Pragmatic Competence
Pragmatic competence is defined as the speaker’s ability to employ language in an effective way and in the proper context. According to Chomsky, pragmatic competence is the awareness of the conditions, relevant manner, and objectives of language use with the help of which communicators are able to relate “intentions and purposes to the linguistic means at hand” (as cited in Infantidou, 2014, p. 2).
Such a statement poses a question of the nature of pragmatic competence: it is a system of knowledge, or is it an ability gained through getting immersed in relevant circumstances of language use. The answer to this question, according to Infantidou (2014), may be found by investigating the relationship between pragmatic competence and performance, as viewed by Chomsky.
In case if pragmatic competence is separated from performance, its explication as a system of knowledge identical to grammatical knowledge might be increased (Infantidou, 2014). As Chomsky states, “performance provides data for the study of linguistic competence” (as cited in Infantidou, 2014, p. 2). Such an assertion provides no particular explanation of pragmatic competence, but the situation becomes different when with the help of performance, it becomes possible to obtain data for the investigation of linguistic competence.
In such a way, as Infantidou (2014) remarks, linguistic competence is connected with pragmatic competence. Chomsky relates the concept of pragmatic competence to “the system of rules and principles of the logic of conversation and of disclosure structure” (as cited in Rivers, 1990, p. 54). The linguist notes that it is necessary to examine the mental state of “knowing the language” into further elements with the aim of distinguishing between grammatical and pragmatic competence (as cited in Infantidou, 2014, p. 2).
If to consider pragmatic competence as a constituent of linguistic competence, linguistic performance must offer data for the investigation of pragmatic competence, as well. Thus, in Chomsky’s view, pragmatic competence is one of the components of linguistic competence, which leads to the possibility of studying the former with the help of data received from linguistic performance (Infantidou, 2014).
Pragmatic competence is particularly important when considering the acquisition of a foreign language. When it comes to the proper language use in a variety of circumstances, grammatical appropriateness is not sufficient (Rivers, 1990). However, many elements of the language that need to be acquired by foreign learners are considered by Chomsky as “nonlinguistic” and as such that encourage students to “conclude that language is a chaos that is not worth studying” (as cited in Rivers, 1990, p. 54).
Rivers (1990) opposes such an opinion by asserting that the development of mental representations of another culture’s aspects is crucial for the successful acquisition of the new languages’ semantic-syntactic-phonological framework. Moreover, Rivers (1990) emphasizes that students need to obtain experience in applying the newly learned principles and rules in interactive communication.
Chomsky explains his approach to the differentiation between competence and performance opposition with the help of I-language and E-language (Smith & Allott, 2016). The contrast between E-language and performance is the most vivid. E-language is used to describe both the artificial systems and natural languages. Therefore, it is not possible to equate E-language and performance because while E-language is infinite, performance is not (Smith & Allott, 2016).
The difference between competence and I-language is that while competence is a term used to avoid disputes regarding the notion “knowledge of language,” I-language is a technical name used to demonstrate the state of the “mind-brain” (Smith & Allott, 2016, pp. 41-42). Chomsky’s contribution to the theory of pragmatic competence may seem controversial to some scholars, but it should not be underestimated.
Speech Act Theory
Austin’s contribution to the theory of speech acts was in his suggesting a new approach to analyzing meaning (Oishi, 2006). According to Austin, meaning is a “relation among linguistic conventions” connected with words or sentences, the circumstances in which a speaker asserts something to the listener, and the related objectives of the speaker (Oishi, 2006, p. 2). Austin illustrates his idea of the meaningful relation between these notions through the concept of acts. According to this concept, the speaker “performs a linguistic act” to the hearer when he has a related intention when employing linguistic conventions (Oishi, 2006, p. 2).
The uniqueness of the analysis of meaning performed by Austin is in his refusal to use reduction in the explanation. Unlike Russell, who reduced the sentences’ meaning to a fact, Austin does not use any of such forms (Oishi, 2006).
Also, Austin specified performativity through the introduction of illocutionary acts which he distinguished from locutionary and perlocutionary ones. Austin divides locutionary acts into phonetic, phatic, and rhetic acts (Oishi, 2006). Phonetic acts are “the acts of pronouncing sounds” (Oishi, 2006, p. 3). Phatic acts represent the process of saying words and sentences by the syntactic and phonological language rules.
Rhetic acts are the ones where the speaker utters sentences with reference and sense. Perlocutionary acts are the ones concerned with the effect of saying a sentence (Oishi, 2006). According to Austin, when uttering a sentence, the speaker uses the force as a feature of an illocutionary act, meaning as a characteristic of a locutionary act, and reacher the effect due to the perlocutionary act of “uttering the sentence” (Oishi, 2006, p. 4).
Austin distinguishes between five kinds of illocutionary acts: “verdictives,” “exercitives,” “commissives,” “behabitives,” and “expositives” (Oishi, 2006, p. 4). Notwithstanding the fact that Austin’s classification is incomplete, it is still the best effort ever made to explain the illocutionary acts by distinguishing between the types of acts the speaker can perform when articulating a sentence. One can do the following:
- exert judgment (verdictive);
- express power or influence (exercitive);
- announce an intention or presume an obligation (commissive);
- express emotions or support an attitude (behabitive);
- clarify an argument or a reason (expositive) (Oishi, 2006).
Other major contributions to the theory of speech acts were made by Searle (speech act theory) and Grice (analysis of conversation) (Dascal, 1994; Searle, 1980). The theories of these two scholars are quite close, but still, there are some contradictions between them. Both of these linguists belong to the tradition of “philosophical analysis” of language (Dascal, 1994, p. 323). Both Searle and Grice criticized the idea defended by the analytic philosophers, particularly, Wittgenstein, who considered meaning and use as identical.
According to Searle, such a slogan was “useless as an analytic tool” (as cited in Dascal, 1994, p. 324). Grice also thought that the slogan was wrong, and he urged scholars “not to confuse meaning and use” (Dascal, 1994, p. 324). Grice and Searle mentioned that meaning and use had to be distinguished, and they agreed that to do so, a systematic theory of language was necessary to use.
Grice’s analysis of conversation and Searle’s speech act theory have much in common, but there is one considerable difference which lies in scholars’ understanding of use. Searle finds it monological whereas Grice considers it dialogical. In Searle’s theory, use is formal, conventional, semantic, it follows constitutive rules and has a grammatical model. In Grice’s analysis, use is informal, non-conventional, pragmatic, it has a non-grammatical model and follows heuristic rules (Dascal, 1994). The contribution to the theory of speech acts made by Searle, Grice, and Austin is considered the greatest of all.
Compliment and Compliment Responses
Hymes’s contribution to the ethnography of communication cannot be overestimated. This linguist, sociolinguist, and anthropologist dedicated many efforts to investigate the peculiarities of the language’s linguistic and social functions (Johnstone & Marcellino, 2011). If to agree with Hymes’s opinion that ethnography of speaking should be the purpose of sociolinguistics, then the primary step should be identifying the pertinent speech acts of the community (Wolfson & Manes, 1980).
Hymes remarked that “one good ethnographic technique for getting at speech events… is through words which name them” (as cited in Wolfson & Manes, 1980, p. 391). One of such speech acts in any community is complimenting. One of the main determinants of a compliment is intonation which was called “key” by Hymes (as cited in Wolfson & Manes, 1980, p. 392). Intonation makes it possible to understand whether or not the utterance having a syntactic and lexical form of a compliment is actually perceived as such.
The important place in the concept of compliment and compliment responses belongs to people’s communicative competence. Speakers should be able to recognize such elements as sarcasm or irony in order to differentiate between compliments and jokes (Wolfson & Manes, 1980). At the same time, an offensive remark may be accepted as a compliment if a person lacks the ability to make a distinction between them.
The investigation of compliments’ structure in the American English speech community indicates a noticeable lack of originality when choosing the syntactic structure and lexical items (Wolfson & Manes, 1980).
Most frequently, compliments are used as set formulas even though it is not apparent immediately. One reason for this is that compliment patterning is not restricted by one level. Another reason is that such formulaic compliments perform various discourse functions and may happen at practically any point during the communication process (Wolfson & Manes, 1980). According to Wolfson and Manes (1980), the underlying purpose of compliments is the “creation and maintenance of solidarity” (p. 392). Scholars argue that the compliments’ formulaic nature and the fact of its obscurity are closely related to this purpose.
Shabeeb and Jibreen (2008) outline the following functions of compliments and responses to them:
- expressing admiration or esteem of what someone has done;
- confirming someone else’s opinion;
- replacing the act of gratitude, congratulation, or apology;
- softening some unpleasant acts;
- initiating and supporting a conversation;
- persuading someone to behave in a particular way.
The theory of compliment as a social strategy is related to the categories of illocutionary speech acts distinguished by Austin. Namely, compliments are regarded as behabitive acts. Along with thanks, apologies, and greetings, compliments are considered as the acts of speech which represent people’s reaction to other individuals’ conduct and express the attitude towards others’ past behaviors (Shabeeb & Jibreen, 2008).
Compliments have a variety of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic structures. Concerning syntactic level, most frequently, compliments involve adjectives and adverbs to intensify the opinion one expresses. At semantic level, they should include at least one item carrying positive semantic load. At the level of pragmatics, compliments encompass a combination of semantic and pragmatic components that assert a positive evaluation of the speaker (Shabeeb & Jibreen, 2008).
References
Dascal, M. (1994). Speech act theory and Gricean pragmatics: Some differences of detail that make a difference. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations of speech act theory (pp. 323-334), New York, NY: Routledge.
Infantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic competence and relevance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johnstone, B., & Marcellino, W. M. (2011). Dell Hymes and the ethnography of communication. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 57-66). London, England: SAGE.
Oishi, E. (2006). Austin’s speech act theory and the speech situation. Esercizi Filosofici, 1, pp. 1-14.
Rivers, W. (1990). Mental representations and language in action. In J. A. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics, language teaching, and language acquisition: The interdependence of theory, practice, and research (pp. 49-64). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1980). The background of meaning. In J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics (pp. 221-232). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Shabeeb, M., & Jibreen, K. (2008). The speech act of compliment: A theoretical view. Journal of Al-Qadisiya University, 11(4), 7-20.
Smith, N., & Allott, N. (2016). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Paper in Linguistics, 13(3), 391-410.