Micro pragmatics by Anmar Ahmed

Context As The Basic Extension In Linguistics

The heading refers to the main point . Pragmatics is a mean for linguistic extension
and this happens by the notion of context . Linguistics will have to be extended on
extralinguistic terms by breaking away from the strict , local paradigm of grammar ;
this is where the notion of context comes in .
The Dynamic Context Vs The Grammatical View of Language
In the beginning , I will review the grammatical view of language , then the dynamic
context will be presented . The grammatical view of language is :
1 – A static concept of certain time , place and a reference adhering to the specific
context with a number of boundaries . One must depend on the exact knowledge of
the proper names , pronouns , articles and so on which refer to person or things . For
example Saying ' John is the policeman ' makes sense only in a context where there is
a person John whom I know by name and who happens to be the policeman .
2 – The linguistic elements are described in isolation , as syntactic structures or parts
of a grammatical paradigm , such as case , tense etc .
3 – The grammatically condition context limits the context to what is grammatically
expressed , to the exclusion of any wider , ' extralinguistic ' contexts , has , of course a
big advantage : it eliminates a number of potentially irrelevant factors from the scope
of pragmatics , for example , the presence of food in the mouth while speaking may
be part of some context , yet it is not a linguistic factor , and may be not even a
pragmatic one .
On the other hand we should deal with the pragmatics in a wider scope to take a look
on the areas which pragmatics can play a role in . The discussion here will be about
the dynamic context and its features , supported by a number of examples . One of the
basic issues in pragmatics is figuring out ambiguities in spoken or written language
and this marks the importance of the context . The notion of context is basically
connected to pragmatics not to the grammatical view of language . Context through its
dynamism can motivate the linguist to deal with things sensibly and realistically in a
way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations . The dynamic
context has a number of features :
1 – Is dynamic not a static concept , it is to be understood as the continually changing
surroundings , in the widest sense , that enable the participants in the communication
process to interact , and in which the linguistic expression of their interaction become
intelligible .
2 – It is described as '' a user – oriented '' view of language . It is connected by a
question like how the linguistic elements are used in the context of interaction .
3 – The dynamic context can be expected to differ from user to user , from user group
to user group and hence also from language to language . Take the case of household
appliance , where the same instructions appear side by side in different languages ,
depending on the user groups one wants to target .
4 – It is different between languages in the choice of wording and in length of the
message . Consider the following text in English and Spanish , found on a towel
dispenser in a restaurant in Cadillac , Michigan :
9n MAXIMUM LOOP DEJAR QUE
CUELGE UN
MAIMO DE
9 PULGADS
The message in English perfect for the native English speaker and can easily be
noticed . But if there is a mixed situation when English and Spanish are needed due
to the environment and situation , where mainly Spanish is spoken . So the context is
translated into another form in Spanish to facilitate the American society and
civilization . So context here has an instruction faculty . This example clarified that
the context is lied in the heart of the Human experience . Context is more than just
reference . Context is action . Context is about understanding what things are for . So
the Spanish speaker will be aware about such gadgets as towel dispensers in
restaurants . Here it is nice o make a funny comment '' among the personnel who
maintain washroom facilities , there may likewise be a number of people who have
not been exposed to the blessings of American civilization long enough to appreciate
towel dispenser .
5 – Context gives our utterances their true pragmatic meaning and allows them to be
counted as true pragmatic acts : consider the following utterance :
It's a long time since we visited you mother . This sentence can be analyzed in more
than one way , depending on the setting when uttered :
A – when uttered at the coffee table after dinner in a married couple living room , has
totally different pragmatic meaning than ;
B – the same sentence uttered by a husband to his wife while they are standing in
front of the hippopotamus enclosure at the local zoo .
It is this latter context which allows an innocent remark ( a ) ( a seemingly neutral
speech act of asserting ) to be transmogrified into a pragmatic act of '' mother – in –
law bashing '' in ( B ) .
6 – Context can be marked by register . By register , one understands the linguistic
resources that speakers have at their disposal to mark their attitude towards their
interlocutors . Register refers to distinct stages depending on the situation and the
change of the relation from formal to informal or vise verse , friendship to hate and
enmity . Technically , we have formal vs . informal register . Register allows the
linguistic forms :
A – To have two or more forms , for example tu in French is familiar form of address
and its alternative formal is vous . Japanese has the familiar ver to be – da , which
alternates with the more formal – desu , and the highly formal gozaimasu .
B – Such linguistic contrasts are used depending on the situation , culture society , the
rank of the interlocutor and the context . Such alternations may contrast in pretty
similar , yet subtly different contexts ; thus the engineers operating the city loop in
Tokyo , the formerly state – owned Yamanote Line , routinely announced the
upcoming station using –desu ( pronounced [ das ] , with something like Midwestren
American sound in 'West ' , whereas their colleagues on the private railways were
under orders to use only the highly polite gozaimasu .
As we mentioned in the point ( No 6 ) , register can refer to the relationship between
the participants . It can be used to indicate the mood change in the relation between
the interlocutor for example , from informal to formal one . Two friends started
addressing each other by the formal German Sie for you , whereas they before had
used the familiar du . This sudden and total change of register was due to the fact that
the context had changed , from relaxed one , in which the two friends indulged in
camaraderie and good – natured banter , to a matter of '' literally '' life and death .
7 – Pragmatics does this by appealing to the use of language ( among other things , in
speech acting and in choice of register ) as not only prescribed grammatically , ''
grammaticalized , but mainly affordable pragmatically , pragmaticalized , so to speak.
Conventional Meaning The Way To Full Understanding Of The Context
Traditionally there are two views about language meaning :
1 – Meaning can be natural , as expressed in the old Scholastic saying Urine est
signum sanitais ( Urine is a sign of health ) , that is , form a person's urine it is
possible to conclude about the person's health , and this conclusion is immediate
natural and , in most cases , non – controversial .
2 – Language is conventional , that is , there is no immediate , natural connection
between a word and what it expresses .
Pragmatics depends on conventional meaning and the context . Conventional meaning
is purely non – natural meaning operates only within the rules of the grammar and the
context of a given society .
The Features of The Conventional meaning And Its Usefulness For Pragmatics
1 – Social communicative convention is a matter of acquisition . Acquiring the
linguistic and social communicative conventions is a task that language users acquire
gradually , and many of them only imperfectly . Pragmatically , language users must
employ socially conventional , linguistic means to express their individual intentions .
2 – The invisible workings of the individuals minds cannot be immediately expressed
in a natural way , but must be coded in non – natural , conventional meaning and
contextual carries . The convention meaning is the first step to perfect understanding
of the context .
3 – The conventional meaning directs our speech because speech becomes so natural
to us that in order to characterize our language in contrast to artificial ( logical or
computer ) language , we use the adjective natural despite the fact that , strictly
speaking , all languages have been developed among users and for users , as social
artifacts . In other words the conventional meaning ( the non – natural meaning )
reflects the nature of our speech , the distinct speech of humans . Pragmatically
conventional meaning is developed in a social context , its use is governed by society
rather than by the individual speakers and this is the same thing about language in
general because it is conducting in the scope of the society .
Language , Convention and Context
Language as we mentioned previously governed by the convention and context due to
three main many reasons :
1 – The context determines both what one can say and what one cannot say : only the
pragmatics of the situation ( convention and context ) can give the meaning to one's
word .
2 – The meaning of the utterance can obtain completely different , even diametrically
opposed effects , depending on convention and context .
3 – By using irony , sarcasm and metaphor conventional meaning shows the richness
and diversity of the life behind the linguistic scene and provides us with a full
communicative intention . Language is more than a stage of the official roles and
costumes .
Implicature . The Origin Of The Word
The word implicature is derived from the verb to imply as is its cognate implication.
Originally to imply means to fold something into something else ( from the Latin verb
plicare , to fold ) that which is implied is folded in and has to be unfolded in order to
be understood .
Implicature As A Field Of Pragmatics Interesting
The reason that pragmatics is interested in this phenomenon is that we seem to be
dealing here with a regularity that cannot be captured in a simple syntactic or
semantic rule but has to be accounted for in other ways . Bilmes draw a general notion
about the principles of the implicature :
1 – Propositions are conveyed that are not explicit in our utterances but are merely
implied by them
2 – Sometimes we are able to draw such inferences only by referring what has been
explicitly said to some conversational principle .
Implications And Implicatures
Implicatures can partially be studied in terms of implications because it defines a
logical relationship between two propositions . Let these propositions be symbolized
as p and q ; then the logical implication is the relation if p , then q . If-then
relationships are well known also in daily life, and can be expressed in everyday
language. Suppose I have a hedge that needs cutting, and a son who might do the job,
given the necessary inducements. Let the 'proposition :
You cut my hedge
Be symbolized by P , and :
I will take you out to dinner
By q . Then the logical expression p → q will stand for :
If you cut my hedge , I will take you out to dinner
Supposing that I say this to my son, he will have a rightful grudge against me if he
cuts the hedge, yet I refuse to make good on what he considers to be a promise. And
his grudge is not only rightful: it is also 'logical': p → q or: p 'implies' q, as one could
also say. So far, so good.
But what if my son does not cut the hedge? Then, it will be OK for me not to take him
out to dinner, and he will have no claim on me. However, logically speaking, I could
still take him out to his favorite hamburger joint: from the non-truth of the first
proposition (p), I cannot conclude the non-truth of the second (q). Logically, non-p
does not imply non-q.
Conclusion About The Validity of Implications As A Full Study For Implicatures
1 – Pragmatically , Nothing left implicit in actual language use. As we see from the
above example, a logical implication (or the lack of such an implication) does not
have to correspond to what in everyday life we understand by 'implies'. In the above
case, we would say that my son's not cutting the hedge 'implied' his not getting a
dinner, just like his cutting 'implied' his being taken out.
2 - However, logic and everyday life do not always look at things in the same way.
This is why we need another term: in addition to the logical implications, we will
speak of conversational implicatures.

Conversational Implicatures
The first Type of Implicature is the conversational implicature , a conversational
implicature is , therefore something which is implied in conversation that is
something which is left implicit in actual language use . It concerns the way we
understand an utterance in conversation in accordance with what we expect to hear .
How Should We Understand Conversational Implicature
The implicatures in its logical cover ( implications ) show a direct , uttered and logical
propositions , if you do this , you will get this . It did not imply anything in the
meaning of fold something into another thing . Direct propositions connected by the
logical sequence of the situation . Conversational implicatures offer something
different . In the first place it is a cognition issue , depending on our experience and
how can send and receive direct message implicitly . The implicit message can be
understood logically as unstable sometimes , for example : If I were asked , What
time is ? I answered , ( The bus just went by ) , conversationally , I made a good
answer because my interlocutor is aware of this . What did make the interlocutor
aware and receive my message perfectly ? I operated all the fact conditions into my
answer , these conditions depended on the basic term ( the context ) . The context that
is formulated the answer include the fact that there is only one bus a day that is passes
by our house at 7 : 45 a . m . In a comprehensive mood , the implicature depends on
the interpretation not on the grammar . Grammar here follow the implicature . We use
the grammar depending on the situation , not on the logical connection between
sentence A and B , because this strictly grammatical logical mood , limit pragmatic
explanation and would have to exclude such relevant answer .
So interpretation as a main concept in the conversational implicature cannot be found
in the logical implications . We interpret by guessing . Guessing does not has a fixed
rule , but the utterance that include many options means that the speaker remembered
only this answer . The interlocutor must analyze depending on his experience and the
common sense of the message , for example , When Aunt Rose's birthday ? and the
person I am asking may answer : It is sometime in April . Here sometime can be
analyzed by me into many notions and this is not important here , the important thing
is to know whether the implicature is good or not . The answer implies piece of
information that the birthday in April . The guessing must be qualified and the
qualification means :
1 – It is qualified in relation to the particular circumstances of the question , the
person involved in the situation , their background and so on .
2 – The more we know about the context , the more qualified our guess – work is
going to be .
So in conversational interaction , people work on the assumption that a certain set of
rules is in operation . These rules operated in the forms of good interpretation that
result to such a good implicature . The question here , Is there any formulation or
theoretical basis can cover the process of interpretation and the process of the
implicating our message effectively . I here will review the opinion of George Yule.
He described the conversational process as An underlying assumption in most
conversational exchanges seems to be that the participants are co-operating with each
other. This principle, together with four maxims that we expect our conversational
partners to obey ,was first described by the philosopher Paul Grice.

The co-operative principle is stated in the following way: “Make your conversational
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” . Supporting this
principle are four maxims, often called the “Grecian maxims.”
The Quantity maxim: Make your contribution as informative as is required, but not
more, or less, than is required
The Quality maxim: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for which you
lack adequate evidence
The Relation maxim: Be relevant
The Manner maxim: Be clear, brief and orderly.
Conventional Implicatures

Generally speaking conventional implicatures are not subject to the fickle finger of
conversational fate , and do not opened on a particular context of language use . They
are certain expressions in language implicate by themselves or conventionally a
certain state of the world , regardless of their use . Such implications cannot be
attributed to our use of language in conversation , on the contrary : they become
manifest through ( sometimes despite ) such use . They are not logical or
conversational even if such expressions are used in a conversational or logical senses
because the denotation differs in the case of conventional implicatures . For example ,
the word last always denotes ( by conventional implicature ) ' the ultimate item in a
sequence as in the last page of a book or manuscript ; in contrast , in conversation it
might imply : ' that which came before the time of speaking , as when a speaker refers
to ' last winter ' .

How Can Conventional Implicature Emerge Through Out Accent

Conventionally , my dialect tells people where I am from independently of my will .

So how is the implicature built here and what is the scope of such implicature ? The
implicature is built here depending on two concept , the socially pure implicature
( inferiority ) and socially language - relevant implicature ( conventional ) :

1 – Accent may indicate social inferiority . This inferiority has nothing to do with the
language as such ; one generations dialect may become the speech of the ruling
classes in the next , as history has demonstrated over and over again . This implicature
is not a conventional certain state of the world .
2 – Speaking a non – standard variety of the language usually connotes a socially
lower standing , a lack of culture and education , and in general a lot of negative
features . Such implicatures are standardized by convention , and cannot be changed
even if we invoke another context ; hence they are called conventional .

The Features Of The Conventional Implicatures

1 – They are controversial . Some authors viewed that they do not have much in
common with the logical and conversational implicatures because they are automatic
not logical and non - cancelable . So they viewed that these implicatures have nothing
to do with pragmatics .
2 – They are not derived from superordinate pragmatic principles like the Grecian
maxims but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical items .
3 – They are found without certain laws , they are like pragmatics in general in the
sense that one should resist the temptation to believe that anything in pragmatics can
be explained by ' laws ' .
4 – They are well defined in their proper context of language use only ; when these
contexts change , the conventionality of the implicatures will change as well . For
example , three or two generations ago , French children would mark their respect for
their parents by addressing them with the pronoun vous , today such a use is virtually
non – existent in French society , so the implicature of respect is disappeared .
5 – The conventional implicature may arise only in a narrow pattern of use . The word
( but ) have a conventional implicature when it is creating a contrast , what follows
( but ) is perceived as being opposed to what precedes whereas in the case of when
( but ) is used as ( and ) no such implicature are generated .

Direct Reference And Indirect Reference

We use language to refer to persons and things , directly or indirectly :

1 – In the case of direct reference , we have names available that will lead us to
persons and things : we know who '' John '' is , we understand the meaning of '' tax
return '' and so on .
2 – The reference can be made indirectly , for example a person talking through my
hotel door and he is saying it is me . Here I depend on other strategies to reach to the
reference . I can retort '' Me WHO ? '' , or simply repeat the first utterance '' who is
there ? in a irritated tone , or with increased volume . If the other person says '' It is a
friend '' , I probably will want to know more , as the reference of the indefinite article
'' a'' , by definition , undetermined . So indirect reference recognizing depends on
getting additional information and through this additional information the person will
identify the reference .

From the research of the indirect reference emerged another notion . The notion is
unambiguous reference . It is what is demanded of language by the logicians . In the
same spirit , some of the latter in all sincerity proposed that we should abolish words
with '' unclear reference '' as I or You , because there is no way of checking whether
they correspond to something '' out there '' : their reference is always shifting .

Proper Nouns Reference

Proper nouns are the prime examples of linguistic expressions with proper reference :
names name persons , institutions and in general , objects whose reference is clear . It
is possible to make reference to a certain person or object without using such a proper
expression ; one can refer to Napoleon by using his attributes as the victor of Jena or
the loser of Waterloo .

Indexicals

Indexical expressions are a particular kind of referential expression which , in

addition to the semantics of their ' naming ' ; their sense , include a reference to the
particular context in which that sense is put to work . It is used to refer to a regular
noun . For example to refer to a particular cow is called , what it might look like ,
where it might be in the pen , how many gallons of milk it yields per year , and so
forth . It is above the general reference as female representative of the cow genus . It
refers to a particular cow , to something indicates what to look for , and where .

The Content Of The Indexical Expressions And The Role Of Deictics

The main point here is to identify the indexicals . The main function of the indexicals
is to fix the coordinates of the utterance . For example suppose somebody utters :
I am six feet tall . The words six feet tall cannot be understood without the context of
the utterance ( the physical context of the speaker ) , which is completed only by I
am . So after establishing the contextual coordinates of the utterance as a one context
by adding the indexicals ( I ) we can consider such a context as a valid context with a
reference comes out of the context .

Indexicals include pronouns ( especially personal pronouns ) , local and temporal

adverbs , verb tenses and so on . The chief linguistic means of expressing an indexical
relationship are called deictic elements . The functions of deictics are:

1 – They are pointers , telling us where to look for the particular item that is referred
to . In other words they refer to the indexical expressions and their references .
2 – Indexing or pointing is done by human beings , and therefore all pointing
expressions have to be related to the uttering person , pointing a particular place and
at a particular time .
3 – It gives any speaker utterance its proper pragmatic meaning in a referential
context of person , place and time

Deictics , The Multi – Scopes

Deictics is the referential context of person , place and time , who is the ( I ) that is
speaking , ( where ) does he or she speak ( from ) , and ( when ) , at what point of
time? But these scopes of I ,where and when can be extended depending on the
context , its coordination and the language . Indexical expression centered on an
origin the point of intersection of the main coordinates of the here - now - I system

Deictics cannot be reduced to the ego-centered organization . The reference cannot

always adopts speaker's origin or his point of view . The reference sometimes
involves origin shift from speaker's origin to the other person's origin . The
intersection of the main coordinates here shifted to here – now – you system . This
new shift is of course represents the speaker point of view , but it is not emerged from
his origin , but it is formulated to suit the other person origin . This is clear in
Japanese and many Eastern languages , the base line for determining the honorific use
of a particular expression is not necessarily and always located in the speaker's origin.
When the speaker speaks about other person's attributes and possessions , the origin
shifts : now it is placed in the intersection of the other person's coordinate . Such a
change in perspective is sometimes referred to as a shift in point of view .

The language must achieve the pragmatic message effectively . In other world we
must not adopt just our point of view , but adopt their point of view . The way other
people construe the world . For example the personal deictic ( my ) may change to
( your ) , but this new ( your ) pragmatically has the meaning of ( my ) . A husband
sent a note to his wife , the note was '' send me your slippers with the boy '' . He wrote
your , because his wife adopting her point of view of the personal pronoun . If she
reads '' my slippers '' she will send '' her slippers '' .

Deictics In The Heart Of Pragmatics

In the last two sections , we showed that deictic expressions cannot be restricted to the
point of view of the speaker . It has the ability and flexibility to conduct its situation
for the point of view of the listener and takes the advantages from all the social ,
cognitive and psychological aspects to change its expression from a self-state to a
point of view based on how the other (the listener looks at the matter , or how we may
think , he looks at the matter ) . Pragmatics concerned with the use of language in
social context and ways people produce and comprehend meanings through language .
This comprehensive definition tells us that :

1 – Pragmatics comes with the power of the social context with all its
circummistances and scopes .
2 – Producing and comprehending meanings may not be reduced to one point of
view , because the definition did not mention the role of speaker and listener , but
mentioned meaning in general with its producing and comprehension and these two
concepts in any way cannot be specified to one point of view .

So the power of Pragmatics forced the Japanese speaker in the first place to change
the point of view and shift to the origin of the listener and called the daughter of the
listener as your honorable Miss daughter . We find this in Arabic also , in some
Southern Iraqi dialects , For example we use the word girl ( ‫ ) بنت‬to refer to any girl ,
you hear someone , when he speaks with a friend of the same age and have a very
strong relationship between them , he refer to his daughter ( the daughter of the
speaker I mean ) as my girl ( ‫ ) بنتي‬, but when he speaks to his older neighbor ( an
older man ) , he may refer to his girl as your servant ( ‫ ) خادمتك‬, so the origin is shifted
to show a honorific to the old man . So the deictic expression is modified to create a
very coordinated utterance to match context requirements .

This case is not restricted to the personal pronouns . We can find this case in the local
and temporal adverbs .For example the shout ( EEEYZZZ LEFT ) if were uttered by a
sergeant to his recruits , it is clearly understood by the recruits as a derivational
expression and the origin term is to your left . They captured this fact , because it is a
suitable natural act in the military drill routine .

Now we move to the temporal deictic . The speaker and the writer responsible on their
temporal expressions . If I as a speaker say , I saw him last week ; my ' point of time '
, viz . ' last week ; depends on the point of time I am at now : that is , the time of my
uttering ' I saw him last week . It is the week that came before the current week .

Temporal deictic sometimes must refer to the point of view of the listener also . If I
write to Allan , my colleague in Brisbane , Queensland , that I would like to teach at
his university during the summer . Am I writing from my point of view my summer
( In Iraq ) or Allan's summer ( IN Australia ) . The summer timing in Australia is
different from summer timing in Iraq . So we must take care here the point of view of
the listener or reader to know the message effectively . So all indexical expressions
refer to certain world conditions , either subjective or objective in nature .
Subjectively , in French language , we use le lendemain( the day after) and la veille
( the day before ) to refer sequentially to the day follow the current day and to the
day before the current day . Objectively , French people are used these expressions
with respect to the current ' point of time ' while when they refer to the tomorrow and
yesterday point of time they used sequentially demain ( tomorrow ) and bier
(yesterday ) .

From Deixis To Anaphora

Deixis value appears in the context . We use personal , spatial and temporal deixis to
coordinate the utterances and through the full form of context , the message reaches
effectively . We need to refer to the context , not only in order to establish the proper
reference for deictic terms such as ' next ' or ' last ' , but also in the case of other
deictic expressions who referents cannot be identified outside of their proper ( spoken
or written ( context ) . When I use the pronoun this , as in : I need a box this big . The
value of ( this ) cannot be emerged without the other means of the context . So to
make the reference of a certain desired size of box ; in the spoken context , I will use
supported means ( I will moreover move my hands and arms to indicate exactly how
big the box should be ) . So deixis here plays a certain restricted role because :

1 – It needs all the context environment to be valuable and cannot be understood

without the context .
2 – It needs to be clarified in the scope of certain object who needs no further
introduction , this is the box and the box is this , through the context we will enrich
the reference .
3 – It is direct reference , did not depend on a previous referent to refer it back then

The deixis may sometimes used to refer back to index to a particular object with a
wider scope than the previous case because the object identity could be already
sufficiently established in other ways . The deixis in this case after establishing the
identity of the object , comes to take its place to indicate the speaker evaluation . For
example if one say , the Tri – state very slow , there is that overturned car at Touhy .
After establishing the identity ( the Tri – state very slow ) , the speaker by refereeing
back to it by using the pronoun that .

The deixis ability here is not reduced to the feature of referring back , but it have the
feature of evaluation and this evaluation comes after I finish the first reference .
Nathan the prophet told King David the fable ( the reference ) about a the rich ,
greedy landowner who virtually had stolen his poor neighbor's only possession , the
ewe lamb that was '' unto him like a daughter '' , ate from his plate and '' lay in his
bosom '' : Tu es ille vir ( you are that ) . You and that or tu and ille ( I will focus on
ille ) make a very strong deictic reference both of pointing and truly delicting ' : you
are precisely the man I was talking about : you stole your neighbor's wife .

As I mentioned in the previous section , theses deixis can indicate evaluation . Ille
( means he ) in Latin conotates famous , superior , important as in the example of kin
David . He used it to remember King David by his rank as a matter of clear blame .
You famous person with all valuable features , but you took something not for you ,
or you may not need . This is part of its evaluation abilities that is connected with high
grade persons . Ille (he ) may be used to evaluate a person with low grade rank by
change it to iste ( he ). Iste conotates contemptible , miserable . So we cannot
evaluated David by iste , the reference will lose its strength . We call these deixis
anaphora . Anaphora is a deixis used to refer back to earlier mentions of the noun
that the definite article in question identifies .

The Notions Of The Anaphora

In This section I will speak about some specific notions that are related to the
anaphora . They are :

1 – Typical anaphoric referrers are the pronouns , whose very name suggests that they
refer to , '' stand in '' for , something else , the ' referent ' . In a sentence or discourse
context , such pronominal referents are identified by their anaphoric relations . For
example , the man was walking softly ; he carried a big stick . The marks ' the man '
as a known referent . He refers anaphorically to the man .
2 – We have ' cataphora ' where the referent occurs later in the text . For example ,
When he arrived home, John went to sleep.

3 – Anaphora may be represented by a lazy pronouns or ambiguous local reference ,

that everybody accepts and understands correctly in a given context . For examples ,
He has been to Italy many times but he still does not speak the language . The man
who gave his paycheck to his wife was wiser than the man who gave it to his mistress.
The language in the first example do not refer to any language that has been
mentioned previously ( local reference ) ; however , we understand it immediately as '
the language of Italy ' , since Italy has been mentioned . Similarly , in the other
example , despite the fact that it grammatically refers to the paycheck the man did not
give to his mistress , but to his wife , pragmatically we understand it to refer to the
paycheck the man gave his mistress not his wife ( lazy pronouns case ) .

Anaphora As A Social Controversy

We speak here about the holds between gender – marked articles and pronouns and
their corresponding nouns . There is many controversy about the validity to refer to
female persons and mixed sets of humans by the masculine . These claims raised due
to the claims and influence of the feminist movement . I will review this issue by
reviewing English and Spanish languages .

English speaker solved these problems by using the generic plural they or combined
pronouns such as s/he , or the more awkward he or she . We can refer to the lawyer
for example using the pronoun he or she , if its gender is not clear .

In Spanish every noun has its specific grammatical gender . As a consequence , most
professional appellations come in gendered varieties , one for male , one for female
practitioner . The anaphoric expression must be suitable to the grammatical gender of
the noun . So for the male teachers , I should use male gender – marked ( los ) , to
refer back to their gender , so I say los profesoras ( male teacher ) and for the female
teachers , I should use female gender – marked ( las ) , to refer back to their gender ,
so I say las profesoras ( female teachers ) .

Spanish speakers do not use this approach to all the cases , especially in the cases
where the pragmatically situation can be understood effectively . They say for
example , La catedratico ' which means the female ( university professor ) . Here there
is not grammatically connection between the female gender - marked La and the
masculine term , the head of the phrase catedratico which means university professor
( put in your mind In Spanish it is supposed that every noun must represent a gender
rank ) . It is pragmatically acceptable because it is socially acceptable as a real world
– reference to women .

So anaphora is bigger than just what the anaphorical pronoun is referring to, the
antecedent ( what which precedes the pronoun and to which the pronoun refers ) . As
an essential part of pragmatics , it informs us about the clashes of interest between
social groups and specifically about how these clashes are expressed ( The Spanish
Case ) .
 References

Levinson , S . ( 1983 ) . Pragmatics . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

Mey , J . ( 2001 ) . Pragmatics : an Introduction . Oxford : Blackwell Publishing
Yule , G . ( 2010 ) . The Study of Language . Oxford : Oxford University Press