Pragmatics and communicative competence across languages -- speech acts (Austin/Searle), Grice's conversational maxims and implicature, politeness theory (Brown & Levinson), face-threatening acts, discourse structure, turn-taking, repair strategies, register and formality, cross-cultural communication, communicative strategies (circumlocution, approximation, appeal for assistance), and the gap between grammatical competence and communicative performance. Use when teaching communication skills, analyzing cross-cultural misunderstandings, building conversational fluency, or understanding why grammatically correct sentences can be pragmatically inappropriate.
Pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning -- how speakers use language to accomplish social goals beyond the literal content of their words. A learner who masters phonology, grammar, and vocabulary but lacks pragmatic competence will produce sentences that are technically correct but socially inappropriate, confusing, or even offensive. This skill covers communicative competence as a learnable meta-skill.
Agent affinity: baker (sociolinguistic contexts, code-switching), bruner-l (scaffolding communicative practice, narrative)
Concept IDs: lang-listening-comprehension, lang-conversation-strategies, lang-intelligible-speech, lang-formality-register
Hymes (1972) introduced the concept of communicative competence as a response to Chomsky's purely grammatical competence. Knowing a language means not only knowing what is grammatically possible but also what is:
Canale & Swain (1980) expanded communicative competence into four components:
| Component | What It Covers | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Grammatical | Phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon | Producing well-formed sentences |
| Sociolinguistic | Register, politeness, cultural norms | Choosing "Could you pass the salt?" over "Give me the salt" at a dinner party |
| Discourse | Coherence, cohesion, text organization | Structuring a narrative with beginning, middle, end; using "however" to signal contrast |
| Strategic | Communication strategies for breakdowns | Circumlocution when you lack a word: "the thing you use to open bottles" for "corkscrew" |
Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) established that utterances are not merely descriptions of the world but actions performed through language.
| Category | Function | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Representatives | State facts or beliefs | "The earth is round." "I think it will rain." |
| Directives | Get the hearer to do something | "Close the door." "Could you help me?" |
| Commissives | Commit the speaker to future action | "I promise to call." "I'll be there." |
| Expressives | Express psychological states | "Thank you." "I'm sorry." "Congratulations." |
| Declarations | Change the world through utterance | "I now pronounce you..." "You're fired." |
Most speech acts in everyday conversation are indirect -- the literal form does not match the intended function:
Learners who interpret indirect speech acts literally misunderstand communicative intent. Teaching indirect speech acts requires explicit instruction because they are culturally specific -- the same form may be a request in one culture and a genuine question in another.
Grice (1975) proposed that conversation operates on a Cooperative Principle: speakers and hearers assume that contributions will be informative, truthful, relevant, and clear.
| Maxim | Principle | Violation Example |
|---|---|---|
| Quantity | Say enough, but not too much | Over-explaining obvious things; answering "How are you?" with a 10-minute medical history |
| Quality | Say what you believe to be true; have evidence | Sarcasm ("Oh, wonderful weather" during a storm) violates quality to create implicature |
| Relation (Relevance) | Be relevant to the topic | Changing the subject to avoid a question -- the listener infers the topic is uncomfortable |
| Manner | Be clear, orderly, unambiguous | Deliberately obscure phrasing to exclude eavesdroppers |
When a maxim is flouted (deliberately and obviously violated), the hearer infers an implicature -- a meaning beyond the literal words:
Example: A: "How was the concert?" B: "Well, the venue was nice."
B violates Quantity (not answering the actual question) and Relevance (commenting on the venue rather than the music). A infers: the music was not good.
Cross-cultural communication breakdowns often occur because implicature conventions differ across cultures. What is a clear hint in one culture may be undetectable in another.
Brown & Levinson (1987) proposed that all humans have face -- the public self-image they want to maintain:
Many speech acts inherently threaten face:
| FTA | Threatens | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Requests | Hearer's negative face (imposes) | "Lend me your car" |
| Criticism | Hearer's positive face (disapproves) | "This essay needs work" |
| Apologies | Speaker's positive face (admits fault) | "I'm sorry I was late" |
| Offers | Hearer's negative face (implies obligation) | "Let me carry that for you" |
Languages provide systematic strategies for mitigating FTAs:
Politeness norms vary dramatically:
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) described the turn-taking system that governs conversation:
Turn-taking conventions vary cross-culturally: some cultures permit more overlap (Italian, Brazilian Portuguese), while others require longer pauses between turns (Finnish, Japanese). Mismatches create the impression of interruption or disengagement.
Repair is the mechanism for handling communication breakdowns:
Repair strategies are essential for L2 learners because breakdowns are frequent. Learners who lack repair vocabulary ("Sorry, could you repeat that?" "What does X mean?") tend to disengage rather than negotiate meaning.
When linguistic resources are insufficient, speakers deploy compensatory strategies:
| Strategy | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Circumlocution | Describe the concept | "The thing you use to cut paper" (scissors) |
| Approximation | Use a close word | "Fish" for "salmon" |
| Word coinage | Create a new word | "Vegetable cutter" for "peeler" |
| Code-switching | Switch to L1 or another known language | "I need the -- como se dice -- stapler" |
| Appeal for assistance | Ask the interlocutor for help | "How do you say this in English?" |
| Mime and gesture | Non-verbal communication | Pointing, mimicking the action |
| Topic avoidance | Steer away from areas of difficulty | Changing the subject to avoid complex vocabulary |
| Message abandonment | Give up on the message | Starting a sentence and trailing off |
The first five strategies are achievement strategies (the learner tries to communicate the intended message). The last two are avoidance strategies (the learner gives up). Teaching achievement strategies explicitly improves communicative fluency even without expanding linguistic knowledge.