Pragmatics: Illocutionary Acts, Implicature, and Politeness

Posted on Apr 6, 2025 in English, Linguistic and Literary Studies

Direct vs. Indirect Illocutions

The direct illocution of an utterance is indicated by a literal reading of its grammatical form and vocabulary. The indirect illocution is any further illocution or meaning the utterance may have beyond the literal interpretation.

Searle’s Five Categories of Illocutionary Acts

Searle categorized illocutionary acts into five types:

  1. Assertives: Speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition (e.g., stating, asserting).
  2. Directives: Speech acts intended to cause the hearer to take a particular action (e.g., requests, commands, advice).
  3. Commissives: Speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action (e.g., promises, oaths, vows).
  4. Expressives: Speech acts that express the speaker’s attitudes and emotions towards the proposition (e.g., congratulations, excuses, thanks).
  5. Declarations: Speech acts that change reality according to the proposition of the declaration (e.g., baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty, declaring marriage).

Leech’s Four Illocutionary Functions

Leech classified illocutionary acts based on their functions, particularly how they relate to the social goal of establishing and maintaining politeness:

  • Competitive: These acts compete with social goals (e.g., ordering, asking, demanding, begging). They aim to produce effects through the hearer’s actions. Example: “Pass the salt.”
  • Convivial: These acts align with social goals (e.g., offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating). Example: “Would you like some cookies?”
  • Collaborative: These acts are indifferent to social goals (e.g., asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing). They commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. Example: “The sky is blue.”
  • Conflictive: These acts conflict with social goals (e.g., threatening, accusing, reprimanding). Example: “If you say that again, I’ll tell your father.”

Conversational Implicature and Maxims

Conversational implicature refers to the meaning conveyed by an utterance beyond its literal proposition. It is based on the addressee’s assumption that the speaker is following the conversational maxims or at least the cooperative principle.

Observed Maxims (ImplicatureO)

Observing maxims non-literally triggers a standard conversational implicature (ImplicatureO).

Flouted Maxims (ImplicatureF)

Alternatively, a speaker can intentionally ignore or flout a maxim. This also carries a conversational implicature (ImplicatureF). Flouting typically involves saying something obviously false, uninformative, irrelevant, or obscure, signaling to the addressee that a different meaning is intended.

Example of Flouting:

A: Japan is in Europe, isn’t it?
B: And London is in Armenia, I suppose.
=> Implied meaning: Japan is definitely not in Europe.

Leech’s Six Politeness Maxims

Leech proposed six maxims as part of his Politeness Principle:

  • Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other; maximize benefit to other.
  • Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to self.
  • Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other; maximize praise of other.
  • Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self.
  • Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other; maximize agreement between self and other.
  • Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and other.

The Cost-Benefit Scale in Politeness

The cost-benefit scale reflects the social convention that people should strive to act in ways that are beneficial to others and minimize actions that are costly to others, as a component of politeness.