TOPIC 1: LANGUAGE AS A COMMUNICATIVE SYSTEM

1.1 LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM OF SIGNALS:

A language is one special variety of code (an arbitrary 1, prearranged2 set of
signals). From this, we can say that the science of linguistics deals with this
aspect of communication: the study of this code or system of signals. So
language is a two-level semiotic3 system: its signs have got both EXPRESSION
(form) and CONTENT (meaning). They are arbitrary, discrete (distinct) and
their combinations are linear, that it is to say, they involve sequencing along a
particular dimension (time for speech, left-to-right or right-to-left for writing).

Language is not a bi-unique two-level4 semiotic system because it possesses

an intermediate level, namely “lexico-grammar” which differentiates language
from typical two-level systems. So language is a three-level semiotic system.

CONTENT meanings SEMANTICS

(MEANING)
are realized by

wordings (words and structures) LEXICO-GRAMMAR

(Exclusive to language)
(Combination of linguistic units of different sizes)

EXPRESSION are realized by

(FORM)
sounds and letters PHONOLOGY / GRAPHOLOGY

A system of communication consists of various parts: the SUBSTANCE,

manifested by some material means either graphemes or phonemes, and the
ALLOCATION of the signals to the various messages which the system can
convey. These messages relate to one specific situation. In the study of spoken
language the part concerned with the substance is called phonetics and the part
concerned with messages or meanings is called semantics. In the spoken
medium the substance receives the name of phonemes, whereas in the written
medium the segments are called graphemes. The patterns which these segments
form are what we know as words.

This has also been explained by postulating the double articulation: the units
on the lower level of phonology (phonemes) have no function other than that of
combining with one another to form the higher units of grammar (words).
That is to say, as isolated units, phonemes have no function.

1
No logical relation between a signal and its meaning; the relation is just arbitrary. In other words, there is no
logical relationship between signifier (significante) and signified (significado).
2
Fixed before hand by the speakers.
3
Discipline that studies signs or signals.
4
Bi-unique system is a one-to-one relation between the number of forms and the number of meanings. Ex: the
traffic lights: 3 colours  3 messages

1
 Finally, an emphasis on communication can be noticed in the view on
language held by Functional Grammar: a language is a system for making
meanings/messages: a semantic system, with other systems for encoding the
meaning it produces.
That is to say, language is a communicative system.

1.2 THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION:

In the process of communication, there are various elements or components,
all of them constituting the concern of the so-called “Communication Theory”,
as essential to any communication exchange, whether linguistic or non-
linguistic in nature. From this perspective, communication is a much broader
process than language. This list includes:
1. Code: an arbitrary, prearranged set of signals.
2. Channel: some medium by which the signals of the code are conveyed.
3. Process of encoding by which the signals of the code are conveyed.
4. Encoder: the person of device which performs the process of encoding.
5. Process of decoding: by which the signals are identified.
6. Decoder: the person or device by which the process of decoding is
performed.

Two important notions for Communication Theory are the capacity of a

code that depends on the number of distinct signals characteristic of that code;
and the actual amount of information transmitted are closely connected.
However, this is not valid for language because it is not a bi-unique system. So
a measure of the amount of information which a code can convey is obviously
related to the number of alternative signals. The amount of information
increases as the number of alternatives increases.

Finally, another concept commonly used by this Communication Theory is

redundancy (the unused capacity of a code. When we convey a certain
message, the encoder may decide to make a partial use of the code, that is to
say, choose some of the signals only. The reader has not to confuse this term
with repetition and defines it as the difference between the theoretical capacity
of any code and the average amount of information conveyed.

Example of indirect speech to illustrate the redundancy.

Redundancy is the imperative because we have avoided using
imperative sentences:

I’d like you to go now  declarative instead of imperative.

Would you kindly get off my foot?  interrogative, tentative,

polite. Interrogative instead of imperative not to sound rude.

1.3 PRAGMATICS AND COMMUNICATION: THE

COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

2
 Language has 3 main functions developed by Halliday:

1. Ideational function: language is a code or system of

signals used to express ideas
2. Interpersonal function: language is used to maintain
social relations
3. Textual function: language is used to establish links with
itself and with the situation in which it is used. In other
words, language permits users to build up a text both
written and/or spoken.

They are simultaneous.

Pragmatics is the linguistic discipline that describes the actual

intention of the speaker to saying something. One basic principle
ruling over communication is the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE,
formulated by Grice. He defines it as: “Make your conversational
contribution such as is required, at the stage at which occurs, by the
accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged.”

Grice explains its significance as follows: “They are

characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and
each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common
communicative purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually
accepted direction. This purpose or direction may be fixed from the
start or it may evolve during the exchange. However, at each stage,
some possible conversational moves would be excluded as
conversationally unsuitable.”

When a given utterance seems not to fit with the previous

expression, there is a violation of some of the MAXIMS of the
COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE:

1. Quantity: make your contribution as informative as is

required.
2. Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true.
3. Relation: be relevant.
4. Manner: be perspicuous (speak clearly; without metaphors).

However, a speaker can violate one maxim, that is, he or she may
disobey it openly. This situation gives rise to a “conversational
implicature”. To put in other words, an apparently irrelevant,
inadequate or inappropriate utterance may hide some implications;

3
 therefore, the listener is expected to infer some information from
indirect utterances.

In consequence, although some maxim is violated at the level of

what is said, the hearer is entitled to assume that that maxim, or at
least the Cooperative Principle, is observed at the level of what is
implicated.

1st participant (speaker) implies something (implicature)

2nd participant (listener) infers something (inference)

Examples:

a. (Levinson, page 97):

A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well, the milkman has come.
The answer is too vague.

b. (Levinson, page 97):

A: How is Jim getting on in his job?
B: Oh! Quite well, I think. He likes his mates and he has not been to prison
yet.
Hidden meaning: that man is dishonest be he is still working.
The implicature is that he is not a good boy; suggested in a
indirect manner.

c. (Levinson, page 110: 34):

The Queen Victoria is made of iron.
Metaphor that violates the maxim of manner.

1.4 SPEECH ACTS:

1.4.1. DEFINITION:
Speech acts (language or linguistic acts) are utterances of
sentences. In other words, acts of verbal behaviour either spoken
or written. When a person performs a speech act, that person at
one and the same time utters a particular utterance, namely a
locutionary act.

1.4.2. HISTORY:
It was Austin who initiated the analysis of speech acts in a
series of lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 and
published later on in 1962 (How to Do Things with Words). Austin

4
 proposed an initial distinction between “performative”
utterances and “constative” utterances.

A performative sentence is one in which the act of saying

something is the performing of an action (saying sth = doing sth).
These sentences are not used just to say things but to do things.

Ex: At a wedding, the priest and the couple are expected to say
something. After these words, they are married (action=marry).

A constative is an utterance which simply expresses a

statement, or states something as a fact, or reports states or affairs
(most of declaratives sentences).

Ex: Yesterday, I met an old friend at the faculty.

Unlike constative sentences/utterances, which can be true or

false, performative sentences/utterances can be felicitous or
infelicitous, that is, they may actually entail the performance of
an action or not. Austin formulated a number of conditions or
principles that are to be met by performatives in order to succeed
or be ”happy”; the so-called “felicity conditions”.

1.4.3. FELICITY CONDITIONS FOR HAPPY PERFORMANCES:

They are definite rules to be observed by happy performatives.
In order to make a promise, christen a ship, give property, etc.
and accomplish the corresponding action, the utterance should
meet certain conditions, e.g. that you really intend to do what
was promised, that you are the person appointed to christen the
ship, etc.

The technical formulation of these conditions is as follows:

a) There must be a conventional procedure having a

conventional effect.
The circumstances and persons must be appropriate, as
specified in the procedure.

b) The procedure must be executed correctly and completely.

c) A person participating in and so invoking the procedure

must in fact have the thoughts, feelings, or intentions
appropriate to the performance of the action and the
participants must intend so to conduct themselves.
The participants must so conduct themselves
subsequently.

5
 If we do not observe the first 2 conditions, then the act in
question is not successfully performed at all, that is, no
consequences (MISFIRES). Alternatively, if the las rule is not
obeyed, the act is achieved but it is an abuse of the procedure
(ABUSES)  not having the appropriate intentions.

1.4.4. TYPES OF SPEECH ACTS:

 LOCUTIONARY ACT:
It is the act OF saying something; the speakers’ utterance.
Ex: My name is Peter.
 ILLOCUTIONARY ACT:
It is an act performed IN saying something. It is a speech act
identified with the reference to the communicative intention of the
speaker. In performing this type of act, we shall be making statements,
asking questions, issuing commands, etc. The objective is to
communicate so the importance is in the meaning.
Ex: Could you please fetch me some cigarettes  request.
 PERLOCUTIONARY ACT:
It is the act performed BY or as a result of saying- The term thus
refers to the effects upon the feelings, thoughts or actions of the
audience.

1.4.5. ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS:

Illocutionary acts consist of three different components:

1. Propositional meaning
2. Illocutionary force:
3. Function indicating device

The propositional meaning refers to the content of the utterance or its

meaning.

For example, in “Mary will pass her Maths exam / will Mary pass her Maths
exam? / I hope that Mary will pass her Maths exam”, it is expressed the same
propositional meaning, although their illocutionary force is different: statement,
question and expression of a wish, respectively.

The type of illocutionary force of a speech act is marked by means of the so-
called “function indicating device”, which included word order, stress,
intonation, punctuation, the mood of verb and performative verbs (clearest
indication of the communicative intention of a sentence).

These three types of act are simultaneously.

Austin classifies the illocutionary forces and their corresponding

performative verbs into 5 general types:

6
 1) Veredictives (giving a verdict, making an estimate…): acquit, convict,
estimate, analyse…
2) Exercitives (exercising of powers, rights or influence): appoint, vote,
order, urge, warn…
3) Commissives (typified by promising or undertaking): intend, plan,
promise, undertake…
4) Behavitives (related to attitudes and social behaviour): thank,
congradulate on, apologize…
5) Expositives (used in order to fit our utterances into the course of a
conversation): deny, accept, argue…

But linguistic expressions can be performative without including any overt,

i.e. explicit5/performative verbs; these are called implicit/primary
performative utterances.

1.4.6. INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS:

In this type of linguistic acts, the speaker or writer makes use of a syntactic
type of sentence (affirmative, interrogative, imperative, exclamative) whose
meaning is different from the illocutionary force conveyed by the uttering of the
sentence.

For example, in Can you reach the salt? the sentence meaning is a question,
while the utterance meaning is a request.

Searle defines indirect speech acts as sentences that contain the illocutionary
force indicators for one kind of illocutionary act and can be uttered to perform,
in addition, another type of illocutionary act.

This typically occurs in uses of language like hints, insinuations, irony and
metaphor.

The problem of indirect speech acts is the problem of how it is possible for
the speaker to say one thing and mean that but also to mean something else. In
indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he
actually says by wat of relying on their mutually shared background
information.

Hence a close relation can be established between indirect speech acts and
the Cooperative Principle, since they usually constitute violations of some of its
maxims, especially relation and manner, though the CP is observed at the level
of what is implicated.

5
It obeys 3 essential conditions: 1st person, thereby or performative verbs.