ASSIGNMENT No.

1
Q.1 How would you differentiate between semantic and pragmatic
meaning of an utterance? Give suitable examples to explain your
answer.
ANSWER:
Introduction
Language is a means of communication used by people in any kind of social interaction. The use
of language is one of the salient attributes that distinguish humans from other creatures.
Therefore, understanding language is an important part of understanding humanity in general.
Accordingly, language forms the heart of human life, without which many important activities
are inconceivable. As People mainly use language to communicate with each other, the study of
human communication by means of language has attracted the attention of scholars, whose
propositions deal with disciplines including linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics,
anthropology and many others. The main function of communication is to convey ideas, attitudes
and feelings from the addresser to the addressee(s), which are conveyed in terms of meaning by
means of language. Different levels and types of meaning have been identified. The focus of is to
investigate and identify the similarities and/or the differences between the pragmatic meaning
and the semantic meaning in interaction.
An Introduction to Meaning:
Since this is about pragmatics and semantics, "meaning" is a part of these Subjects, in which they
both deal with meaning that is derived from speech, therefore, we will define different types of
"meaning" in the field of pragmatics and semantics. The word "meaning" refers to a thing or idea
that a sound, word, sign, etc. represents, as well as, it is the thing or ideas that somebody wishes
to communicate to you by what they say or do. (Rivers, 1968, p.45) It can sometimes be used to
describe the interpretations that people have of the world in another sense the word, "Meaning,"
describe the internal workings of the mind, independently of any linguistic activity. "Meanings"
vary according to the types of the thing that is being represented or concerned with conceptual
inaccessible individual value of understanding. However, one can say that the concept of
meaning is not easy to be defined in absolute term. Namely, there are the things in the world,
which might have meaning, as well as, signs of other things in the world, and so, are always
meaningful(i.e., natural signs of the physical world and ideas within the mind and concepts);
There are things that are always necessarily meaningful, such as words, and other nonverbal
symbols. The major contemporary positions of meaning come under the following partial
definitions of meaning understanding; Logical theories, involving notions such as intension
cognitive content, or sense, along with extension, reference, or denotation; message, information,
or communication; Truth conditions; Usage, and the instructions for usage; and Measurement,
computation, or operation. Now after setting a number of definitions to meaning, it is a necessary
to move on to the main interest of this study, which is defining the distinctions between
Pragmatics and semantics. The next part will be allocated for pragmatics and its related fields.
Pragmatics in linguistic discourse
Pragmatics plays a major role in discourse. When the speaker and the hearer share knowledge
about the world, therefore, both the speaker and the hearer will make assumptions according to
the shared knowledge. "Pragmatics" refers to the strategies (exploitation of shared knowledge,
assumptions about communicative intent, etc.); by which language users relate the
dictionary/grammar meaning of utterances to their communicative value in context. "Pragmatics"
generally refers to the encoding of particular communicative functions, especially those relevant
to interpersonal exchanges, in specific grammatical and lexical elements of a given language. So
that all the structures of a language encode two levels of meaning, "semantic" and "pragmatic,"
both of which must be learnt for communicative competence?
Pragmatics: the basic concept
It is necessary to highlight the basic concepts of pragmatics. It is beyond words meaning is that
what pragmatics is all about, a person might say a sentence that have many meanings (non-direct
meaning), hearer needs to read between the lines to get the meaning, makes assumptions, and
guessing, therefore, sharing knowledge about the world makes it easier to derive the speaker's
meaning. These are few examples that illustrate it: 1. my car is in a no parking zone, and a police
officer approaches. I tell him "My car has a flat tire". 2. I enter a tire store, and tell the person at
the counter: "My car has a flat tire". The sentences are both true, and indeed they mean the same
thing in both cases So in the sort of thing pragmatics concerned with what we see and
understand, i.e. "Meaning beyond words". In both contexts, I am reporting my flat tire; but in
each case I am also communicating some second message as well ("It's not my fault I'm in a No
Parking zone"; "I would like you to fix the tire".) Those examples showed that one sentence
could have different meaning in different Situations.
Semantics:
The word Semantics is derived from the Greek word semantics meaning to show or give signs.
Semantics as the sub-field of Lınguıstıcs dealing with the conventional (or literal) meaning of
the words and sentences and the relations between those meanings and between lınguıstıcs
expression and their denotation. This subject has been chosen along with pragmatics to show the
distinction between both subjects. It is worth mentioning that they both are concerned with
(meaning) but each in its own unique and different way. The perennial problem in semantics is
the delineation of its subject matter. The term meaning can be used in a variety of ways, and only
some of these correspond to the usual understanding of the scope of linguistic or computational
semantics. A criterion assumption in computationally oriented semantics is that knowledge of the
meaning of a sentence can be equated with knowledge of its truth conditions: that is, knowledge
of what the world would be like if the sentence were true. This is not the same as knowing
whether a sentence is true, which is (usually) an empirical matter, but knowledge of truth
conditions is a prerequisite for such verification to be possible. Meaning as truth conditions
needs to be generalized somewhat for the case of imperatives or questions, but is a common
ground among all contemporary theories, in one form or another, and has an extensive
philosophical justification. A semantic description of a language is some finitely stated
mechanism that allows us to say, for each sentence of the language, what its truth conditions are.
Just as for grammatical description, a semantic theory will characterize complex and novel
sentences on the basis of their constituents: their meanings, and the manner in which they are
placed together. The basic constituents will ultimately be the meanings of words and
morphemes. The modes of combination of constituents are largely determined by the syntactic
structure of the language. In general, to each syntactic rule combining some sequence of child
constituents into a parent constituent, there will correspond some semantic operation combining
the meanings of the children to produce the meaning of the parent. The tradition in semantics has
been to assume that word meanings can by and large simply be plugged into semantic structures.
This is a convenient and largely correct assumption when dealing with structures like every X is
P, but becomes less tenable as more complex phenomena are examined. However, the relevant
semantic properties of individual words or groups of words are seldom to be found in
conventional dictionaries and closer cooperation between semanticists and computationally
aware lexicographers are required (Watzlawich & Jachson, 1967, p.35). More integration
between sentence or utterance level semantics and theories of text or dialogue structure. Recent
work in semantics has shifted emphasis away from the purely sentence-based approach, but the
extent, to which the interpretations of individual sentences can depend on dialogue or text
settings, or on the goals of speakers, is much greater than had been suspected.
Semantics is limited to the relation of words to which they refer, whereas pragmatics
covers the study of relationships between words, the interlocutors and also the context.

The main differences:

Pragmatics is the study of the ability of natural language speakers to communicate more than
that which is explicitly stated. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is
called pragmatic competence. An utterance describing pragmatic function is described as
metapragmatics. Another perspective is that pragmatics deals with the ways we reach our goal in
communication. Suppose, a person wanted to ask someone else to stop smoking. This can be
achieved by using several utterances. The person could simply say, 'Stop smoking, please!'
which is direct and with clear semantic meaning; alternatively, the person could say, 'Whew, this
room could use an air purifier' which implies a similar meaning but is indirect and therefore
requires pragmatic inference to derive the intended meaning . Pragmatics is regarded as one of
the most challenging aspects for language learners to grasp, and can only truly is learned with
experience. Language meaning can be analyzed at several levels. It has a direct connection with
semantics and pragmatics. While Semantics concentrates on the meaning that comes from
linguistic knowledge, Pragmatics concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot be
predicted by Linguistic knowledge alone and takes into account our knowledge about the
physical and the social world. The focus of pragmatic analysis is on the meaning of speakers'
utterances rather than on the meaning of words or sentences. Utterances need not consist of
complete the focus of pragmatic analysis is on the meaning of speakers' utterances rather than on
the meaning of words or sentences. Utterances need not consist of complete sentences. Each
utterance is a unique physical event created at a particular point in time for a particular
communicative purpose. In our point of view, pragmatics helps the translator or the interpreter in
finding clues in the utterances the speakers make which leads him to find the appropriate
equivalent in the target language. Finally, the question of how semantics relates to pragmatically
oriented theories is Smith & Wilson (ibid. p34) say, "Wide open." For them, semantics deals
with those aspects of meaning that remain constant whenever a given expression is uttered:
Semantics covers what expressions mean, while pragmatics covers what speakers mean in using
the expressions. To summarize: Pragmatics involves how speakers use language in
contextualized social interactions, how they do things with words, as Leech (1974, p.64) would
say. Semantics invites a focus on meaning and truth conditions without regard to communication
and context.
Examples:
1- ‘It is very cold’
Semantic approach that temperature is low or some other explanation.
Pragmatic approach may also like to consider that may be the speaker wants to switch on the blower
and used the statement “it is very cold” as an associated sentence.
2-She hasn’t taken a shower.
In the first, did the speaker really mean to say that the woman has not ever taken a shower, not even once?
Although the sentence says just that, the listener in the conversation may understand, based on other
factors that the speaker means that the woman they are referring to has not taken a shower ... today.
3-He was so tired he could sleep for days.
In the second example, we have a guy who is so tired he can sleep for days. Is he really going to sleep for
days? Semantically, we would need to take that sentence to mean exactly that. But, in casual
conversation, the listeners and speaker might tell you that the guy was just saying he was really, really
tired, and using those words to convey that meaning, instead of saying, 'he was really tired'.
4-Can you pass the salt?’
Semantic Meaning: Are you physically able to do this task?
Semantic Response: ‘Yes’
(Pragmatic Meaning: Will you pass me the salt?
Pragmatic Response: pass the salt to the speaker.)

5-‘what time do you call this?’

Semantic Meaning: What time is it?
Semantic Response: A time (e.g. ‘twenty to one.’)
(Pragmatic Meaning: a different question entirely, e.g. why is you so late?
Pragmatic Response: Explain the reason for being so late.)

Q.2 How would you define the term ‘reference’? Explain the difference
between ‘anaphoric’ and ‘cataphoric’ references with relevant examples
Answer:
Reference:
Reference is a relation between objects in which one object designates, or acts as a means by
which to connect to or link to, another object. The first object in this relation is said to refer to the second
object. It is called a name for the second object. The second object, the one to which the first object refers,
is called the referent of the first object. A name is usually a phrase or expression, or some other symbolic
representation. Its referent may be anything – a material object, a person, an event, an activity, or an
abstract concept.
References can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible
(onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other, [1] space-time
coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection. In some cases, methods
are used that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.
References feature in many spheres of human activity and knowledge, and the term adopts shades of
meaning particular to the contexts in which it is used. Some of them are described in the sections below.
Examples of reference:
I'm going to use my buddy Chris as a reference because he knows how reliable I am when I'm at work.
If I want to get a good job, I'll make sure to put at least one good reference in my resume.
A middle aged widow has been out of work for ten years. Since her children are grown she sets out to find
a job. She sent her resume and was called for an interview. However, when the interviewer asked for a
reference from her former employers they were all gone.
Cataphoric Reference
Cataphoric reference means that a word in a text refers to another later in the text and you need to look
forward to understand. It can be compared with anaphoric reference, which means a word refers back to
another word for its meaning.
Example:
In the following examples, cataphors are in italics and their prececedents are in bold.

1. When he arrived, John noticed that the door was open'. ('He' refers to 'John.')

2. "Why do we envy him, the bankrupt man?"

3. A few weeks before he died, my father gave me an old cigar box filled with faded letters.
4. In 'The Pendulum Years,' his history of the 1960s, Bernard Levin writes of the 'collective
insanity which seized Britain.'"
5. If she were alive today, [Barbara] Tuchman would surely be preparing to pen fresh furious
pages tonight, as the president seeks to rally his faltering domestic popularity with summonses of
support."
6. "This, I now realize, was a very bad idea--suggesting we do whatever Terry Crews wants for
the day."
7. "It must have been tough on your mother, not having any children."
8. Too scared to buy before they sell, some homeowners aim for a trade.
9. "So I just want to say this to the Congress: An America that buys much

Anaphoric reference:

In English grammar, anaphora is the use of a pronoun or other linguistic unit to refer back to another
word or phrase. Adjective: anaphoric. Also called anaphoric reference or backwards anaphora. The
word that gets its meaning from a preceding word or phrase is called an anaphor. The preceding word or
phrase is called the antecedent, referent, or head.Some linguists use anaphora as a generic term for
both forward and backward reference.The term forward(s) anaphora is equivalent to cataphora.
Anaphora and cataphora are the two main types of endophora--that is, reference to an item within
the text itself.

Example:

In the following examples, anaphors are in italics and their antecedents are in bold.

1. I went out with Jo on Sunday. She looked awful. ('She' clearly refers to 'Jo', there is no need to repeat
her name.)
2. Susan plays the piano. She likes music.

In [this] example, the word she is an anaphor and refers back to a preceding expression, in this
case Susan. As can be seen in this example, an anaphor is an item that commonly points backwards..

3. "If a man has talent and can't use it, he's failed.
4. "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a
mother."
5. "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons
6. "Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made
7. "Well, knowledge is a fine thing, and mother Eve thought so; but she smarted so severely for hers, that
most of her daughters have been afraid of it since

Q.3 Discuss in detail Grice’s Cooperative Principal? Which of its

maxims do you think is the most commonly flouted in everyday
conversations? Give suitable reasons to justify your answer
Answer:

Grice’s Cooperative Principal

Grice’s Cooperative Principal is four conversational ‘maims; which are commandments that people
tactfully follow (or should follow) to further conversation easily.

Maxim of quantity demands the speakers confirmation informative as is required and no more
informative than required. Below are the examples of an utterance that obeys the maxim of quantity and
that one violates the maxim.

Example of obeying

A:”where are you going”?

B:”I’m going to the post office”.

In the example B gives comment son A statement without adding information

Example of disobeying

A:”are you going to work tomorrow?”

B:”I am n jury date but I’ll go to the doctor in the evening I have asked the manager for permission”

In this example Bs reply violates maxim of quantity because b does not give required information by A.

Maxim of quality requires the speaker not to say what is believed to be false and for which the speaker
lacks adequate evidence .below are the examples of the utterance that obeys the maxim of quality and the
one that violates the maxim.

Example of obeying

A:”why did u come late last night?”

B:”the car was broken down”

In the example b gives the truth that his car was broken so he that he came late.

Example of disobeying/violation

A:”the Tehran’s in turkey, isn’t teacher?”

B:”and London’s in America I suppose”

In this example B reply is supposed to suggest that A is incorrect and B violates the maxim of quality.

Maxim of reference requires the speaker to be relevant .below are the examples.
Examples of obeying

A:”where is the box of chocolates”?

B:”it is in the room”

In this examples B’s reply relates to the question, not talking about something else.

Example of disobeying/violation

A:”where is my box of chocolates?”

B:”doesn’t know mine either”.

In this example Bs answer is not relevant to As question.

Maxim of Manner requires the speaker to avoid the obscurity of expression and ambiguity .maxim of
manner demands the speaker to be brief and orderly. Below are the examples.

Example of obeying

A:”where was Alfred yesterday?”

B:”Alfred went to the store and brought some whisky”

In the example Bs answer obeys the manner of maxim.

Example of disobeying

A:”why was he arrested?”

B:”he stole the money from the bank:

In the example Bs statement is ambiguous .it can be interpreted that B didn’t steal the money which is
stored in the bank. He had gone to the bank first and he stole money from another place .another
interpretation can be that he stole the money stored in the bank; he got the money robbing the bank.
grice’s maxims above specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally effective
rational cooperative way the participants should speak sincerely relevantly and clearly while providing
sufficient information.

Q.4 Discuss in detail the conventions of turn taking. Do you think that
an everyday conversation adheres to the conventional norms of turn
taking?
Answer

Conventions:
 Conventions are the formally and informally agreed-upon ways we use language, whether spoken
or written. Some conventions may be grammatical, but others depend largely on how language is used by
groups with higher social standing. Conventions change over time; for example, the word "isn’t" used to
be an acceptable contraction for "is not" or "are not." The function of "isn’t" is arguably grammatical (that
is, sentences containing the word can be diagrammed without difficulty), but not socially acceptable.
Likewise, such "rules" of language as parallel construction, not ending a sentence with a preposition, or
splitting an infinitive are conventions that have arisen out of social usage. Conventions are important
because their correct application may, in the eyes of many, indicate a level of education.
Turn taking:
Turn-taking is a type of organization in conversation and discourse where participants speak one
at a time in alternating turns. In practice, it involves processes for constructing contributions, responding
to previous comments, and transitioning to a different speaker, using a variety of linguistic and non-
linguistic cues. [1]
While the structure is generally universal,[2] that is overlapping talk is generally avoided and silence
between turns is minimized turn-taking conventions vary by culture and community.[3] Conventions vary
in many ways, such as how turns are distributed, how transitions are signaled, or how long is the average
gap between turns.
In many contexts, conversation turns are a valuable means to participate in social life and have been
subject to competition. [4] It is often thought that turn-taking strategies differ by gender; consequently,
turn-taking has been a topic of intense examination in gender studies. While early studies supported
gendered stereotypes, such as men interrupting more than women and women talking more than men,[5]
recent research has found mixed evidence of gender-specific conversational strategies, and few
overarching patterns have emerged
The concept of turn-taking has been proposed not only as a central component of conversation
but also as a major component of the structure of social interaction and social organization. Turn-taking
has also been explained in terms of the chorography or temporal patterning in conversation. The nature of
children's conversational turn-taking shows different with adults than with peers. However, the role of the
adult appears to have a tremendous impact on children's turn-taking skills. In fact, young children may
appear to be more skilled at exchanging turns than they actually are. The research on children's
conversational turn-taking points to several salient characteristics that have significant implications within
the clinical setting.

Everyday conversation:

andra: o … what should we do?

Julie: Well, I like to do arts and crafts, and I’m really good at drawing. What do you think?

Sandra: Hmm … how about playing a board game? That would be more fun.

Julie: OK. Let’s play Scrabble! I’m really good at spelling, too!

Sandra: Oh, yeah? We’ll see about that!

O … Notice how the “o” sound is drawn out here, combined with the intonation, which shows boredom.
I’m really good at: “Really” means “very” and is used to emphasize “good.” It goes before the adjective.
What do you: Notice the pronunciation here — it sounds like “Whaddaya.”
Hmm … is used to show that the speaker is thinking. It is also used to show that the speaker disagrees
with an idea.
How about is used to make a tentative suggestion. The speaker is introducing an idea and doesn’t want to
sound too strong.
Let’s is used to make a strong suggestion. The speaker feels confident about the plan.
Oh, yeah? We’ll see about that! “Oh, yeah?” is used in a joking way to show a bit of friendly
competition. Notice the emphasis on “that,” which refers back to “good at spelling.”
Norms of turn taking:
A consequence of this choice is that any model of turn-taking behavior inferred will effectively
be a model of the distribution of speech, in time and across participants. If the parameters of such a model
are maximum likelihood (ML) estimates, then that model will best account for what is most likely, or
most “normal”; it will constitute a norm. Finally, an important aspect of this work is that it analyzes turn-
taking behavior as independent of the words spoken (and of the ways in which those words are spoken).
As a result, strictly speaking, what is modeled is not the distribution of speech in time and across
participants but of binary speech activity in time and across participants. Despite this seemingly dramatic
simplification, it will be seen that important aspects of turn-taking are sufficiently rare to be problematic
for modeling. Modeling them jointly alongside lexical information, in multi-party scenarios, is likely to
remain intractable for the foreseeable future.

Q5 Define and differentiate between the following:

a) Cohesion and coherence
b) Illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts
c) Presupposition and implicature
d) Proposition and sentence
Answer

Cohesion Coherence

Cohesion is when the link between sentences, Cohesion literally means that individual
words and phrases are visible, or easily elements of a group are close together.
understandable. Cohesion often refers to this effect occurring in
some area, small or large.
E.g. Cara loves to cook dinner for her husband
Carl. The dinner that she likes cooking the For example,
most is lasagna. Lasagna is a very popular dish Four dots around a particular crossing of lines
in Italy. Italians are also known for their heavy in a larger pattern might be cohesion.
accents. Accents can tell you where in the
world people come from. There are over 7
billion people on earth.
In this example we can see the clear link

Between each sentence, even though there is Cohesion also works figuratively through
no set topic/theme in the paragraph. This is thematic similarity (similarity using types) and
cohesion. Cohesion can be evident without thematic differences.
coherence
Illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts:
The illocutionary act is the act performed in saying something, i.e. the act named and identified byte
explicit per formative verb. The perlocutionary act is the act performed by, or as a consequence of, saying
something. Gave the Theperlocutionarydistinction has been illustrated by contrasting lists of
perlocutionary and illocutionary verbs. Thus, to persuade, frighten, get h (hearer) to do… etc. are
perlocutionary, not illocutionary, acts because they cannot figure in explicit per formatives, or they cannot
be used per formatively.

Difference between illocutionary and perlocutionary:

The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although there are
numerous opinions regarding how to define 'illocutionary acts', there are some kinds of acts which are
widely accepted as illocutionary, as for example promising or commanding.
An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin
calls per formatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to
ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of per
formative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing, promising) is
performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.

While illocutionary acts relate more to the speaker, perlocutionary acts are centered on the
listener. Perlocutionary acts always have a 'perlocutionary effect' which is the effect a speech act has on a
listener. This could affect the listener's thoughts, emotions or even their physical actions. [3] An example
of this could be if someone uttered the sentence "I'm hungry." The perlocutionary effect on the listener
would persuade them to maybe make a sandwich for the speaker.

Presupposition and implicature:

The presuppositions of an utterance are the pieces of information that the speaker assumes (or acts as if
she assumes) in order for her utterance to be meaningful in the current context. This broad
characterization encompasses everything from general conversational norms to the particulars of how
specific linguistic expressions are construed. The current section explicates these notions, connects them
with specific linguistic phenomena and interactional patterns, and reviews a range of methods for
theorizing about them.
Conversational implicatures are the centerpiece of Grecian pragmatics (Grice, 1989) and its
subsequent developments. On Grice’s conception, they require speakers to reason not only in terms of
their language but also their understanding of the context and each other’s goals and intentions. This
places conversational implicatures at the center of debates about the distinction between semantics and
pragmatics and guarantees them a leading role in investigations of language and social cognition. This
section reviews the theory of conversational implicature and then briefly describes the prominent
approaches that researchers have taken to understanding them.

Difference betweenPresupposition and implicature:

Implicature is when the speaker makes inferences through word meanings and context. For
example, 'I put aside some of my paycheck to save for a new car.' The use of the word 'some' indicates
that the speaker also used part of his or her paycheck for other things
The presuppositions of an utterance are the pieces of information that the speaker assumes in order for her
utterance to be meaningful in the current context. This broad characterization encompasses everything
from general conversational norms to the particulars of how specific linguistic expressions are construed.
The chapter reviews tests for presuppositions that concern their status in the discourse. It derives some
conversational implicatures using the Gricean maxims, and traces the development of theoretical and
formal perspectives on conventional implicature.
Proposition and sentence:
The term ‘proposition’ is sometimes assimilated to the sentence itself; sometimes to the linguistic
meaning of a sentence; sometimes to ‘what is said’; sometimes to the contents of beliefs or other
‘propositional’ attitudes. But however propositions are defined, they must have two features: the capacity
to be true or false; and compositional structure (being composed of elements which determine their
semantic properties).
A sentence is a string of words formed according to the syntactic rules of a language. But a sentence has
semantic as well as syntactic properties: the words and the whole sentence have meaning. Philosophers
have tended to focus on the semantic properties of indicative sentences, in particular on their being true or
false. They have called the meanings of such sentences ‘propositions’, and have tied the notion of
proposition to the truth-conditions of the associated sentence.

Difference between proposition and sentence:

Proposition’ is the expression of judgment. It may be somewhat related to ‘sentence’ but the two are not
one and the same.
It is the proposition that can either be true or false because all propositions necessarily involve assertion.
On the other hand, not all sentences express judgment as some kinds of sentence do not affirm or deny
anything. For instance, interrogative sentence asks questions, exclamatory sentence expresses happiness,
surprise, and other feelings, optative sentence conveys yearnings, wishes, and desires, and imperative
sentence dispenses commands, but none of them openly utter that something is or is not. Likewise,
sentences which take the structure of a greeting, proposal, prayer, and request cannot be said to be either
true or false.
One of the differences between the two is that ‘words’ compose a ‘sentence’ whereas ‘concepts’ make up
a ‘proposition’. When a judgment is expressed in a sentence, the proposition is not the sentence itself, but
that which is expressed or affirmed. Hence, what can be said to be either true or false is not the sentence
but the proposition. Technically, proposition, not the sentence, is the bearer of truth or falsehood
However, there is one kind of sentence that is closely related to ‘proposition’. Being in the form of a
statement, the ‘declarative’ sentence (e.g. “Philippines is in the far east.”) asserts something and thus
pretty much appears to be like a ‘proposition’. Nevertheless, the two are still not identical because
proposition, technically speaking, pertains to the judgment conveyed in a declarative sentence.
Proposition refers to the meaning or content of a declarative sentence that expresses something that can be
true or false.

Q.6 What are the features of conversational openings and closings?

Explain your answer with suitable examples
Answer

Introduction:
Every conversation is different from all others. Nobody ever had exactly the same private conversation
again, even if he conversed about the same topic. Nevertheless there are certain items in conversations
that are very alike or completely alike, and which seem to be build on certain schemes. Places in
conversations where these schemes occur are openings and closings.
The aim of this paper is to examine the mechanisms behind this phenomenon and to examine if and how
these mechanisms have changed since they were first examined by Schegloff and other linguists in the
1970’s. For providing the necessary background information, I will first give some basic features of
conversation analysis which are important for the topic, before moving on to conversation openings and
finally to conversation closings
As stated by Levinson (1983: 309) telephone conversation is one of “social activities effectively
constituted by talk itself“. This is, that the conversation is not disturbed in its pureness by extra-linguistic
features like “physical doings and positioning” . Participating hearers have to interpret the utterances with
nothing more than voice, words, intonation and pauses which can be analyzed linguistically. Also the
beginnings and endings – and because of that also the opening and closing places - of such conversation
can clearly be determined, as telephone conversation usually has a duration of the time of the call.
Therefore telephone conversation is most suitable for linguistic research

Conversation Openings and Closings:

Conversation analysis is a linguistic discipline that mainly handles coherence and sequential organization
in discourse – for example the opening and closing sequences (Levinson 1983: 286). The openings and
closings of conversations were examined by its findings. It was observed in empirical studies how they
are produced and understood. Recurring patterns were searched for and theory developed from them.
Conversation analysis claims that the existence of certain mechanisms that guide our conversations
(Levinson 1983: 287). Conversations have two levels of organization: a local management system and an
overall organization. The overall organization contains the organization of topic talk [1].
Other parts of conversations in overall organization than the topic talk are the opening section and the
closing section which I will discuss in detail later on.
The local management system is the one that makes conversation work. A conversation can be defined as
a string of at least two turns produced by different speakers. In it at least but not more than one person
should normally talk at a time. The mechanism that assures this is the one of turn-taking. At the end of
turn-constructional units - these units are syntactic units like sentences - the speaker can change. Such a
point is called transition relevance place.
Features of conversational openings and closings:
This study examines the features that characterize the language of sermons within Christian Pentecostal
religious discourse. The choice of the study of sermons, among other forms of Christian Pentecostal
religious discourse, is primarily informed by the perceived impact of the discourse as reflected in the
congregational responses such as clapping, jumping, rising of hands, positive responses to the prayers
(declarations) by the clergy, and response to invitations from the altar (altar calls). More specifically, the
study focuses on the sermons of Pastor Enoch AdejareAdeboye, a cleric, whose sermons trigger positive
responses from a multitude of socio-culturally and racially diverse audience. His style of delivery and
content of his sermons constitute an integral part of his success as reflected in the astronomical growth of
the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG); a pentecostal denomination under his leadership.
This study therefore investigates the language of sermons, in particular, the conversational strategies used
to evoke responses from the audience

Examples:
Closings:
If you require any further information, feel free to contact me.

I look forward to your reply.

I look forward to hearing from you.

I look forward to seeing you.

Please advice as necessary.

We look forward to a successful working relationship in the future.

Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Once again, I apologies for any inconvenience.

 We hope that we may continue to rely on your valued custom.

I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.

Openings:

I am writing to enquire about...

After having seen your advertisement in ..., I would like...

After having received your address from ..., I...

I received your address from ... and would like...

We/I recently wrote to you about...

Thank you for your letter of 8 May.

Thank you for your letter regarding...

Thank you for your letter/e-mail about...

In reply to your letter of 8 May,

Conclusion:

In accomplishing both openings and closings. The four standard opening sequences
Identified and summarized constantly. In the conversations, and the same is true of the four basic phases
of a closing. The only significant difference is that such sequences may not
Occur in order, or may not be explicitly present. In the latter case, the function performed by the
explicitly missing sequence is always implied in another sequence. In regard to the original questions, it is
quite apparent that there is indeed a formulaic approach to both opening and closing conversation. The
easy manner in which the data analyzed in this study fits into the typologies which Schegloff has
elaborated verifies the reutilized nature especially of conversational openings. On the other hand, it was
somewhat more challenging to try to match the data to distinct closing sequences, since a single utterance
could potentially be interpreted in various ways. Even so, it is still fairly clear that there are certain
strategies that conversational partners use to indicate their readiness to terminate a conversation. I have
identified a few of these potential reclosing indicators in my data set, and then followed them through the
rest of the conversation.

Q.7 Discuss the significance of discourse analysis in language teaching

with special reference to communicative syllabus design.
Answer

Discourse analysis:
Discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign
language use, or any significant semiotic event. The objects of discourse analysis (discourse, writing,
conversation, communicative event) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences,
propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not
only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary' but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring'
language use, not invented examples. [1] Text linguistics is a closely related field. The essential
difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse analysis aims at revealing
socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure. [2]
Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences,
including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social
psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication
studies, biblical studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions,
dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
Significances of discourse analysis in language teaching:
Discourse analysis concentrating on the basic principles and mechanisms upon which it functions. The
study is an attempt to illustrate theoretically what basically discourse is how it is used in language
analysis as means of showing the structure and the message of various spoken and written texts. The
study reveals that discourse analysis is widely used in the analysis of both written and spoken piece of
language showing mainly all related linguistic components and structure of that piece, and the message or
purpose for which it is used in various communicative situations. Like other branches of linguistics
language teaching has, until recently, been concerned with grammatical rather than communicative
competence. Wilkins observes that although there have been major changes in the methodology of
language teaching over the years the underlying principle has remained the same: "it has been assumed
that units of learning should be defined in grammatical terms, although the precise sequence in which
they occurred would be influenced by pedagogic considerations," (1972b). Further he suggests that even
those courses which encourage dialogue and improvised drama are structured grammatically and the
"situations that are created are pedagogic, bearing little resemblance to natural language use." It is not, of
course, that grammatical and communicative syllabuses have different goals; as Widows (1979)
emphasizes, "both types of syllabus recognize that the learner's goal should be the ability to
communicate" (p.248); rather they differ in their premises about "what needs to be actually taught for this
ability to be acquired" (ibid.). However, it is one thing to omit something deliberately from a syllabus, it
is quite another to include items which arc actually misleading or wrong; yet, in their concentration on
grammar, course books may use interactional structures for what are in reality grammar drills and then
students may be taught to produce answers which are grammatically correct but unusual or even deviant
in terms of discourse
Rules:
0: What is this?
A: This) is a book. It)
Q: Where is the typewriter?
A: The typewriter is in the cupboard.
In a methodology which leaves students to deduce rules of use the hidden curriculum can be
dangerous.
The importance of context for communication forces us to accept that, if we really want to train our
learners to become competent at communicating, the models of verbal behavior that we show to them
must be as contextualized as possible. Otherwise, in our attempt to simply or idealize the data we will be
creating an artificial kind of communication, thereby depriving the learners of contextual indexes such as
dialect, social relationship between the participants, or social function definition of the communicative
situation, which we make use of in our everyday social encounters. The pedagogic consequence which
results from this is that the best (and perhaps the only) way to contextualize language is simply to use real
instances of language use, in which the full potential of language can be appreciated by looking at its
social effects. An example of teachers' premises can be seen in a study by Mitchell and
Hooper (1992) carried out in England with secondary school teachers of English and foreign languages.
Both groups of teachers equate knowledge about language with morph-syntactic knowledge of a
traditional kind,
Centered on written language. Whereas the English teachers were skeptical of the value of this type of
knowledge in improving communicative performance, the foreign language teachers considered it
essential for language learning. The ability to analysehnguage variation was one of the English teachers'
goals in their classes; this notion was totally absent in the case of the foreign language teachers. This, the
researchers point out, was a rather surprising finding given the popularity of the concept of
communicative competence. Finally, when asked about what was involved in knowing about a language,
neither of the two groups mentioned such important topics in present linguistic research as the structure of
discourse beyond the level of the individual sentence, the spoken language in al1 its aspects, and first
second language acquisition/development. My discourse view of language use is based on three general
premises that can be summarized under the following headings: (I) communicative competent; (ii)
context, language variation and real data; and (iii) negotiation of intentions and interpretation. It is true
that these are familiar notions to most language educators and it is also true that many of them have tried
to assume them in their pedagogic practice by introducing specific communicative tasks. However, it
seems to me that, in spite of al1 the materials published (egg. Mohasco and Arthur 1987, by gate 1987,
Cook 1989, McCarthy 1991, McCarthy and Carter 1994), for many teachers, in the intimacy of their
classrooms, discourse
Communicative syllabus design:
Communicative Syllabus Design provides a model for specifying the syllabus content relevant to the
needs of different types or groups of foreign-language learner. Clear examples are given at every stage of
the explanation with two detailed studies of how the model works in practice. It should be invaluable to
anyone writing ESP courses. Teachers who are involved in planning general courses should also find it
relevant and informative since the criteria for analyzing communicative needs can easily be adapted for
their purposes.