Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On


Pininta Veronika Silalahi

INTRODUCTION pragmatics, because this field of Pragmatics is a relatively late has been so charming and appealing to so comer in linguistics. It enters the linguistic many people that each one of them seems to scene at the end of the 1970s. However, to claim an interest in it and define it from many people, this is a rather new area. different perspective. According to Leech Pragmatics was a reaction to structural (1983: X), pragmatics can be usefully linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de defined as the study of how utterances have Saussure. In many cases, it expanded upon meanings in situations. In a way, through his idea that has an analyzable this definition, Leech is clearing up the structure, composed of parts that can be differences between , , and defined in relation to others. Pragmatics pragmatics. What he is trying to say here is first engaged only in synchronic study, as like this: Sentences are for syntax, while opposed to examining the historical utterances for pragmatics; development of language. However, it meanings free from situations are for rejected the notion that all comes semantics, while utterance meanings bound from signs existing purely in the abstract with situations are for pragmatics. space of langue. Crystal (1987: 120) says that Pragmatics deals with utterances, pragmatics studies the factors that govern by which we will mean specific events, the our choice of language in social interaction intentional acts of speakers at times and and the effects of our choice on others. This places, typically involving language. Logic definition emphasizes the absolute roles and semantics traditionally deal with that and language users (speaker properties of types of expressions, and not and hear) play. The former is instrumental with properties that differ from token to in framing language users’ choices of token, or use to use, or, as we shall say, linguistic means for optimal from utterance to utterance, and vary with outcomes, while the later the particular properties that differentiate are solely responsible for the awareness of them. Pragmatics is sometimes context or environment in which characterized as dealing with the effects of they are to perform certain functions via context. This is equivalent to saying it deals language or fulfill specific objectives by with utterances, if one collectively refers to utilizing available linguistic means within all the facts that can vary from utterance to their capability. utterance as ‘context.’ One must be careful, Leech (1983:6) defines pragmatics however, for the term is often used with as “the study of meaning in relation to more limited meanings. speech situations”. The speech situation enables the speaker use language to achieve WHAT IS PRAGMATICS? a particular effect on the mind of the There are many definitions of

* Dra. Pininta Veronika Silalahi, M.Pd. adalah dosen Prodi Sastra Inggris Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 83

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

hearer.” Thus the speech is goal-oriented occur and try to decode the meaning which (i.e. the meaning which the speaker or the writer of the notice intended to writer intends to communicate). Levinson communicate. Speakers and writers often (1983:9) defines pragmatics as “the study mean much more than they say/write and of those aspects of the relationship between expect their hearers/listeners to understand language and context that are relevant to the them. They will generally assume that some of .” In this definition that aspects of meanings that are not expressed interest is mainly in the interrelation of in are deducible from the context. language and principles of language use This assumption is based on their shared that are context dependent. While Yule environment, values, social conventions or (1996:127), pragmatics is “the study of world view which guides them to interpret intended speaker meaning”. This definition meanings beyond words or grammatical is in accord with Crystal (1997, p. 301) who structures. Ultimately the goal is to rightly says that pragmatics is “the study of interpret the speakers intended meaning. language from the point of view of users, The notion of the speaker’s or writer’s especially of the choices they make, the intended meaning is a very crucial element constraints they encounter in using in the study of pragmatics. And as you will language in social interaction and the see in this study, traditional pragmatics is effects their use of language has on other all about investigating the speaker/writer participants in the act of communication. intended meaning rather than what is Mey (1993:42) states that pragmatics is the expressed in words. study of the condition of human language In the definition of pragmatics by uses as this is determined by the context of Leech, you will notice that one of the . Pragmatic is needed if we want a principles of pragmatics is the emphasis on fuller, deeper, and generally more “utterance” meaning rather than or reasonable account of human language sentence meaning, and how such utterances behavior. relate to the context in which they are used. Based on the definitions above, we The between an utterance and a can see that the context take a big part in sentence is the fact that an utterance needs learning pragmatics because it is the study not be syntactically perfect the same way of language use. No definition of we expect a sentence to be. A sentence pragmatics will be complete in the absence must satisfy some basic grammatical rules of some mention of context and utterance. (e.g. /verb/complement structural If you see a notice like “Awas Anjing pattern.) An utterance on the other hand Galak” in front of someone’s house, you doesn’t even have to be a sentence. It may definitely know what each of the words be a word like “asu!” a phrase like “kurang means, and you also know what the notice ajar. The “meaning” we associate with means. You know that you have to be these utterances is defined in terms of their careful when you want to come close to the functions or the intention of the speaker in house because there is a fierce dog there uttering them. While sentence meaning is a which is ready to bite you. You normally function of the words in the sentence understand the notice well because you together with the overall sense of the know that a dog is only loyal to its master sentence, utterance meaning relies much and the people it recognizes. What you have more on the intention of the utterance in done is to use the meaning of the words in relation to the context. combination with the context in which they

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 84

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

HISTORY OF PRAGMATICS A good understanding of pragmatics Pragmatics is a relatively late comer in will enable one adopt the right kind of linguistics. It enters the linguistic scene at language the end of the 1970s. As a word, pragmatics use in different social contexts and possibly appeared 2000 years ago. Back there, it was achieve the kind of result you expect. As a spelt as pragmaticus in Greek) and matter of fact, a good understanding of the pragmaticos in Latin. As a term, is roles of language in society demands the associated with Charles Morris and Carnap kind of linguistic (or communicative) in the 1930’s. These were philosophers who competence that is required to use language were interested in the study of in specific social contexts. In the next unit (the science of signs) and how the meaning we shall look more closely at the various associated with signs may be described in types of contexts and how they influence linguistic terms. Hence they distinguished language use. three (3) branches of semiotics as syntax, On mentioning the origin of semantics and pragmatics. While Morris pragmatics, we can go back to ancient used the term “interpreter” (language user) Greek and Roman academic works. At that to explain the of pragmatic study, time some great philosophers had discussed Carnap used the expression “the user of the something related to pragmatics. And we language.” can say pragmatics develops from Carnap identified the fact that since . First, the term “pragmatics” the investigation of meaning is user-based, first appeared in in it must therefore seek to find what intention 1930s, for then western philosophers began the user has for using some particular words to shift their focus onto the studies of or sentences. It is the intention of the language , which developed into speaker that indicates the functions of the semiology later. And the early pragmatics utterance and what results that are was just a branch of semiology that was anticipated. This view of linguistic under the philosophers’ studies, which pragmatics was eventually adopted means that pragmatics originates from the generally, dropping other broader philosophers’ studies on language. Second, psychological and sociological aspects of the theoretic basis for pragmatics is from signs proposed by Charles Morris. philosophy. To be more specific, Semantics and pragmatics are two sisters pragmatics originates from the following belonging to the same parent (semiotics). aspects: the studies of semiology; the The difference between the two according studies of linguistical philosophy in the 20th to Morris and Carnap is that semantics is century and the studies of function concerned with the meaning of words, linguistics on language forms. Third, the phrases and sentences without to main studies of pragmatics such as who uses them, why they are used and the indexical and also have influence of the context on the expression. philosophical background. Pragmatics on the other hand handles those Here we should mention some areas which linguistic semantics could not philosophers who have played very handle, i.e. attention to the user of the important role in the development of language, his particular intention pragmatics. Such as Wittgenstein, Morris, (depending on the situation s/he finds Austin, Searle, Levinson, Leech, Pierce, himself) and how s/he expects his hearer (or Carnap and so on. Wittgenstein and Austin reader) to respond. once had discussed the origin of pragmatics

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 85

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

in England, France and German in 1930s. linguistics. Generally speaking, the Morris, who played the most important role establishment of pragmatics as an in the first stage of the development of independent discipline experiences three pragmatics, held an opinion that the studies stages: the first stage is from the late 1930s of pragmatics must involve the aspects of to late 1940s, during this period, some society, of , of nerve, of culture philosophers such as Pierce, Morris and and of other things that affected the Carnap considered pragmatics to be a symbols and their meanings. And the most branch of semiology and all the studies influent thing that he did on pragmatics was were within the domain of philosophy; The that in 1938 he had divided semiology into second stage is from the beginning of 1950s three parts: syntactics, semantics and to late 1960s. During this period, three pragmatics. The famous philosopher famous philosophers called Austin, Searle Carnap had very similar ideas with Morris, and Grice made studied on and and he made some supplement, he thought implicature theory, and their achievements that the studies of pragmatics should on the sustained the basic theory of pragmatics. relationship between users and words as The studies were still within the domain of well as the reference of words. And he philosophy then; The third stage is after divided studies into pure theoretic ones and 1970s, the biggest three issues happened descriptive ones. And he made the aims of and pragmatics became an independent pragmatics studies more specific, that is the discipline. relationship between language users and The or the levels to which the words and the reference relationship. Bar- study of pragmatics has been extended, it Hiller, the student of Carnap, suggested the needs to mention that linguistic pragmatics studies of pragmatics should have definite as it is used today is a lot more restricted aims and he claimed that the definite aims than when the term “pragmatics” was first should be decitics such as “I”, “Here”, used by Charles Morris (1938). Morris was “Now”. Austin and Searle put forward the interested in Semiotics – the general study Speech Act Theory, which was the most of signs and symbols. Pragmatics was influent topic in the studies of pragmatics defined as the “relation of signs to the during the second stage. Most important interpreters.” We shall look at this in detail three issues of pragmatics and three stages in the next unit. Morris then extended the in the development of pragmatics scope of pragmatics to include In 1983 Levinson and Leech psychological, biological and sociological published their respective works phenomena which occur in the functioning Pragmatics and Principle of Pragmatics, of signs (Levinson, 1983). This will include which set up the theoretic of what is known today as , pragmatics. In 1977 Mey and Haberland , and started the Journal of Pragmatics in among others. Holand. The start publication of the Journal Today, linguistic pragmatics mostly of Pragmatics, the publishing of dwells on those factors of language use that Pragmatics and the International govern the choices individuals make in Pragmatics Association that was set up in social interaction and the effects of those 1988 are considered the most important choices on others (Crystal, 1987). In recent three issues for the development of times however, extended in pragmatics and indicate that pragmatics has cultural studies and social argue become an independent discipline in in favour of discourse pragmatics rather

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 86

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

than the traditional linguistic pragmatics. discussion of pragmatic tasks aroused by Fairclough (1989) for instance argues that the understanding of language symbols’ rather than see language use as an reference and implicature during individual’s strategies of encoding meaning , which include context, to achieve some particular effects on the conversational implicature, reference, hearer or reader, we should be concerned pragmatic principles, speech acts, with the fact that social conventions and conversation , , ideologies, define peoples roles, identities presupposition and conversational and language performances; people simply principles. communicate in some particular ways as the While the studies of Macro-pragmatics society determines. While people can are, on the level of society and culture, the manipulate language to achieve certain problems to use language for language user purposes, they in some circumstances are during the process of communication, actually ruled by social conventions. In the including Pragmatic Acts, Literary same vein, pragmatic study has thrown Pragmatics, Pragmatics Across Cultures some lights in the study of literature giving and the Social Aspects of Pragmatics. rise to literary pragmatics, while the which can be considered as application of pragmatics to computational a review, a survey or a reflection of linguistics has also developed into pragmatics itself, including making computational pragmatics, etc. statements about itself, questioning itself, improving itself, quoting itself and SCHOOLS OF PRAGMATICS rethinking the methodologies and theoretic The studies of Pragmatics are divided into system during the process of its studies. two big schools: British & American Metapragmatics is dealt with: one, as a School and European School which can be theoretical discussion on what pragmatics subdivided into France School, Prague is, and what it should comprise; two, as a School and Copenhagen School. British & discussion of the conditions and American School is traditionally centering possibilities that enable people to act by on studying the sentence structure and using words, to ’do’ pragmatics by acting , and their studies of pragmatics is pragmatically; and finally, three, as the also restricted to several definite topics such pragmatic pendant to the metapragmatic as deictic expressions, conversational level, which is often captured under the implicature, presupposition, speech and label of ‘reflexive language’. conversation structure. Their studies belong Metapragmatics is dealt with language that to Micro-pragmatics. European School has characterizes or describes the pragmatic a wide visual and understanding, and their function of some speech. studies even include conversation analysis, Since the 1980s Pragmatics, as an cultural , social linguistics and independent discipline, has been developing psycholinguistics during very quickly and soundly, so far, it has got intercommunication. Their studies belong delightful achievements and attracted more to Macro-pragmatics. and more students and scholars to conduct When we talk about Micro-pragmatics researches on it. And now, pragmatics has and Macro-pragmatics, we may ask what new development, many scholars begin to are micropragmatics and macropragmatics. do cross studies, such as interactional The studies of Micro-pragmatics are, on the sociolinguistics, inter-language pragmatics, level of language using, centering upon the cross-cultural pragmatics, pragmatics and

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 87

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

, pragmatics and language his roles in the society and his relationship teaching which contains two: with other members of the society. As pragmalinguistics and socio-pragmatics, pragmatics investigates context-based cognitive pragmatics and clinical meaning it will be impossible to talk about pragmatics. The next discussion will cover pragmatics without reference to the context the micro-pragmatics which include deixis, in which utterances are made. And as a presupposition (pragmatic presupposition matter of fact, linguistic codes are actually and semantic presupposition), selected and used according to some social conversational implicature and Grice, sets of standards. It is contextual conversational principles (cooperative considerations that make the difference principle and politeness principle), speech between and act (type of acts, classifying illocutionary sociolinguistics, pragmatics and discourse acts, conversational Analysis). analysis. We shall look at the features of context as we examine the various types of MEANING AND FEATURES OF contexts. CONTEXT Context refers to the situation, A. Linguistic Context within which language functions. It may be This refers to the set of words in the physical/environmental, social context or same sentence or utterance. This forms the institutional situation, including events, linguistic environment that determines the time, culture or social conventions that can sense of the words in the context. For influence language use. The first use of the example if the word “shoot” appears in a term “context of situation” is attributable to linguistic context along with other words Bronislaw Malinowski, a social like “dribble,” “penalty,” “goal”, or “over anthropologist, who in his study of the bar”, we immediately understand the language behaviours among some native shoot that is meant. If on the other hand, the Indians concluded that language is a “mode same word appears with words like of action” and as social behaviour is closely “soldier”, “artillery” or “war,” the meaning tied to the relevant social situation in which is immediately known. The linguistic it is used (Malinowski 1935). The meaning context (also known as co-text) of a word or of words was not to be restricted to sounds words therefore has a strong effect on what of utterances or their grammatical structure we may think such words mean. Generally but must include the “pragmatic context” in words occur together and frequently used which they are uttered. J.R. Firth (a with some particular words with which they linguist) expounded this study and in his collocate. contextual theory of meaning argues that context is the bedrock of any linguistic B. Physical/environmental Context enterprise because “normal linguistic The physical context definitely behaviour as a whole is meaning effort, influenced our interpretation of the word. directed towards the maintenance of Our understanding of words or expressions appropriate patterns of life” (Firth 1957: is much more tied to the physical context 223). particularly in terms of the time and place Since every utterance occurs within a being referred to in the expressions. Other “culturally determined context of situation” features of the context include: meaning is tied to that context about the Participants, e.g. boys, girls, men, traders; speaker and the ways he perceives himself, On going activity, e.g. playing, chatting,

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 88

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

and debating; The place, e.g. church, class, speakers or writers do make linguistic stadium, dining table; The time, e.g. time choices and decide what to say and how to of the day or season. say it. Therefore factors that place Hymes (1964) identifies the following constraint on their ability to do this (e.g. general contextual features: Participants, state of the mind) is of interest to pragmatic i.e. people involved, e.g. husband and wife; analysts. neighbors, colleagues; teachers and students etc. Topic i.e. what the discourse is about, D. Situational/socio-cultural Context e.g. politics, , race, heath, etc. Unlike the other contexts discussed Setting, i.e. where the event takes place, above, the situational context concerns e.g. at home, at work, at school etc. mainly with socio-cultural considerations. Channel, e.g. medium – speech, writing, The context of culture includes beliefs, non-verbal); Code (/); Message value system, religion, conventions that form (debate, chat etc) control individuals’ behaviour and their All of the above features may not relationship with others. These socio- rigidly be ascribed to the physical context. cultural rules of behaviour often guide them For example, the channel/medium or code in order to communicate effectively with through which the piece of discourse is one another. Some beliefs or conventions carried out are determined by other may be considered as universal, while some variables such as , age, status or are culture-specific, especially those that class which may well be described as some guide utterances, non-verbal features of the social-cultural context. communication and other forms of social behaviour that may be interpreted C. Interpersonal Context meaningfully. The interpersonal context focuses Knowledge of socio-cultural rules of on psychological considerations that behaviours brings up the idea of influence speech or talk. There is no doubt “” which that the state of the mind of the speaker or according to (1972) is the writer places some constraints on the ability of the speaker to know when to quality or amount of interactions s/he speak, when not and as to what to talk engages in. His inputs and reactions are about with whom, when, where, and in predictable if he is sad, happy, excited or what manner. This competence is integral bored. Critics of pragmatic emphasis on with attitudes, values and motivations such criteria as intention, or concerning language, its features and uses rationality, argue that the understanding of in the most suitable and appropriate text and talk is not dependent on elements contexts. Take a newspaper headline like rooted in psychology rather, on social “Dolly Tidur Selama Bulan Puasa” for an factors such as “power” and “status” and example. How would a non-Surabayan how they are distributed and maintained interpret it considering the general meaning linguistically in the society (Lavandera, of “Dolly”? How would you interpret it – as 1988). Interestingly many social analysts of a Surabayan or East Javanian who knows discourse, among who are also interested in the situation of this place as a great pragmatics do indeed recognize the prostitution business. influence of socio-cultural variables that Take another example in Indonesian affect the production of discourse, or text. context, the setting is in a bedroom, the But the fact remains that individual participants are the new-married couple, it

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 89

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

happened many years ago when I was still “there”, “this”, “that”, “up”, “down”, achild: “north”, “inside”, “top”, “bottom”, etc. Minah: Ado apo Abang? There are many temporal deixis in English, Abang: Sempit kali Minah, nggak bisa “Now”, “then”, from now on”, “last year”, masuk. “in the future”, etc. are all examples of this Someone who listens to the fragment kind. A discoursal deixis is self-explicit in of their conversation might interpret that that it is used primarily in a discourse unit they are making love. That is the and for discoursal purposes. We employ interpretation of the hearer based on the discoursal deixis a lot for textual coherence behaviour and attitude of bride and or as procedural indicators. For instance, we bridegroom in Indonesian socio-cultural use “to begin with”, “first”, “next”, “in the context. In fact after the dialogue continues, following paragraph”, “last but not the the couple is talking about the shoes which least”, etc. to smooth the transitions or were bought someday was very narrow. connections between different parts of a This dialogue will be funny to other hearers textual unit. Apparently a social deixis is because of the misinterpretation. for the sake of politeness in social interaction. E. Micro Pragmatics Under this heading, the discussion 2. Presupposition concerning with micro-pragmatics which Speakers or writers usually design includes deixis, presupposition (pragmatic their message on the assumption that the presupposition and semantic hearer or presupposition), conversational implicature reader already has a degree of the and Grice, conversational principles knowledge of what is being communicated. (cooperative principle and politeness What the writer assumes the reader already principle), speech act (type of acts, knows about the subject and the context of classifying illocutionary acts, the is known as presupposition. conversational analysis). Inference as we saw in the last unit is actually based on presupposition because 1. Deixis whether inference is right or wrong, the Deixis means pointers or something reader is acting upon some relevant that points to other things. In order words, information about the subject. Take the indexicals are linguistic forms or following example “Who killed his second expressions that refer to other things. In a wife?”. This question presupposes that (a) sense, deixis can be a synonym of language the speaker and hearer know that he has two expressions. According to Fillmore, deixis wife; (b) both know that the second wife can be roughly categorized into five types. was killed and that his killers are unknown They are deixis of person (pronominal (c) the unknown assassins might be deixis), deixis of place (spatial deixis), discovered; (d) the reader has the right to deixis of time (temporal deixis), deixis of know and may do something about the discourse (discoursal deixis), and deixis for information he gets. social purposes (social deixis). Presupposition is based on shared Pronominal deixis refers to a assumption between speaker and hearer and person pointer or assigner. “He”, “I”, etc how some clauses (especially introduced by are typical examples. Spatial deixis denotes when) give rise to presupposition. We shall a place pointer. Examples include “here”, also be looking at how to differentiate

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 90

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

between semantic presupposition and following statement: “(ii)Thank you for not pragmatic presupposition. As smoking”. presupposition often suggests more than In English certain clauses trigger what is simply said and associates itself off , especially those that with the speaker’s belief system, it is express another component of pragmatic analysis. change of state predicates (e.g. begin, Many people display interest in continue, stop, etc) introduced by “after” presupposition. Semanticists claim a strong and interest in presupposition because via “before” (Grundy, 2000). Look at the entailment they find a relationship between following examples: two . (iii) I began drinking 8 glasses of water daily after I read the medical book a. Pragmatic Presupposition (iv) I continued studying after I obtained When we speak with people, we my first degree at the age of 60 generally make valid assumptions about the (v) She stopped smoking after she suffered background of what we say, which we lung cancer presume to be mutually known. If someone (iii) presupposes that (a) I was drinking less tells you: (i)“Registration for the workshop than 8 glasses of water before (b) I read a ends tomorrow”. medical book. For you to respond appropriately it (iv) presupposes that (a) I was studying is assumed that you know something about before (b) I obtained a degree at the age of “the workshop” in question. If you do not 60 know, we conclude that the speaker made a (v) presupposes that (a) she was smoking wrong assumption about your knowledge of before (b) she suffered lung cancer (c) the workshop. This results in a failure of smoking could have caused the lung cancer. presupposition in which case you ask to Implicative verbs such as forget, happen know what he is talking about. There would and manage do also prompt presuppositions not be any point in saying: registration for (Grundy, 2000). Consider the following the workshop ends tomorrow unless the examples: speaker knew that the hearer is properly (vi) The lecturer forgot to give a summary informed about the upcoming workshop of his lecture and left everyone guessing and the process of registration. In fact this what he said at the beginning. condition must be met before making the presupposes that he should have given a utterance. The speaker must presuppose that summary of his lecture the hearer is conversant with the workshop (vii) A similar thing happened to my and perhaps eager to be registered. This parents when they travel to London. background knowledge can be called presupposes that what happened was a pragmatic presupposition because they are matter of chance not linguistic in nature, they are the felicity (viii) Pininta managed to pass the condition which must be met for the examination. utterance to be appropriate otherwise, the presupposes that (a) the examination was speaker will have to go all the way to not easy (b) she lacked the necessary skills explain the upcoming workshop, the aims, to pass the examination (c) her passing the the expected particular, registration examination was a surprise From the above procedure, the date etc. What do you think examples we can argue that presuppositions is pragmatically presupposed in the

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 91

Pininta V.S. – A Highlight On Pragmatics

are conventionally associated with grammatical constructions (Grundy, 2000). Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon. b. Semantic Presuppositions Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge So far, we have established that Encyclopedia of Language. pragmatic presupposition is related to the Cambridge: Cambridge University context. Press The other type of presupposition that does Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and not rely on context for its interpretation is Power. London: Longman known as semantic presupposition. Take Gazdar, Gerald. 1079. Pragmatics: (viii) above as an example, i.e. “Pininta Implicature, Preposition and managed to pass the examination.” Logical Form. New York: Whenever a personal like “Pininta” is Academic Press. used, there is usually the existence of a Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. that we can easily identify the New York: Academic Press name with. In other words, there is a Grundy, P. (2000) Doing Pragmatics 2nd referent that matches the description. This Ed. London: Arnold kind of presupposition is known as Hudson, R.A. (1980) Sociolingusitics. semantic presupposition. Unlike pragmatic Cambridge: Cambridge University presupposition, semantic presupposition Press always takes place when a definite Hymes, D. (1972) On Communicative description occurs, especially when a Competence. Philadelphia: proper name is used or when an expression University of Pennsylvania Press. is used as the title of a book and so on. Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. Conversational implicature, London: Longman conversational principles, conversational Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. analysis, and relevance theory need to be Cambridge: Cambridge University discussed in relation to pragmatics. The Press relationship between pragmatics and Mey, L. Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An semantics; pragmatics and discourse; Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell pragmatics and speech acts is also Publishers Ltd. important to discuss concerning with Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson, 1986, pragmatics. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell. Yule, G. (1996) The Study of Language 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parafrase Vol. 16 No.01 Mei 2016 92