MAKALAH

PRAGMATICS ( LANGUAGE IN USE )

Disusun Oleh:
Kelompok 8

1. SETIANI BINTANG EKA S (2388203018)

2. TRI WAHYUNI -

Dosen Pengampu:

FADILATURRAHMAH,S.Pd. M.Hum

Mata Kuliah:

Introduction to Linguistics

SEKOLAH TINGGI KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN (STKIP)

PROGRAM STUDY PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
MUHAMAMADIYAH PAGARALAM
TAHUN AKADEMIK 2023/2024
 PREFACE

We would like to express our gratitude to the presence of Allah SWT, because
thanks to His abundance of grace, taufik and guidance, we were able to complete our paper
assignment well and in no less time. The sources that helped the author in completing this
paper include various book references, research journals and data collection from the
internet related to the title of this paper.
That is the introduction that we can convey where we realize that we are only human
beings who are not free from mistakes and shortcomings, because perfection belongs only
to Allah SWT. In terms of writing and preparation, it is still far from perfect. Therefore,
constructive criticism and suggestions are always looked forward to in self-evaluation.
Finally, we can only hope that behind the imperfection in the preparation of this paper we
will find something that can provide benefits or even wisdom for us and the readers. Amin,
Ya Rabal ‘Alamiin.

Pagaralam, July 2024

Writer
 TABLE OF CONTENT

PREFACE................................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENT........................................................................................... ii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Problem.......................................................................1

1.2 Formulation of the Problem.......................................................................1

1.3 Objectives of the Study............................................................................. 1

CHAPTER II. DISCUSSION................................................................................. 3

2.1 Speech acts.................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Felicity conditions........................................................................................4

2.3 The cooperative principles of H.P. Grice........................................................ 7

2.4 Implicature………....................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION............................................................................. 12

3.1 Conclusion................................................................................................. 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................... 14
 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

A subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s, pragmatics studies how people
comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech
situation which is usually a conversation. It distinguishes two intents or meanings in each
utterance or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the informative intent or
the sentence meaning, and the other the communicative intent or speaker meaning. The
ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic
competence which often includes one's knowledge about the social distance, social status
between the speakers involved, the cultural knowledge such as politeness, and the
linguistic knowledge explicit and implicit. Pragmatics concems itself with how people use
language within a context and why they use language in particular ways. On a very basic
level, "pragmatics" refers to the wa y we convey meaning through communication. This
meaning includes verbal and non-verbal elements and varies depending on the context,
the relationship between people talking, and many other social factors.
We have defined semantics as the study of meaning. Given this definition, we may be
tempted to think that once we understand the semantics of a language, we completely
understand that language. However, meaning involves more than just the semantic
interpretation of an utterance. To fully understand the meaning of a sentence, we must
also understand the context in which it was uttered.

1.2 FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

1. Speech acts?
2. Felicity conditions?
3. The cooperative principles of H.P. Grice?
4. Implicature?

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. What the meaning about Speech acts.
2. What the meaning about Felicity conditions.
3. What the meaning about The cooperative principles of H.P. Grice.
4. What the meaning about Implicature.
 CHAPTER II. DISCUSSION

2.1 SPEECH ACTS

Just as people can perform physical acts, such as hitting a baseball, they can also
perform mental acts, such as imagining hitting a baseball. People can also perform another
kind of act simply by using language; these acts are called speech acts. We use language to do
an extraordinarily wide range of activities. We use it to convey information, request
information, give orders, make requests, make threats, give warnings, make bets, give advice,
and so on, as the following sentences suggest:
(1) John Jones has bad breath.
(2) Who ate my porridge?
(3) Shut up.
(4) Please scratch my nose.
(5) Do that again, and I'll punch your lights out.
(6) There is a gremlin in the back seat of your car.
(7) Five bucks says that the Vikes will beat the Pack this Saturday.
(8) You ought to go to class at least once a quarter.
There can be little doubt that it is our ability to do things with language - to perform
speech acts-that makes language useful to us. In fact, with language we can do things that
would otherwise be impossible. Consider (4), a request for a hearer to scratch the speaker's
nose. If we did not have language, how would this request be made? We could imagine the
speaker taking the hearer's hand and rubbing his nose with it, but would this action have the
same force as a spoken request Probably not. How would the hearer know that the speaker
meant "scratch" and not "rub"? How would the hearer know that this action was a request and
not an order? The action itself could not convey the politeness of the word "please", a major
difference between requests and orders, in (6), we could warn the speaker that a gremlin is in
the back seat of his car by pointing at it, but how could we give the advice in (8) without
words? It would certainly be difficult. We use language for all sorts of things.
Some of these uses seem to be of greater linguistic importance than the others because
the language makes available special syntactic structures for marking them. For direct speech
acts we have a declarative sentence type, which is dedicated to assertions, an interrogative
sentence type which is dedicated to questions, and an Imperative sentence type which is
dedicated to orders and requests. In addition to these direct speech acts, however, we can also
make indirect speech acts.
(1) The garbage isn't out yet.
(2) Could you take out the garbage?
(3) Would you mind taking out the garbage?
(4) I would like for you to take out the garbage.
Typically, with an indirect speech act, what the speaker actually means is different from what
she or he literally says.
 Speech act theory stated by Searle broadly explains utterances as having three parts or
aspects. They are locutionary acts which are simply the speech acts that have taken place,
illocutionary acts which are the real actions which are performed by the utterance, where
saying equals doing, as in betting, plighting one's troth, welcoming and warning, and
perlocutionary acts which are the effects of the utterance on the listener. who accepts the bet
or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned.
Locutionary act, which can also be said as literal level, is to perform an act of saying
something or it can be formulated as (s says to h that X). S is an abbreviation of speaker, h is
an abbreviation of hearer, X is certain words spoken with a certain sense and reference, and P
is an abbreviation of proposition or the basic unit of meaning of an utterance. Locutionary act
is "the basic act of utterance or a meaningful linguistic expression." For example, when a
bartender is uttering an utterance like "The bar will be closed in five minutes", the bartender
is performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar will be closed in five minutes starting
from the time of the utterance.
Illocutionary act can also be called as implied level. It is an act of doing something (in
saying X, s asserts that P). Illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an
utterance. For example is when the bartender is uttering an utterance like "The bar will be
closed in five minutes", the bartender is performing the illocutionary act of informing the
patrons of the bar that the bar will be closed soon and he perhaps does an act of urging them
to order a last drink.
Perlocutionary act, which can also be called as implied act, is to perform an act of
affecting someone (by saying X, s convinces h that P). Perlocutionary act is the result of the
effect of an utterance. Perlocutionary act brings the hearer to learn something, persuade,
deceive, encourage, irritate, frighten, amuse, get the hearer to do something, inspire, impress,
distract, get the hearer to think about, relieve tension, embarrass, attract attention, bore. By
uttering an utterance like "The bar will be closed in five minutes", the bartender intends to
perform the perlocutionary act of causing the patrons to believe that the bar will be closed
and of getting them to order one last drink.
Yule, based on Searle's categorization, classifies five types of general functions
performed by speech acts (declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and
commissives). Firstly, declarations are kinds of speech acts that change the world via
utterance. It means that the speaker of the utterance brings about the new state of affairs.
Declarations are "illocutions whose successful performance brings about the correspondence
between the propositional content and reality, e.g., sentencing, christening, naming,
appointing, etc."
Secondly, representatives are kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker
believes to be the case or not, e.g., statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and
descriptions. It can also be said that the speaker wants to convey his belief that some
proposition is true. Thirdly, expressives are kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker
feels, e.g., statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, and sorrow. By making an
utterance, the speaker wants to express his psychological state. Fourthly, directives are kinds
of speech acts that are used by the speaker to get someone to do something, e.g., commands,
orders, requests, and suggestions. Fifthly, commissives are kinds of speech acts that the
speaker uses to commit themselves to some future action, e.g., promises, threats, refusals, and
pledges. The examples of those kinds of speech acts, as explained by Yule, are:
(1) Referee: You're out! (a declaration)
(2) Chomsky didn't write about peanuts. (a representative)
(3) Congratulations! (an expressive)
(4) Don't touch that! (a directive)
(5) I'll be back. (a commissive)

2.2 FELICITY CONDITIONS

To recognize the performance of speech acts, some appropriate conditions should be

taken into consideration. The conditions are called as felicity conditions. When a person
utters "I sentence you to six months in prison", his performance will be inappropriate if he is
not a judge in a courtroom. The utterance cannot be assessed in relation to truth and falsity
but it can only be assessed in relation to the sufficient conditions (known as felicity
conditions).
There are also preconditions on speech acts that need focusing on, i.e., general,
content, preparatory, sincerity, and essential conditions. General conditions are conditions in
which the users of language understand the language being used and are not play-acting and
being nonsensical but have a certain purpose. The content conditions are conditions about the
content of the utterance. When people make a promise, their content of their utterance must
be about a future event. Besides, when making a promise, they deal with two preparatory
conditions. The first condition is that the event will not occur by itself and second condition
is that the event will have a positive effect.
In relation to the preparatory conditions, there is a condition named sincerity
condition. For a promise, the speaker truly intends to carry out the future action. The last is
essential condition. It covers the fact that by the act of uttering a promise, the speaker intends
to create an obligation to carry out the action as promised. It means that the utterance changes
the speaker's state from non-obligation to obligation.

2.3 THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES OF H.P. GRICE

In communication, the participants (both of the sender and the receiver) want to
understand each other and to be understood, so that the purpose of the conversation can be
reached. For this reason, the participants must cooperate each other so that the
communication becomes effective and efficient. Thus, the Cooperative Principle has to be
assumed in the communication. Such principle, which is typically called as Cooperative
Principle, consists of four maxims. Grice classifies maxims into four categories and they are
briefly explained in order.
The first maxim is maxim of quality, as stated by Grice: "(i) do not say what you
believe to be false, (ii) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. The main point
of maxim of quality is a matter dealing with the truth. The participants must not say what
they believe to be false and must not say something that does not have adequate evidence.
For example, an utterance "Ronaldo has ten cars", implicates "I believe that he has ten cars
and I have adequate evidence about it."
The second maxim is maxim of quantity, which says "(i) make your contribution as
informative as it required, (ii) do not make your contribution more informative than is
required. In a conversation, each of the participants must present the message as Informative
as is required. On the other hand, they should also not give various kinds of information,
which are not required. For example, an utterance "The hand phone is red" implicates the
hand phone has no other colors except red since there is no further information about the
colors that the hand phone may contain.
The third maxim is maxim of relation, which expects the participant to "be relevant."
It means that each of the participants must say something that is relevant to the subject of the
conversation. The participants of the conversation are difficult in understanding the topic if it
has no relevance and the utterances will appear quite unconnected. The examples of this
maxim appear in the following conversation.
A: When will you go?
B: Right after Believe or not finished.
It is only the basis of assuming the relevance of B's response that A can understand it
as providing a partial answer to his question. B's answer can be assumed that he is not in the
position to provide full information. However, when A thinks about the time when 'Believe or
not' finished, it might provide him with the means of deriving a partial answer. A may infer
that B intends to convey that the time is at least after a serial TV's game namely 'Believe or
not' normally finished.
The last maxim is maxim of manner. In a conversation, each of the participants must
say something orderly and briefly. It means that they must avoid saying something that can
cause ambiguities and obscurities. Grice says "Be perspicuous, and specifically (1) avoid
obscurity, (ii) avoid ambiguity (iii) be brief, and (iv) be orderly." "He locks the door and
leaves his house" is different from "He leaves his house and locks the door" in meaning.

2.4 IMPLICATURE

One of the central concepts in pragmatics is implicature. Implicature is "what a

speaker can imply, suggest, or mean as distinct from what the speaker literally says."
Implicature is an additional stated meaning. It has to be assumed in order to maintain the
Cooperative Principle. On the basis of the stated definitions, it can be concluded that
implicature is an implied message that is based on the interpretation of the language use and
its context of communication. Grice points out that there are two kinds of implicature, namely
conventional and conversational implicature.
Conventional implicature is determined by the conventional meaning of the words
used. Conventional implicature is not based on pragmatic principles or maxims, but is simply
attached by convention to particular lexical items or expressions. It does not need special
context for its interpretation. For example, when a boy says "Andy is smart but her sister is
stupid", the boy contrasts the utterance "Andy is smart" with the utterance "her sister is
stupid" via the conventional implicature of but.
Conversational implicature is an implicature that is emphasized based on the maxims
and context. It is an implicature derived from a general principle of conversation plus several
maxims that speakers normally obey.
 CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION

3.1 CONCLUSION

Pragmatics is broadly understood as the study of language in use. It has traditionally

focused on what the speaker means by an utterance and what the hearer understands by it.
From its inception it has been widely recognized that in order for hearers to figure out what
speakers mean, they need to draw not only from the utterance itself but from aspects of the
context in which the utterance arises. This has led, in turn, to a focus on a range of topics that
are now considered core in pragmatics, including deixis, presupposition, (conversational)
implicature, speech acts and, at least in our view, politeness. This set of topics is generally
associated with the micro view approach to pragmatics, sometimes termed Anglo-American
or linguistic pragmatics, where the focus has been on the relationships between linguistic
units, the things they designate and users. From this viewpoint, pragmatics is conceptualized
as a sub-field within linguistics, and so complements work in phonetics, phonology,
morphology, grammar/ syntax and semantics towards a general theory of language.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aitchison, Jean. 2003. Linguistics. London: Hodder Headline

Carroll, David. 2004. Psychology of Language. United States: Wadsworth.
Crystal, David. 1992. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ Press.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1972. The Sociology of Language. Masschusetts: Newburry House
Publishers, Inc.
Fromkin, Victoria and Robert Rodman. An Introduction to Language, New York: Harcourt
Brace College Publisher.
Holmes, Janet. 1995. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Hudson, R.A. 1982. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1989. Foundations in sociolinguistics. An Etnographic Approach. United States
of America: The University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Jones, Daniel. 1992. The Pronunciation of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Zlotan. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakkoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Women's place. New York: Harper Colophon.
Lyons, John. 1971. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. New York: Cambridge Universtiy
Press.
McManis, Carolyn. 1987. Language Files. Ohio: Advocate Publishing Group.
O'Grady, William et al. 1996. Contemporary Linguistics: an Introduction, Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1994. Language in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London:
Penguin.
Wardough, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Widdowson, H.G. 1996. Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press