This video lecture is a part of the course 'An Introduction to English Linguistics' at the University of Neuchâtel. This is session 12, in which I discuss speech acts and conversational maxims.
Yours are the best YT lectures on cognitive linguistics are the best I've encountered. I view pragmatics, in the sense of Wilson's semiotics from 1939, as more basic than semantics with the latter being an idealized version of the former and not always appropriate. It explains the diachronic early evolution of language from speech acts, or Wittgenstein's language games, using animal noises. It also explains how it is easy to come up with meanings not mentioned in dictionaries. Semantics is too tightly bound to the act of defining, which is its own frame with its own conventions that often get in the way
Thank u so much ! this video is very useful for me as if i'm attending pragmatics' revision class. your explanation is very simple but clear :) may god bless u, mr. hilpert.
Thank you! Visual explanations are easier than reading text. Now I can finish my final course in my Masters. Btw, can you do a video on Goffman's communication constraints? It will help for those uni students doing Discourse Analysis.
That was extremely helpful! I'm having an examination on pragmatics tomorrow so I will certainly use some of the information shown in this video. P.S. Those were really funny examples, I wish all my teachers would use them
I think this would be a very useful primary school class. I would definitely have benefited by understanding that other people took a stronger assumption of relevance than I do.
So useful information for me, unfortunately i bump into your videos very late for my exam, they are so useful!!!!! wish to have found these explanations before
This video was very helpful ! I thought at first it was too long! But you couldn't respect the maxim of quantity and relevance any better! haha! =) Things are clearer to me now. Thank you very much!
Really very helpful data.. will you please like to help us in understanding the difference of violation and flouting of maxims and presupposition and entailment... looking forward to it...
Hi Prof., I would like to thank you first of all, you helped me so much preparing my exam in pragmatics that I'm gonna ask you if perhaps there is a video on leech's politeness maxims and CDA too. it would be fantastic. I really appreciate your work. isabella
Thank you for sharing this video, Martin. I have to sit a linguistics exam and your video has helped me assimilate as well as reinforce concepts. I have, however, one question to ask regarding the grouping of speech acts. 'Verdictives' is a new term for me. I had studied 'rogatives' as proposed by Leech. Is there more than one way of organising speech acts?
How about Rogatives? Why did I find different options of Austin's theory? First, I found out that there are 5 main categories, then I found there are 6 (+rogatives), and now I am finding out that there are 6 (+verdictives). Could someone enlight me ?
thank you for this explanation . in fact Im facing some troubles in making distinction between flouting and violaton . i want to analyse an old play based on Grice four maxims . i want some help plllllz
Bassma Rabia We talk about 'flouting' of a certain maxim when the purpose of the break with the norm is known to the hearer (e.g.,I like the linguistics class) . On the other hand, 'violation' happens when the reason behind the breach of the maxim is not known to the hearer.
Hi! I have a question, for the example *A: "Have you done the reading for your seminar? B: I intended to." Saeed says that we imply the answer is no, because if the answer was yes, the person would violate the maxim of quantity. Is it because then the person wouldn't give enough information(talks about the intention, not about the if he's done it). According to him, there's no violation of the maxim?
Yes, that's right. The maxim of quantity states that speakers should be as informative as possible. The response "I intended to" is only in line with that maxim if it is meant as "I intended to, but finally there was no time". The other way around, if you actually wanted to communicate "Yes I did", saying "I intended to" would be less than fully informative, and thus in conflict with the maxim of quantity.
Hello, thank you very much for these videos can you please help me? If we have a sentence like "Drinking too much can cause mental retardation" and we have to draw a structure tree of this sentence what would we write in the brunch that points toward "Drinking" is just N or something else? S / NP / N / Drinking please help me with this because I'm not sure about the ing form Thanks a lot
min 11:18 you said that in the example "A republic was declared and the king had a heart attack" is a causal relationship... isn't it a causal relationship in the previous example as well "The king has a heart attack and a republic was declared"? they declared republic because the king had died.
