Soft sighs' are one of the few things that some men actually understand. It means she is momentarily content. Your best bet is to not move or breathe in the hope that the moment will last a bit longer. 8. 'Oh': This word, followed by any statement, is trouble, e.g.: 'Oh, we talked about you last night.' If she says 'Oh' before a
Annexes
291
292
statement, run to the nearest exit. She will tell you that she is 'Fine' (when she is done tossing your clothes out the window), but do not expect her to talk to you for at least two days. ('Oh' is the lead to a sentence that usually signifies that you are caught in a lie. Do not try to lie more, or you will get a raised eyebrows 'Go ahead,' sometimes followed by acts so unspeakable that I can't bring myself to write about them. 9. 'That's Okay': This is one of the most dangerous statements that a woman can say to a man. 'That's Okay' means that she wants to think long and hard before deciding what the penalty will be for whatever you have done. 'That's Okay' is often used with the word 'Fine' and in conjunction with a raised eyebrow 'Go ahead.' Once she has had time to plan it out, you are in for some mighty big trouble. 10. 'Please do': This is not a statement, it is an offer. The woman is giving you the chance to come up with an excuse for what you have done. In other words, a chance to get yourself into even more trouble. If you handle this correctly, you shouldn't get a 'That's Okay.' 11. 'Thanks': The woman is thanking you. Don't faint and don't look for hidden meaning. Just say, 'You're welcome.' 12. 'Thanks a lot': 'Thanks a lot' is dramatically different from 'Thanks.' A woman will say 'Thanks a lot' when she is really ticked off at you. It is usually followed by the 'Loud sigh.' This signifies that you have hurt her in some callous way. Be careful not to ask what is wrong after the 'Loud sigh,' as she will only tell you 'Nothing.'
(from LaughNet, Aug. 2004)
ANNEX 11: Lexical meaning vs. speakers meaning

Analyse the following from the perspective of the Cooperative Principle:
What the Doctor Really Means

Says: 'Let me check your medical history.' Means: 'I want to see if you've paid your last bill before spending any more time with you.' Says: 'Welllllll, what have we here...' Means: Since he hasn't the foggiest notion of what it is, the Doctor is hoping you will give him a clue. Says: 'Hmmmmmmmm.' Means: Since he hasn't the faintest idea of what to do, he is trying to appear thoughtful while hoping the nurse will interrupt. Says: 'This should be taken care of right away.' Means: 'This is so easy and profitable that I want to fix it before it cures itself.' Says: 'That's quite a nasty looking wound.' Means: 'If you are scared, you won't realize that you are paying too much.' Says: 'Let's see how it develops.' Means: Maybe in a few days it will grow into something he can recognize. Says: 'This should fix you up.' Means: The drug salesman guaranteed that it kills all symptoms. Says: 'I'd like to prescribe a new drug.' Means: 'I would like to use you for a guinea pig.' Says: 'If it doesn't clear up in a week, give me a call.' Means: 'I don't know what the hell it is. Maybe it will go away by itself.' Says: 'Let me schedule you for some tests.' Means: 'I have a 40% interest in the lab.' Says: 'I'd like to run some more tests.' Means: 'I can't figure out what's wrong. Maybe the kid in the lab can solve this one.' Says: 'We'll see.' Means: 'First I have to check my malpractice insurance.' Says: 'We have some good news and some bad news.' Means: The good news is the drug salesman's got some expensive new drug nobody knows very much about, and the bad news is you're going to pay for it. Says: 'Why don't we make another appointment later in the week.' Means: 'I'm playing tennis this afternoon, and I can't stay here with you.' or 'I need the money, so I'm charging you for another office visit.'
(from LaughNet, Aug. 2004)
Annexes
293
294

We seem to have a problem. (= Obviously we have a problem.) Secret Number 4: use not very/entirely/completely/wholly + a positive adjective to express something negative! That might not be very convenient. (= That is not convenient.) Im not entirely convinced. (= Im not at all convinced) That wouldnt seem to be very helpful. (= That is unhelpful.)
ANNEX 12: Diplomatic language1

A native speaker gives us the following advice about how to be polite:
Secret Number 1: Use cushions.

Actually or As a matter of fact, can indicate: Im going to contradict you. A: The population of Hungary is 6,000,000. B: Actually, its nearer 10,000,000! Im afraid means: Im sorry to have to say this, but. Im afraid well have to close the factory and make everybody redundant. With respect means: I dont feel respectful at all. I want to say something very strong, but I must not be impolite. With respect thats not what I thought you said yesterday! (= You have changed your line!) To be honest means: OK, lets cut the diplomacy. or Im trying to sound sincere. A: We could never persuade the workforce to do that. B: To be honest, I cant see the problem. (= Youre exaggerating and we both know it! or Even if there is a problem Im not admitting it.) To put it bluntly means: OK, Ive tried to be diplomatic, now Im going to say what I really mean! A: I feel the company has been unfair to me. B: To put it bluntly, you havent exactly been the best employee! If I could just means: Do this very quickly. A: I must go soon. B: If I could just ask you to sign this before you leave
Secret Number 5: use qualifiers in addition to modals to make

the message softer. There might be a short delay. (= There will be a delay. We hope it wont be too long) I may be a little bit late. (= I will be late.) That might be rather difficult. (= We cant do that.)
Secret Number 6: Avoid taking personal responsibility for something you find difficult to say. Im afraid I am unable to agree to that. (= I dont want to agree to that.) Were not in a position to go ahead yet. (= Were not ready yet, We dont want to do it yet.) Secret Number 7: Put the negative first. I dont think hes coming. (= I think he isnt coming.) Secret Number 8: Use a question form to make a suggestion. Could we do that later? (= I think we should that later.) Is it OK if we stop for lunch now? (= I think we should stop now.) Secret Number 9: Make the suggestion even more indirect by
putting the question negatively. Wouldnt it be better to finish it tomorrow? (= I think it would be better to finish it tomorrow.) Cant we change the timetable? (= I think we should change the timetable.)
Secret Number 2: Use would

Conditional forms using modals sound less direct, and therefore, to a native English speaker, more polite. That would be difficult. (= That is too difficult.) That would not be acceptable. (= That is not acceptable.) We would need to see some proof. (= We need to see some proof.)
Secret Number 10: Use comparatives. Wouldnt it be better if we changed the timetable? (= Lets change the
timetable.) Would you be more prepared to move if we increased your salary? (= We know you dont want to move; would you change your mind if?)
Secret Number 11: The -ing form in the past indicates that you
are prepared to be flexible. We were hoping to finish today. (= We would prefer to finish today if possible. We are hoping to finish today is a firmer statement of intent.) We were wondering if you liked it. (= Wed like to know if you like it.)
Secret Number 3: Use seem; meaning: Its obvious! With respect, you dont seem to understand.
(= Obviously you dont understand, or youre pretending you dont understand.) We seem to be in agreement. (= Obviously, this agreement is good for us all.)
Secret Number 12: Indirect questions sound more diplomatic

than direct ones. I wonder what the time is. (= What is the time?) Please could you tell me where the office is? (= Where is the office?)
After Rita Baker, Lydbury English Centre
295
296 Davidson, Donald. (1986). A nice derangement of epitaphs. In Lepore, E. (ed.). Truth and Interpretations: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson, 433-46. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckersley, C.E. ([1941] 1998). Essential English for Foreign Students. England: Longman. Fairclough, Norman L. (1996). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fodor, Jerry. (1987). Why there still has to be a language of thought. In Fodor, J. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind, 135-54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grice, H. Paul. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature, in Cole P. (ed) Radical pragmatics, New York, Academic, pp. 183-98 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Garden City. Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hassan. (1976). Cohesion in English, London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994/1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd Edition. London-NY-Sydney-Auckland: Arnold. Hayakawa, S.I. (1978). Language in Thought and Action. NY: Harcourt. Hymes, Dell. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.J. Gumprez & D. Hymes (eds). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Hymes" Horn, Laurence & Gregory Ward. (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Joyce, James. (1992). Finnegans Wake. England: Penguin Books. Katz, J.J. & J.A. Fodor. (1964). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. In Language: 39; 170-210. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By, London & Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, R.T. (1973). The logic of politeness ; or, minding your ps and qs. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic.
Bibliography
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: OUP. Bauer, Laurie. (1983). English Word-Formation : Cambridge: CUP. Bach, Kent. (1994). Conversational implicature. In Mind and Language 9:124-62. Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327-66. Blackmore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. ([1978]1987). Politeness Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP. Burgess, Anthony. (1962) A Clockwork Orange. London: Penguin Books Cann, Ronnie (1993) Formal Semantics. An introduction. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carston, Robyn. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge. Mass: M.I.T. Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1992). Language and interpretation: philosophical reflections and empirical enquiry. In Earman, J. (ed.) Inference, Explanation and other Philosophical Frustrations, 99-128. Berkley: University of California Press; reprinted in Chomsky, N. 2000: 46-74. Chomsky, Noam. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: CUP. Corder, S.P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: OUP. Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, David (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP Cook, Guy. (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. London & NY: Routledge
297 Leech, G. (1981). Semantics. The Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of pragmatics, London: Longman. Levinson, Stephen. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge: CUP. Levinson, Stephen. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Levichi, Leon. (1970). Lexicologie A Course In English Lexicology. Bucureti: Editura Didactic i Pedagogic. Levitchi, Leon (1975) ndrumar pentru traductorul din limba englez n limba romn. Bucureti: Editura tiinific i enciclopedic. Lyons, John. (1992). Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Mey, J.L. (1993). Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Orwell, George. (1983). Nineteen Eighty-Four. England: Penguin Books. Prlog. H. (1997) English Phonetics and Phonology. Bucureti: All. Partridge, Eric. (1984) A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. 8 th edition. Edited by Paul Beale. London: MacMillan. Pop, A. (2008). The Grammar of Advertising. (2008). ClujNapoca: Rosprint. Quirk, R. & Stein, G. (1990) English in Use. London: Longman Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4: 295-329. Recanati, F. (1993). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell. Salinger, J.D. (1951). The Catcher in the Rye. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: CUP. Searle, J.D. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole P. & Morgan J. (eds). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic. pp. 59-82. Seely, John. (2002). Words. Oxford: OUP. Series: One step ahead. Spencer-Oatey H.D.M. (1992). Cross-cultural politeness: British and Chinese conceptions of the tutor-student relationship, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University
298 Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. (2005). Pragmatics. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (eds) 2005. Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy . OUP: 268-501. Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford and Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Sperber Dan & Deidre Wilson (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2nd edn (with postface) 1995. Sperber D. & D.Wilson. (2005). Pragmatics. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (eds) 2005. Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP: 468-501. Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction, London: Longman. Thorne, Tony (1999). Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Yule, George (1995). The Study of Language, Cambridge: CUP. Vizental, Adriana. (2008). Phonetics & Phonology: An introduction . Third edition, revised. Arad: Aurel Vlaicu University Press. Vizental, Adriana. (2008). Working with Advertisements. From Functional Grammar to Co-operative Communication. Second edition, revised. Arad: Aurel Vlaicu University Press. Vizental, Adriana. (2006). From Semantic Meaning to Pragmatic Meaning: An introduction in semantics. Timisoara: Mirton. Weizman. E. (1989). Requestive hints. In Blum-Kulka S., House J., Kasper G. (eds). Cros-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. New Jersey, Norwood: Ablex. pp. 71-95. Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn & Ward 2004: 607-632. Wittgenstein, L. (1958 [1945-49]). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. *** (1992). Dictionary of English Idioms. Longman. *** (1999) The New Oxford Dictionary of English. OUP. *** (1966) The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. OUP. *** (1953). Websters New World Dictionary. Cleveland & New York.
299
Computer and Web-based resources (selected):

*** (1998). Random House Websters. http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/w#a1861. Works by Ludwig Wittgenstein at Project Gutenberg http://www.quinion.com/words/proguide.htm http://www.internet.ocii.com/cmeek/puns http://www.miguelmllop.com http://www.pride-unlimited.com/probono/idioms1html http://www.geocities.com/FashionAvenue/Catwalk/4588/eur.ht ml http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6720 http://www.floras.gr/user/IDIOMS.htm http://www.members.aol.com/MorelandC/HaveOrigins.htm http://www.phrases.shu.ac.uk/meaning/index.html http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/AO76931.html http://www.pride-unlimited.com/probono/idioms1html, Marvin Terban 'Scholastic Dictionary of Idioms' http://www.newage/slang.com http://www.idiomsite.com/ http://silverinternational.mbhs.edu/v123/slang.html http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=term&d=8&t=583 9, March 16, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom http://www.eslcafe.com/idioms/ Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs/Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2005
Editura Universitii Aurel Vlaicu Arad Acreditat CNCSIS Arad, str. E. Drgoi, nr. 2-4 Telefon: 0257-219555 E-mail: editura uav@yahoo.com
Tipar executat la Imprimeria Universitii Aurel Vlaicu, Arad, Romnia

Meaning and Communication 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meaning and Communication 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adriana Vizental Meaning and Communication From Semantic Meaning to Pragmatic Meaning

Meaning and Communication

Language a semiotic system

Meaning and Communication

0.2 From semantic meaning to pragmatic meaning

The asterisk * shows that the construct is non-grammatical, anomalous, etc.

Meaning and Communication

Meaning and Communication

Meaning and Communication

Meaning and semantic competence

Hyponymy = inclusion of meaning (see Chapter 3 of the present work).

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

The + sign can be discarded.

Quoting Goodenough (1970) and Lounsbury (1969).

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Connotative and affective meaning

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

1.2.2.2.1 Connotative meaning

After Cook, 1992.

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, quoted by Leech (1981: 44).

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Collocative and reflected meaning

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

1.2.3 Pragmatic meaning

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

The prototype theory was suggested by Eleanor Rosch, 1977.

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

Meaning-meaning relations: Congruence

Schematically, this can be represented in the following way:

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

sparrow nightingale etc.

dog sturgeon salmon

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

1.3.3 Normality relations: Consonance and dissonance

Grammatical antonymy can be established between: o o

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication a restaurant functions as pizza parlour functions as

Although not in a country where there is monetary inflation.

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication

After Leech, 1981: Chapter 5.

Chapter 1: Meaning and semantic competence

Meaning and Communication