Pragmatics: Crash Course Linguistics #6

Summary

This Crash Course Linguistics episode explores the concept of pragmatics, the study of how context influences meaning in language. It introduces the Cooperative Principle and Grice's Maxims, which are four assumptions guiding communication: quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. The episode illustrates how implicature, indirect language, and politeness strategies such as hedges and qualifiers contribute to conversational cooperation. It also touches on cultural variations in conversational styles, emphasizing the dynamic nature of language in conveying meaning.

Takeaways

• 😀 Communication often relies on context and pragmatics to interpret meaning beyond the literal words used.
• 🕵️ Pragmaticists make four main assumptions about communication: quality, quantity, relevance, and manner of information.
• 🎭 The 'Great job, Sherlock' example illustrates how context can lead to the interpretation of sarcasm rather than a compliment.
• 📝 People generally assume that communicators are providing high-quality information, even when they might be lying.
• 🦆 The 'ducks' GIF example shows how a technically true statement can be humorous due to the violation of the quantity assumption.
• 🍬 Food labels adhere to the assumption of relevance, providing information that is typically of interest to consumers.
• 👔 The 'sugar-free olive oil' hypothetical demonstrates how the relevance assumption can be humorously or misleadingly subverted.
• 👨‍🏫 The advice about the professor suggests that a lack of detail or overemphasis on the obvious can signal that something is amiss.
• 🤝 The Cooperative Principle, or Grice's Maxims, posits that communicators are generally cooperative and contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
• 🍰 Implicature is the additional meaning that arises from context, allowing for indirect communication and politeness.
• 🌐 Politeness strategies and indirectness vary across languages and cultures, affecting how requests and commands are formulated.
• 🗣️ Turn-taking in conversations is influenced by cultural norms, with some societies favoring high-involvement or high-considerateness styles.

Q & A

What is the field of linguistics that studies meaning in context?

The field of linguistics that studies meaning in context is called pragmatics.

Why do we often need to make assumptions about the context to understand each other in communication?

We often need to make assumptions about the context to understand each other because we don't have 100 percent complete information about everything that's going on during a conversation.

What are the four main assumptions that pragmaticists talk about in communication?

The four main assumptions are that people are trying to communicate high-quality information, provide a sufficient quantity of information, give information that is relevant, and say things in a manner that is as straightforward as possible for the context.

Why might someone say 'Great job, Sherlock' sarcastically?

Someone might say 'Great job, Sherlock' sarcastically when the context and the words clearly don't match, leading to the deduction of a more subtle truth like sarcasm.

How does the caption 'look at all these ducks there are at least ten' go against our assumptions about communication?

The caption goes against our assumption that people are giving us a sufficient quantity of information by stating the minimum number of ducks when there are clearly many more.

Why might a food label say 'sugar-free' on a product?

A food label might say 'sugar-free' on a product because we generally assume that people will tell us information that is of relevance, and sugar-free information is relevant when the product does not contain sugar.

What does it mean when someone gives a minimal response like 'Well, it certainly is a class' when asked for advice about a class?

A minimal response like 'Well, it certainly is a class' raises suspicions and suggests that the person is not providing a straightforward answer, possibly due to the class or professor being less than satisfactory.

What is the term for the additional meaning layered on top of the words we say in communication?

The additional meaning layered on top of the words we say in communication is known as an implicature.

What is the Cooperative Principle in pragmatics?

The Cooperative Principle in pragmatics is the idea that we assume people are generally trying to be cooperative with us in communication, following certain maxims to ensure effective understanding.

How does the use of the word ' Lah' in Malay make a command more polite?

In Malay, adding 'Lah' to a command turns it from a demand into something more polite, akin to 'Would you please do that?'

What is the difference between 'tu' and 'vous' in French in terms of politeness?

In French, 'tu' is an informal and singular pronoun, while 'vous' is formal and plural, indicating a higher level of politeness and formality.

What is the term for the flow of words between people in a conversation?

The flow of words between people in a conversation is known as turn-taking.

What are the two ends of the conversational style spectrum in terms of overlap and silence?

The two ends of the conversational style spectrum are high-involvement interactional style, where there is a lot of overlapping and little silence, and high-considerateness interactional style, where there is less overlap and more silence.

Outlines

00:00

😄 Pragmatics and the Cooperative Principle

This paragraph introduces the concept of pragmatics in linguistics, focusing on how context contributes to meaning in communication. Taylor explains that we often make assumptions about the context to understand each other, such as interpreting sarcasm or polite requests. The Cooperative Principle, also known as Grice's Maxims, is introduced as a set of four assumptions (quality, quantity, relevance, and manner) that guide our interpretation of indirect language. These assumptions help us infer the intended meaning when the literal meaning is unclear, as demonstrated through various examples including humor, product labeling, and classroom advice.

05:01

🗣️ Politeness and Conversational Styles

The second paragraph delves into the nuances of politeness in language and the concept of implicature, which is the additional meaning conveyed beyond the literal words spoken. Taylor discusses how indirect language can be used to be polite, with examples from different languages, such as the use of 'lah' in Malay or repeating words in Mandarin to soften commands. The paragraph also covers how different cultures and languages use various grammatical strategies to convey politeness, including the use of hedges and indirect speech. Furthermore, the discussion extends to the flow of conversation, or turn-taking, highlighting the cultural and individual differences in conversational styles, ranging from high-involvement to high-considerateness interactional styles. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the importance of pragmatics in shaping our linguistic choices and conversational interactions.

Keywords

💡Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies the ways in which context influences the meaning of language. It is central to the video's theme, as it explains how we infer meaning beyond the literal interpretation of words. For instance, when someone sarcastically says 'Great job, Sherlock' after noticing another person is wet from the rain, pragmatics helps us understand the implied criticism rather than taking it as a compliment.

💡Cooperative Principle

The Cooperative Principle, also known as Grice's Maxims, is a set of four assumptions that govern communication, suggesting that speakers are cooperative and aim to provide information that is truthful, relevant, and clear. In the video, this principle is used to explain how we make sense of indirect speech or sarcasm, such as interpreting 'It's raining' as a refusal to go on a picnic.

💡Implicature

Implicature refers to the inferred meaning that goes beyond the literal interpretation of an utterance, often due to the Cooperative Principle. The video uses this concept to illustrate indirect communication, such as when someone points out the subscribe button in a video, which is an indirect way of asking viewers to subscribe without explicitly saying so.

💡Sarcasm

Sarcasm is a form of speech where the intended meaning is opposite to the literal interpretation of the words used. It is a key concept in the video, demonstrating how context and pragmatics help us understand that 'Great job, Sherlock' could be a sarcastic comment rather than a genuine compliment, especially when the speaker is wet from the rain.

💡Assumptions in Communication

The video outlines four main assumptions that pragmaticists consider in communication: quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. These assumptions are based on the expectation that speakers are providing truthful, sufficient, pertinent, and clear information. For example, if someone says 'there are at least ten ducks' when there are clearly hundreds, we infer that the statement is humorous or ironic because it violates the assumption of quantity.

💡Politeness

Politeness is a social norm that influences the way we communicate, often through indirectness or the use of specific linguistic features. In the video, politeness is discussed in the context of making requests or apologies more palatable by using hedges, qualifiers, or indirect language, such as 'Would you mind closing the window?' instead of a direct command.

💡Turn Taking

Turn taking is the process by which speakers in a conversation alternate their turns to speak. The video discusses how different cultures and individuals have varying styles of turn taking, ranging from high-involvement, where there is a lot of overlap in speech, to high-considerateness, where speakers wait for silence before responding. This concept is integral to understanding conversation dynamics and the flow of communication.

💡High-Involvement Interactional Style

High-involvement interactional style is characterized by a lot of overlapping speech and minimal silence between turns. The video uses this concept to describe conversational styles where participants are highly engaged and may speak simultaneously, which can be seen as a sign of enthusiasm or eagerness to participate in the discussion.

💡High-Considerateness Interactional Style

High-considerateness interactional style is a conversational approach where speakers do not overlap and leave a pause after the other person finishes speaking. The video contrasts this with the high-involvement style, suggesting that this approach may be perceived as more polite or considerate, allowing each speaker ample space to express their thoughts.

💡Hedges

Hedges are qualifiers or caveats that speakers use to soften statements or make them more tentative. In the video, hedges are presented as a linguistic tool for politeness, allowing speakers to express requests or opinions in a less direct and potentially less confrontational manner, such as saying 'I was wondering if you could...' instead of a blunt command.

💡Cultural Norms

Cultural norms refer to the unwritten rules and expectations that govern behavior within a particular culture or society. The video touches on how cultural norms influence language use, including the norms of politeness and the style of turn taking in conversations. For example, the video mentions that New Yorkers tend to have a high-involvement interactional style, while Californians lean towards a high-considerateness style.

Highlights

Introduction to the concept of pragmatics in linguistics, which deals with the meaning derived from context.

Explanation of how context helps in understanding implied meanings, such as sarcasm or polite requests.

Discussion of the four main assumptions in pragmatics for effective communication: quality, quantity, relevance, and manner.

Illustration of how sarcasm can be inferred from the mismatch between context and words.

The humorous example of a caption with an understatement to show the assumption of sufficient information.

Food labels as an example of the assumption that information provided is relevant.

The use of humor and misleading information to challenge our assumptions about relevance.

The concept of straightforwardness in communication and how it can be subverted for politeness or to avoid criticism.

Introduction of the Cooperative Principle by Paul Grice, underlying the assumption of cooperative communication.

How implicature works in conversation, adding meaning beyond the literal words spoken.

Examples of using implicature for polite indirect requests or suggestions.

Cross-linguistic strategies for politeness, including particles and verb forms that convey social status.

The role of hedges and indirectness in language as a means of politeness.

Turn-taking in conversations and the cultural and individual differences in interactional styles.

The spectrum of high-involvement to high-considerateness interactional styles and their cultural manifestations.

The importance of pragmatics in shaping linguistic choices and conversational styles.

A sneak peek into the next episode's focus on how social reality influences linguistic choices.

Invitation to support Crash Course and keep it free for everyone through Patreon.

Transcripts

Hello, I'm Taylor and welcome to Crash Course Linguistics!

Sometimes we don't say exactly what we mean, and yet we still manage to understand each other.

If you ask, “Is it raining?” when I come inside soaking wet and I say, "Great job, Sherlock",

you'll probably assume that I'm being sarcastic rather than giving you a compliment.

Or if you ask me "Can you close the window?"

I'll probably interpret your question as a polite request, rather than a question about my physical ability.

The reason we can figure out what's going on is because we don't just look at words and sentences for meaning — we also look at context.

The area of linguistics that puts meaning into context is called pragmatics.

[THEME MUSIC]

We don’t have 100 percent complete information about everything that's going on when we’re talking to people,

so we often need to make some assumptions about the context in order to understand each other.

There are four main assumptions that pragmaticists talk about when it comes to communication.

Let's start with "Great job, Sherlock".

In some contexts, that could be a statement of admiration at your friend's deductive powers.

But in other contexts, like if your friend has done something especially… unwise,

calling them "Sherlock" actually illustrates how much they're NOT like Sherlock Holmes.

That’s because most of the time, we assume that people are trying to communicate high-quality information.

We know that people can lie, but we usually assume that they’re telling the truth.

So when the context and the words clearly don't match, we can deduce a more subtle truth, like sarcasm.

Let’s move on to a second assumption.

Here's a gif that floated around the internet a while back, with the caption "look at all these ducks there are at least ten."

This caption is technically true.

There are at least ten ducks, in fact there’s a whole swarm of ducks, probably hundreds.

And "hundreds" is definitely consistent with “at least ten.”

But anyone who can see that there are at least ten ducks in this gif can also see that there are wayyyy more than ten ducks.

And there’s something so funny about the way the caption goes against our assumptions about communication.

That assumption is that people are giving us a sufficient quantity of information.

Enough detail, but not too much.

The boring, consistent-with-our-assumption version of this caption would have been "look at all these ducks there are hundreds."

But that ordinary version wouldn't have been as funny, and probably wouldn't have gone viral.

Food labels also generally align with our third assumption.

For example, if a pack of gum says it's sugar-free, it’s because gum does sometimes contain sugar.

We generally assume that people will tell us information that is of relevance, so the boring gum packaging checks out.

But our assumption about relevance can also be used for humor or to mislead — to imply that something is relevant when it actually is not.

Like, if an olive oil brand starts labeling its bottles “sugar-free olive oil” you might think, “Wait a sec, I didn’t know olive oil ever contained sugar!”

That might convince you to avoid other brands of olive oil that don’t say they’re sugar free, even though none of them ever contained sugar.

That information actually isn’t relevant!

Finally, let's say you're trying to figure out whether you want to take a particular class with a particular professor next year.

You ask one person for advice.

"Well, it certainly is a class," they say.

You ask someone else, who says, "Oh yeah, the professor shows up every week, and wears clothes,

and stands in front of the room, and talks to us, and gives assignments."

Both of these statements theoretically seem like they should be completely unremarkable.

Of course you'd expect a class to be a class, or a professor to show up and wear clothing and give assignments!

And yet, somehow when your friends give you way less detail than expected, or lots of detail about obvious things, it raises suspicions.

What on earth is going on with this class that they can't just tell you if it's good?

Our fourth assumption is that people will say things in a manner which is as straightforward as possible for the context.

If something is good, we can probably just say it's good.

If something is not so great, though, we might be reluctant to criticize it overtly.

So we sometimes say things in a less straightforward manner in order to be more diplomatic.

So when our friends say something that misaligns with our assumptions, that might tell us that something’s up with that professor.

These four assumptions, that what someone says will be of sufficient quality, quantity, relevance and manner, can be summed up with one bigger idea:

that we assume people are generally trying to be cooperative with us.

So these assumptions are called the Cooperative Principle.

They were first described by the philosopher Paul Grice, so they're also sometimes known as Grice’s Maxims.

But it’s ok, we can use them too!

According to the cooperative principle, whenever someone says something that doesn't make sense at a literal level,

we can figure out, or infer, what else they could have meant,

assuming they're still trying to contribute in a cooperative way to the conversation.

Sometimes we assume cooperation so quickly that we don't even really notice it!

For instance, if I say, "Hey Gav, do you wanna have a picnic?" and Gav says, "It's raining," we can probably infer that Gav was declining my picnic suggestion.

But technically speaking, Gav didn't actually say yes or no.

If we were a computer program, or a lawyer, or someone else who cares about very strict literal interpretations,

we'd have to point out that the picnic sentence and the raining sentence don't have to be related.

It's only because we have an understanding of context and cooperation that we interpret them as related.

We know that picnics involve eating food outdoors, and that it's hard to eat outdoors in the rain.

This additional meaning layered on top of the words we’re saying is known as an implicature.

Understanding how implicature works can help us make sense of the moments when someone says one thing and means another.

If Gav asks, "Can I have a cookie?" and I reply, "I don't know, can you?",

Gav will quite justifiably be annoyed at me, because I'm deliberately ignoring the implicature that this is a request.

And if you watch enough YouTube videos, you know what the ‘subscribe button’ looks like and that it sits below this video.

So if I turn to the camera and say “the subscribe button is below this video”, I'm not actually telling you new information.

I’m not even asking you to subscribe, but you might have thought about it.

In this context, pointing out the button is really saying “please subscribe!” without overtly saying “please subscribe!”

I’m using implicature to ask without asking.

It's a way of being polite by being indirect.

And languages have lots of other strategies for being polite.

Some languages add a short word, or particle, to make something polite, like please or sorry.

In Malay, you can add lah to a command, something like, “hand me that, la?”

That turns it from a demand into something more like “Would you please do that?”

In Mandarin, you tell a person to have a seat by just saying “Sit!” zuo4.

That probably sounds way too strong, like something you’d command your pet.

And it sounds strong to Mandarin speakers, too.

But instead of adding a “please,” they repeat the word: Zuo4 zuo4 or “Sit sit” which means something like “here, have a seat.”

Some languages have different forms of verbs or other words depending on the social status of the person you’re talking to.

In French, the pronoun "tu" is informal and singular, and "vous" is formal and plural.

English actually also used to make this distinction with "thou" for the informal singular and "you" for the formal or plural version of the word.

Making something seem more question-like or tentative can also make it more polite.

In BSL, raised eyebrows are used both to indicate questions, and also as one way of making a request or an apology more polite.

While there’s a wide variety of grammatical ways to show politeness across languages,

we also see a general tendency that adding qualifiers and caveats, known as hedges, to our replies tends to be seen as more polite.

So does being indirect, such as asking or even just hinting, rather than ordering.

So, if I want you to close the window because I’m freezing, it would be more polite to say

“Would you mind closing the window?”

or “Brr, it’s chilly in here!”

than it would be to straight up tell you, “Close the window!”

We follow our culture and our language's norms of politeness

because it's part of the whole process by which we create meaning between us and the people we're talking to.

Both politeness and the Cooperative Principle are part of pragmatics.

They're part of our agreement about how we're going to talk to each other.

Pragmatics affects everything from our words to even the very way we have those conversations.

Let’s step into the Thought Bubble for a chat.

The flow of words between people is known as turn taking.

I say something, you reply, I reply to that, back and forth.

There’s a lot of variation across individuals and even across cultures as to who does more or less of the speaking,

how long they talk for, and how much overlap or silence there is between the people talking.

When it comes to overlap in conversation, we can think broadly about two different ends of a spectrum.

On one end we have a conversation style where people do a lot of overlapping, talk at the same time,

and don’t leave much or any silence after the other person has finished speaking.

This is known as high-involvement interactional style.

On the other end, we have a conversational style where people do not overlap, and leave space after someone else is finished before beginning their turn.

This is known as high-considerateness interactional style.

You might tend to be more high-involvement and have a friend who is high-considerateness and it makes you feel like you’re doing all the conversational heavy-lifting.

If you tend towards high-considerateness, you might feel like your friend doesn’t let you get a word in edgewise.

There are some general trends in different areas, too.

Speakers of Tzeltal and Japanese tend to have more overlap than speakers of Lao and Danish.

Even within American English, New Yorkers tend to be more high-involvement and Californians tend to be more high-considerateness.

These differences are measured in just milliseconds, which shows how sensitive humans can be to turn-taking differences — and to all the other little pragmatic nuances that make up politeness.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

I appreciate it.

So, when we look at how people use language in conversation,

we see that it’s less like one person baking-in all the meaning they want to convey in their words and handing it over to another person,

and more like we’re using context to bake a cake as a team.

And just like everyone has their own way of making a carrot cake,

the individual conversation styles and cultural norms mean each conversation or interaction can turn out a little bit differently.

Next time on Crash Course Linguistics, we’ll look specifically at how your social reality affects your linguistic choices.

Thanks for watching this episode of Crash Course Linguistics.

If you want to help keep all Crash Coursefree for everybody, forever, you can join our community on Patreon.