Pragmatic Rules - Language Use

Pragmatic Rules--Language Use • Certainly, there is a lot to keep in mind as we combine various words into sentences to express our thoughts. It's a wonder we can do it at all, let alone so effortlessly. • But wait, there is more. The toughest part is yet to come--Pragmatic constraints. • To me, there is a close analogy between language and a gun. • For example, Language Form (phonology, morphology and syntax) is analogous to the gun itself. • Semantics (Language Content) is analogous to the ammunition for a gun. • With just Form and Content alone, there is enough linguistic skill to make communication possible. The same is true for a gun and bullets. With these, one is able to shoot at something. • But give a gun to a person who does not know the rules of its use and tragic life altering consequences can occur. • No less is true of language. If we don't understand the rules of its use we can seriously hurt ourselves and/or others. The rules that apply to the use of language are called Pragmatics. • Pragmatics addresses the question, "Is the communication doing what we intended it to do?" • • The basic question in Pragmatics is, "Is the communication doing what we intended it to do?" There are three factors effecting the outcome of a communication. There are three factors in a verbal communication: Locution. Illocution, and Perlocution. • The three components of a communication, from a pragmatic point of view, are: o Locution--the semantic or literal significance of the utterance; o Illocution--the intention of the speaker; and o Perlocution--how it was received by the listener. • Here is a fictitious example (although a very similar one in Washington recently resulted in the firing of a very high government official). Take the word ³howlee.° • The American Dictionary of Fictitious words defines this word as, "Early missionary slang meaning--one who howls a lot." That is the locutionary significance. • To a local inhabitant of Hawaii, the word "howlee" historically has the meaning of an outsider. The word usually connotes considerable contempt. • To tourists in Hawaii, the word "howlee" signifies an aura of honorary Hawaiian status. These, then, are the three perlocutionary possibilities. When Locution, Illocution and Perlocution are out of balance, serious miscommunications can occur. • So one day when I drop my iron-wood surfboard on my toe and am loudly lamenting, a Hawaiian lifeguard comes and says, "What's the matter howlee?" • What is he really saying? Is it "What is wrong, you contemptible excuse for a worm;" or "What is wrong my honored and welcomed visitor;" or "What is wrong sir that you are howling so?" • This is the illocutionary consideration. • If I perceive the word "howlee" in its negative sense, then I may complain bitterly to his supervisor that he was disrespectful and perhaps even threatening. This could result in his termination as a lifeguard. • How sad that would be if indeed his intent with the word "howlee" had really been either purely semantic (meaning person who howls) or positive (meaning honored guest). • On the other hand maybe he really had an attitude problem. Pragmatic rules help us coordinate the structure of the utterance with the context of the message. • To be an effective speaker (i.e., one who gets his message across without hurting himself or someone else), I must be aware of these three factors: Perlocution, Locution and Illocution. • Then I must apply the rules of discourse that will insure that they are correctly coordinated in my utterance. • The way we do this, by and large, is by coordinating the structure of the utterance with the context of the message. • This can be a cognitive quagmire! But children quickly begin to learn and apply these rules as soon as they begin to talk, if not earlier. • What are these rules? There are many but we will examine just a enough to get a flavor of what it is all about. • The first set involves coordinating the non linguistic (Expressive Graded) cues with the intent of the linguistic component of the message. Pragmatically, the message must be coordinated with the non linguistic context--Non Verbal and Paralinguistic cues. • These non linguistic cues were pretty well summed up in Hallªs discussion of "Body Language." From our standpoint, they can be divided into Non Verbal, and Paralinguistic Aspects. • Non Verbal Aspects: One important non verbal cue is eye gaze. Once, I asked this young lady why she didnªt show up or our date, and she said, looking everywhere except at me, "I'ªm sorry, but I missed the bus." • In our culture, failing to look a person in the eyes connotes a air of insincerity. Hence, I might have read from this that she missed the bus on purpose. In addition, her body posture, which was extremely tense, and her physical proximity to me (she was crouched all of the way across the room) added to my notion that there was more to her statement than the simple, "I'm sorry..." linguistic message Non Linguistic Contextual cues can totally change the Locutionary content of a linguistic message. • Furthermore, her facial expression, (lips drawn back, teeth bared and nostrils flared) also seemed to run contrary to the locutionary content. But what began to convince me was the gestural motions she made with her clenched hand and extended finger that appeared to me more aggressive than concilliatory. • Paralinguistic Aspects: There were curious auditory cues also which I detected. • Her vocal quality possessed a notable hissing demeanor; the intensity of her voice was so great that a man three blocks away turned and apologized; her prosody was strictly monotone with her articulation drawn out to three times the normal speed; and her fluency was notably off, since she blocked on the word "sorry" for 30 seconds. Of course, I immediately asked her to marry me and she accepted. Pragmatically, the linguistic message must be balanced internally with an array of verbal rules of discourse. • Pragmatic verbal rules of discourse: Soon after we were married, I noticed an almost exclusive use of "Commands" in my wife's linguistic communications to me. • I could have sworn before we were married that there had been more of a Variety of Speech Acts, including informative statements, questions, and exclamations, etc. • Turn taking too, seems to have gone by the board. • It used to be that I would say something, then she would reply and I would respond etc. • Now she says something; then she elaborates on it; and then she contradicts it; and finally argues the point at great length. • After 35 minutes I am reminded that Quantity and Conciseness are pragmatic parameters to be prized. • Of course, my wife too complains that I have changed since our marriage. Ignoring the verbal rules of discourse can result in a loss of friends. • She complains that as she talks, I provide no Verbal Feedback. • Instead of occasionally nodding my head and saying, "mmm hmm," or "Yes," like I used to do, she says that I now simply stare in a mute and motionless trance with my eyes crossed and my lower jaw drooping. • As a couple, of course, we have been accused, by ex- friends, of Topic Selection pragmatic errors. • This is because, they say, when they would meet us we always started talking about Ezmerelda, our three year old daughter. Since she was born, no other topics of conversation exists. To talk to us was to discuss for 30 minutes Ezmerelda's attempts to tie her shoe lace. • Of course, its not a problem anymore because we don't have many conversations since our friends don't seem to exist. One of the most important Verbal aspects to be considered is Lexical Selection. • Of course, there are many other Pragmatic Verbal considerations including: • Maintaining a topic (many kindergarten children start a new topic with almost each new sentence); • Changing a Topic (folks get bored if you have only one topic of interest); • Introducing a topic (its necessary to provide not too much, nor to little information in the process). • In regards to providing enough pre-information, I recall we almost gave my wife's mother a stroke when we broke the news about the birth of Ezmarelda, since we had neglected to mention that my wife was pregnant. • Perhaps, one of the most important Verbal Pragmatic Rules deals with Lexical Selection. I suspect that my wife turned down my first proposal of marriage because of my choice of words. Words selected incorrectly relative to the situation can loose their intended communicative impact. • When I proposed the first time, I believe I said, "Thunder thighs, will you get with it?" She on the other, hand was very Clear and Concise in her answer. She said "NO!" • Context plays a very important role in word selection. If I'm trying to promote my wife's boxing career I use many expletives and talk about her "flailing massive fists of steel." • But if I want to get her a job at the University Day Care Center, what do I do? • I use words like "really wonderful," and "soft and gentle." • If I chose my words incorrectly relative to the context of the situation, my message would loose it's intended impact. • Who is going to hire a fighter with "soft and gentle hands" who thinks the opportunity to exchange physical contact with another human being is really wonderful." • Sometimes, the external context is so subtle we fail to even recognize it. I think this was nicely described by Dr. Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., in her book, That's not what I meant! • She describes how pragmatic confusions between genders can lead to terrible and unnecessary arguments. Here is one that always catches me. • My wife comes home from work (she teaches professional wrestling at the Simi Valley Cultural Center) and mentions how distraught she is because they keep giving her the poorest athletes, while at the same time evaluating her on their overall performance. • I develop a brilliant and detailed plan to enable her to reverse the problem. But when I outline it to her she gets annoyed and says "Butt out (explative, explative and others!...)" Gender cultural differences provide a subtle contextual background that can cause communication disasters. • She claims I'm always meddling in her business. I am defensive and annoyed that my plan is wasted; and so the argument goes with neither of us really knowing why or what it is all about. • Dr. Tannen notes that the wife's remark is basically a process of sharing information (the illocution). • However, the husband, hears a cry for help (the perlocution). • The dissonance occurs in the context of the differences between the gender cultures. • Girls grow up in the habit of playing and sharing with other girls. Boys, on the other hand, join "gangs" and compete for dominance within the group. Hence, when men confront a problem they perceive it as a challenge and call "to get the upper hand." • So, the wife, who was simply sharing a bit of daily news, is surprised and annoyed at the uninvited intrusion by her spouse, who in turn feels unjustly unappreciated. Pragmatic Rules can make a good communication, but they do not necessarily make a good person. • Whether it is asking daddy for permission to go to the Prom; or asking the boss to hire me; or asking a girl out on a date; or asking the PTA members to vote for me, or just getting along with my wife, pragmatics rules are the name of the game. But a wor • They are only rules. Many children with a history of language disorders, who still fail to abstract these rules appear to be true nerds. They put their foot in their mouths with every sentence they try. • However, basically, they are often good, albeit frustrated persons, with a will, but no capacity to communicate and socialize. • On the other hand, there are those who master the pragmatic skills and appear as angels--but in reality are the worst kind of devils. • Ted Bundy (mass murder of women) possessed pragmatic skills that could charm a humming bird off a tree. But as a human, he was the worst of beasts. Speaking of "Beasts," our next topic is considered by some to be a "Bear." But I think it's a beauty since it bares on something most of depend upon for social intecourse...our hearing.